Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 5, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:57:08

The Raw Deal (5 August 2022)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Not just anybody.
	You know I need someone.
	When I was young, so much younger than today.
	I never needed anybody's help in any way.
	But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assure.
	Now I find the gentrine, I'll open up the doors.
	Help me if you can, I'm feeling.
	Well, there are a lot of us there are a lot of us who need help these days.
	I mean, around the world, one of the most troubling developments of recent time right here in the United States has been the election of district attorneys across the major cities of America, sponsored by George Soros, who are not sponsored by George Soros, who are not enforcing the law.
	They're letting criminals back out.
	They're committing more crimes or decriminalizing criminal actions.
	It's absolutely stunning stuff.
	Well, there's one guy.
	Who's lending a helping hand.
	Surprise, surprise, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has suspended the Soros-backed state attorney who refused to enforce the abortion ban.
	DeSantis says Andrew Warren refused to enforce numerous Florida laws and wouldn't work with the police.
	Well, that is sensational.
	It ought to be an inspiration.
	For governors in other jurisdictions to take similar action.
	This is very significant and it impresses me tremendously.
	This Ron DeSantis guy is super smart.
	He's got a lot of balls.
	He's willing to stand up for the American people and he won't back down.
	DeSantis made the announcement during a press conference broadcast on social media Arguing that Warren has repeatedly refused to enforce laws passed by the legislature cracking down on child sex chain surgeries and abortion restrictions.
	Good for him!
	We are suspending Soros-backed 13th Circuit State Attorney Andrew Warren for neglecting his duties as he pledges not to uphold the laws of the state.
	The Senate's office said the 13th Circuit Falls over Florida's Hillsborough County.
	The Constitution of Florida has vested a veto power in the governor, not in state attorneys, as Anna said.
	We're not going to allow this pathogen of ignoring the law get a foothold in the state of Florida.
	I repeat that.
	We're not going to allow this pathogen of ignoring the law get a foothold in the state of Florida.
	What a wonderful statement.
	Official said, Warren has repeatedly tried to install himself as an adjudicator of what laws will and will not be enforced.
	We have that in California.
	We have the DAs in LA and San Francisco deciding which laws are going to enforce and which not.
	But of course, gruesome Newsome, who benefits or thinks he does from all these progressive work procedures, who wants to catapult himself onto the national scene, isn't going to lift his least digit to do anything about it or correct it.
	The Senate's office has teased the move, meaning on Wednesday, saying the announcement would not be political or related to endorsements.
	This isn't about abortion or any one thing.
	It's about having accountability to our system of law and order to prosecute crime.
	There's been a pattern developing in Hellsborough County where one person picks and chooses which laws he wishes to enforce.
	Warren responded in a statement Thursday afternoon.
	This guy's a disgrace, as are all these other Soros-supported DAs.
	Today's political stunt is an illegal overreach that continues a dangerous pattern by Ron DeSantis of using his office to further his own political ambition.
	It spits in the face of the voters of Hillsborough County who have twice elected me to serve them, not Ron DeSantis, Warren said.
	In our community, crime is low.
	Our constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, are being upheld, and the people have the right to elect their own leaders, not have them dictated by an aspiring presidential candidate who's shown time and time again he feels accountable to no one.
	Just because the governor violates your rights, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
	I'll tell you right now, this guy Warren's going to go down big time.
	I'm very fascinated by this case.
	I'm very impressed by Ron DeSantis.
	Seems to me the guy's Incredibly courageous.
	Let me add someone else for whom I continue to have esteem has just suffered a massive setback in the courts.
	And that, of course, would be Alex Jones, who has just been ordered to pay Sandy Hook parents more than $4 million.
	Alex Jones on Thursday was ordered to pay $4.1 million in compensatory damages to the parents of a six-year-old boy who was one of 20 first-graders slaughtered in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.
	The verdict, signed by 10 members of the 12-person jury in Austin, Texas, makes the first time the Far-Right Infowars founder has been held financially accountable for falsely claiming the attacks on the Newtown Connecticut Elementary School was a hoax.
	Except, of course, you know, I reached out to Alex repeatedly.
	I reached out to his attorneys.
	I offered to come in as an expert witness.
	I could have blown this case out of the water.
	But they have no interest in what I had to say.
	This is a sham.
	This is a sham trial.
	Robert Barnes has done a brilliant job.
	I played part of it on the show on Wednesday.
	Lawyers for the families of the Sandy Hook victims had requested $150 million.
	150 million, 150 million for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	Jones' lawyers, meanwhile, had asked that he pay eight dollars in the defamation case, one for each of the compensation charges the jury considered.
	Jones, 48, told the jury any verdict over two million would sink his company, but added, I think it's appropriate for whatever you decide you want to do.
	Meanwhile, I have published repeatedly what's going on here on my blog, my new blog now at jameshfetzer.org.
	For example, Alex Jones calls out murder due process at Sandy Hook show trial.
	Well, I explained that while this is supposed to be a case over Neil Hesselin, who claimed that he held his dying son, Jesse, in his arms, who's supposed to be the pathos, the sympathetic player here, it's all totally fraudulent.
	It's easy to demonstrate this is a scam.
	For example, you find in that article, I have the featured image, two parts.
	A photograph taken by Newtown Bee photojournalist Shannon Hicks, which was sent around the world, shows what appears to be a policewoman leading a string of kids, supposedly to safety during the mass shooting, but below a photograph taken minutes earlier, I'd say within five minutes, Where you can see the whole group of parents there, six, eight, ten parents there with their hands in their pockets, their arms folded, casually looking on.
	If you look between boy number one and boy number two, where they're rearranging the kids to get a better shot, where they replaced a little girl in a pink sweater and a short skirt with a little boy in a dark sweater and blue jeans, and it was a more telegenic photograph.
	You have two parents, even three, Casually looking on, leading me to describe his photograph as lounging at the massacre.
	Right there, you can see it staged.
	If any part of this is staged, the whole thing is a sham.
	And the classic photographs sent around the world was staged.
	Check it out.
	Go to jameshfetzer.org.
	Check out Alex Jones Calls Out Murder of Due Process at Sandy Hook Show Trial and look for yourself.
	I published several there on an emergency basis because they were going to take my blog as a consequence of the ill-fated
	The lawsuit brought against me for defamation, which was very parallel to what happened here to Alex Jones, or during a summary judgment procedure at which the court set aside all of my evidence, including the FEMA manual for the two-day exercise, because he did not believe it was reasonable, where, believe it or not, in Wisconsin, the judge has the right to exercise his subjective
	Opinion about whether or not evidence is reasonable so that they could set aside all of my evidence as unreasonable and therefore found there was no dispute when in fact we were at loggerheads.
	Absolutely could not be more categorically opposite where I was asserting that nobody had died at Sandy Hook.
	Well, I had a 440-page book of supporting evidence where I had 13 contributors, including six PhDs, where we established the school had been closed by 2008.
	It was loaded with asbestos and other biohazards, been damaged by a flood.
	There'd be another flood in 2007.
	There were no students or teachers there.
	It was a two-day FEMA exercise, technically a mass casualty drill.
	Involving children, from which we even found the manual, which I published as Appendix A. I could have produced all this evidence in support of Alex Jones, but he showed no interest whatsoever.
	Indeed, during a Video deposition in Connecticut.
	He asserted he'd never read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	Well, why the hell not, Alex Jones?
	You could have defended yourself against these absurd charges just by citing the book and the evidence contained therein.
	So what the hell is going on here?
	In fact, there's so many bad aspects to this trial, it's embarrassingly bad.
	And he appears to have had an attorney who was astute.
	The guy who is serving as Alex's attorney, who it turns out shared his two years of his text messages with the plaintiff's attorney, two years without notifying Alex.
	And when the plaintiff's attorney explained he had this information, did not assert privilege, This guy appears to have been working for Eric Holder in the past.
	He was appointed to a high position in law enforcement by Eric Holder.
	Eric Holder had traveled to Newtown on 27 November 2012 to inform the governor they were going to take an abandoned school and conduct a drill and present it as mass murder to promote gun control.
	All this results from my research where I'm utterly convinced that this was thrown.
	This was deliberately thrown.
	They put through Alex Jones under the bus.
	Very, very bad.
	The apology Heslin and Lewis said, because Alex actually apologized to them, was not enough to compensate for the pain and suffering the conspiracy theorists had put them and other grieving families through.
	What bullshit!
	What unadulterated bullshit!
	There were no dead children at Sandy Hook.
	We even have a FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012 reporting at the intersection of murders and non-negligent manslaughter for Newtown, of which Sandy Hook is a part, the big fat number zero.
	Zero.
	Zilch.
	Nada.
	None.
	Not one.
	The parents testified Tuesday about the ongoing trauma instigated by Jones, including gunshots fired at a home, threatening phone calls and online messages and harassment from strangers on the street.
	I don't believe that for a second.
	It's complete bullshit.
	It's like Leonard Posner claiming he had to move repeatedly.
	Well, no one knew where Leonard Posner lived.
	How the hell could he be threatened at his home that he has to move?
	He was moving, yes, but not under the name Leonard Posner.
	He even changed the death certificate, the location, because no Leonard Posner had lived at the original, but rather a party by the name of Reuben Wabner.
	Reuben Wabner appears to have played a key role in orchestrating the entire Sandy Hook event.
	I repeatedly pointed out to the judge in my case right here in Madison, That I believe that the party who came and testified under the name of Leonard Posner was in fact an imposter by the name of Ruben Vabner.
	My answer to the complaint even began, assuming the plaintiff is a real person.
	Talking about Leonard Posner, I had a counterclaim for Fraud on the court because of this impersonation.
	The court well knew my opinion about this, and then I had reason to believe, and I even introduced evidence in the court they were not the same person.
	Nevertheless, the court came down and hammered me again and again and again and again.
	I even had the report of two forensic document experts.
	On my side!
	And the judge simply set them aside as not helpful, again exercising his subjective opinion, which he's entitled to do in the state of Wisconsin.
	Can you imagine a more manifest absurdity than a judge being given the right to determine what the facts are in a case?
	Normally, in a summary judgment, you have to assume all the plaintiff's assertions in this case, That Sandy Hook had been a hoax, that it had been a two-day FEMA exercise, that no children had died, that the school had been closed by 2008, that no one was there, that it was done to promote gun control.
	You'd have to assume all those facts.
	And then ask the plaintiff bringing the suit whether he agrees with all those facts.
	And since Leonard Posner was claiming that I had defamed him by describing a death certificate for his son as fake, which, by the way, I'm only saying here to explain what the lawsuit was about.
	I'm enjoying permanently, as long as it stands, from reaffirming my position about it.
	I'm only describing what happened in the lawsuit.
	And that the event was real.
	Obviously, he could not agree to my facts.
	And therefore, there would have to be a given there were disputed facts, a jury trial.
	I was denied a jury trial.
	I was subjected to a non jury trial where the judge served as judge, jury and executioner.
	I mean, it's outrageous what happened here, which is why I have appealed after The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed, even made it very clear, the methodology in Wisconsin being grotesque, because they stated in consecutive paragraphs that it's reasonable to believe that, well, here it is in the next paragraph, there is no reasonable dispute regarding the following facts.
	This is a Wisconsin Fourth Court of Appeals affirming the ruling of the circuit court in a 58-page opinion.
	Issued on March 8th of 2021, that there were no reasonable disputed facts in this case.
	Quoting, there is no reasonable dispute regarding the following facts.
	On December 14, 2012, a mass shooting occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
	Tragically, 26 people were killed, including 6 staff members and 20 children who were age 6 and 7.
	See Jones v. Haslund.
	Now this is one of several cases that have been decided, as was Alex Jones' case, on procedural grounds.
	They never address the question, did anybody die at Sandy Hook?
	Believe it or not, I sought to intervene in all of these cases involving Alex Jones, even in the Remington case.
	I have repeatedly sought to intervene, pointing out that there's never been a determination whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	Would you believe, in every single case, Well, I have sought to intervene.
	I have been opposed by both parties, by both a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit and the defendants, not even Remington, wanted to allow me to point out to the court and to argue that nobody had ever determined.
	There's been no judicial determination whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	They're taking it to be an undisputed fact, but it's massively disputed.
	The evidence against it is overwhelming.
	It continues, referring to Jones v. Heslin, which again, I repeat, was decided on procedural ground.
	Neil Heslin's son was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012, and rejecting the Substantial Truth Doctrine as a basis to dismiss Heslin's defamation claim related to statements disputing Heslin's assertion that he held his deceased son in his arms.
	Citing now Soto v. Bushmaster, which, again, I sought to interview, but to no effect.
	Reiterating on December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and During the course of 264 seconds, Bailey shot 20 first-grade children and six staff members and wounded two other staff members.
	Bosner's six-year-old son, Ant, was one of the children killed during the San Diego shooting.
	Now look at the absurdity of that on his face.
	264 seconds?
	During the course of 264 seconds, Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 first-grade kids and six staff members?
	With someone there with a stopwatch?
	How would they know when to start?
	You wouldn't know when the first shot would occur.
	That'd take you by surprise.
	No one's gonna have a stopwatch.
	No one can know it's 264 seconds.
	This is unadulterated bullshit.
	Not only that, But Neal Heslund's claim that he held his dying son Jesse in his arms is contradicted by no less an authority than Wayne Carver, the Connecticut State Medical Examiner, who during his Parkland press conference explained, not even the parents were allowed to see the dead children.
	Not even the parents.
	But they were identified instead on the basis of photographs.
	I take that to be highly appropriate, because most of these kids only existed in the form of photographs.
	Noah Posner, for example, was a fiction made out of photographs of his erstwhile older half-brother, Michael Vabner, when he was a child.
	I've been able to verify this even by a gif done by Larry Rivera, not knowing.
	I sent him a photograph of the purported young Noah and a photograph of the older Michael Vavner, who was then in college, and asked him if they were the same.
	Larry performed his wizardry by superimposing the photographs to make the pupils of the eyes equidistant on both photographs.
	When you do that, The features, if they're the same person, fall into place.
	So there's a gif where you can see Noah Posner turn into Michael Vabner, or more appropriately, that Noah Posner was Michael Vabner as a child.
	We have other cases.
	Averill Richmond, for example.
	This is not a real person.
	Her actual name is Lenny Urbana.
	They borrowed her from another family.
	Lenny Urbana, Averill Richmond sang at the Super Bowl.
	There's no question about it.
	She had a very distinctive birthmark across her forehead.
	You can see it not only looks like Lenny Urbana, Averill Richmond, it is Lenny Urbana, Averill Richmond singing at the Super Bowl.
	I'm telling you, Mona Alexis Presley actually has been able to find reason to believe some of the Sandy Hook parents even use photographs of themselves as children to be their lost kids who died at Sandy Hook.
	I mean, this is absurd beyond belief.
	So which is it?
	Either Wayne Carver was lying about the parents not being able to see their kids, or Neil Heslund has been lying about holding Jesse in his arms as he died.
	They cannot both be true, but bear in mind, they could both be false, which appears to be the case.
	Alex Jones cannot be guilty of defamation by denying that Neil Hesselin held his dying son in his arms, as long as that is true.
	And even Wayne Carver supports the conclusion that Alex had it right.
	As I've said, this is published on my blog.
	This is information readily available.
	I was willing to come into court and serve as an expert witness.
	I reached out to one of Alex Jones' attorneys repeatedly, offering to do precisely that.
	No response, no willingness.
	I could have come in as an expert witness and blown the whole case out of the water.
	So what the hell is going on here?
	They are throwing the case.
	They are throwing Alex Jones under the bus.
	A few have noticed what's going on here and taken exception.
	Here's a second smartest guy in the world just sharing.
	Know these things about Alex Jones.
	Love him or hate him.
	But Alex Jones must have free speech rights like any and all of us.
	He may cover any news event and opine in any way he sees fit.
	His kangaroo court trial was a travesty and miscarriage of justice.
	Ambulance-chasing lawyers attempted weak-sauce entrapment, specious innuendos, cheap heart-string tugging, etc., etc.
	They failed miserably on all accounts.
	What we did learn is that Jones is a self-made man who worked extremely hard to get where he is today.
	He also clearly has a genuine passion for his work and beliefs.
	Jones' private business records show that info wars are not insignificant sums of money.
	I say good for them.
	Jones and his team are offered entertainment, information, and products that many people want, irrespective of anyone's opinion as to the merit of the work and or products being sold.
	Therefore, Jones is the antithesis of a grifter.
	Every cent he brings in is hard-earned.
	The real grifters du jour are the politicians and CIA-handling mainstream media that have been bought and paid for by Big Pharma and other corporations funded and subsidized by theft via taxation.
	So no, Jones does not offer free supplements or free vaccinations.
	He's not a corporate welfare queen.
	He goes out into the marketplace and delivers content and products that people actually want to consume with their precious time and hard-earned dollars.
	When free speech goes, so does everything else, including free markets.
	The latter is actually in worse shape than the former, with both rapidly converging toward a dystopian techno-communist reality.
	Short of inciting violence in the equivalent of yelling fire in a grounded theater, Jones has a First Amendment right to say literally anything he pleases.
	If you disagree, do not watch him and do not buy his offerings.
	It is that simple.
	I couldn't agree more.
	That, mind you, is from the second smartest guy in the world.
	John Rappaport has further thought.
	I'll put it best.
	I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
	There's a whole point here about the First Amendment defending freedom of speech.
	It's not popular speech.
	It's not the assertion of widely held beliefs that requires protection.
	It's unpopular beliefs.
	It's controversial beliefs.
	It's challenging the status quo and challenging the official narrative.
	Alex Jones has been very good at that.
	As I've explained many times, there are four stages of scientific inquiry where, because these conspiracy theories are theories, they can be appraised by the same criteria as theories in science, namely clarity and precision of the language in which they're expressed,
	Scope of application for explanation and prediction of relevant events, the degree of confirmation they have from the available evidence, and the elegant simplicity or economy with which they attain those results.
	Now, there are four stages here that I'll review when we come back from this break.
	Music
	Thank you.
	I would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support as it 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, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Radio, radio, radio.
	Hey everyone, it's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada—take guns, impose tyranny, It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of a library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	Oh, oh. oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.com, the people station.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	One of the most brilliant at exposing the coronavirus fraud, emphasizing how they simply redefined, reclassified millions of cases of the flu as coronavirus to generate a false sense of pandemic, where the year before the alleged outbreak, there were 38 where the year before the alleged outbreak, there were 38 million cases of the flu the following year, 2000, meaning they reclassified 37,998,000 cases of flu as the flu.
	As COVID to generate a false sense of pandemic where we now have studies showing that as a consequence of the pandemic, there was no increase in the rates of death in any age group.
	None.
	They used all this phony fabricated data to justify the emergency use authorization of the Moderna and the Pfizer Vax.
	These are complete They're not a form of medicine.
	They don't properly qualify as vaccines.
	They use a new kind of gene-splicing technology called mRNA to actually affect your DNA.
	They generate spike proteins that are causing vast numbers of deaths, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, ad nauseum.
	That's what John Rappaport was calling out.
	He's done a brilliant job of it.
	And here, I celebrate him for the following.
	He actually authored the blog on which the second smartest guy in the world was commenting with his introductory remarks.
	Know these things about Alex Jones, which has now been published on LewRockwell.com, which is one of the most popular blogs in the world.
	Let's start here, writes Jon Rappaport.
	While Jones was supporting Trump, he also mercilessly attacked the horrifically destructive COVID vaccines.
	In the process, he forcefully awakened millions of Trump followers to a truth they were unaware of or didn't want to face.
	In the process, lives were saved.
	Decades ago, long before it was fashionable to do so, Jones explained and righteously attacked globalism, the Rockefeller empire, and the designs of the Chinese regime.
	Perceived by the public as living on the political right, Jones confounded that perception by attacking both big government and big corporations, while so-called conservatives were routinely and conveniently letting criminal corporations off the hook.
	About 20 years ago, the day after George Norrie interviewed me about those corporations, Jones called me out of the blue and insisted I come on his radio show and talk about the subject at length.
	Very early in his radio career, he saw the gathering clouds of medical dictatorship on the horizon and spoke about it compellingly.
	His audience got a strong dose of something they'd never thought about—toxic pesticides, GMO crops.
	Jones contributed as much to the public understanding of these issues as any dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist.
	However, for years, he's also spoken about the psychopathic anti-human elitists who use the environmental movement as a front for a green revolution that aims to capture humanity in an endless future of poverty.
	No one has done more to expose the predatory adults who guide and groom young children for transgender medical and psychological destruction.
	Since the beginning of his career, He's defended the constitutional right of citizens to own guns, and against the deluded crowd who claim that taking away all those guns from everybody would lead us into an era of tranquility.
	Millions of non-criminal gun owners owe Jones a debt of gratitude.
	Every day, Jones refuses to let the idea of the original American Republic die.
	Try that yourself.
	See how much energy it takes.
	I could go on and list a number of other vital issues on which he has led the way.
	He's inspired many people to start their own independent news outlets as they've watched him make his visible.
	In a materialistic age, he has a vision of the human soul, and whether you agree with it or not, it is not a slave to government and corporate and media and church propagandas.
	If the meaning of the soul sounds like a harmless position to take, it isn't when you're connected with large numbers of people for hours every day, and those propagandists want to shut off your connection and force you to go down to the feet.
	For more than 20 years without letup, Jones has not only defended the First Amendment to the Hilt, he has stood on it to speak freely about a blizzard of issues.
	And now this has brought him into courtrooms where civil suits have been leveled against him.
	Regardless of the outcome of the cases, I trust he will survive and carry on.
	He's already won many victories during his career, and they will stand.
	As for the public, there will always be those who go after Jones.
	There will always be whiners and screamers and critics.
	Who devote their whole lives to finding someone to pick on and scrape at, while they studiously ignore the good that person has achieved.
	They feed on the bounty of the First Amendment like parasites, and never have the courage to see a better world and fight for it.
	Anyone who rises above the crowd is their target, because they are the crowd, gnawing their way to oblivion.
	So be it.
	The world has its disgusting creatures.
	Alex Jones was and is a pioneer.
	He can handle it.
	He has for a long time, and in the process, he's made many other people open their eyes and see they can too.
	That's the rub.
	When dedicated terrorists notice a contagion of courage, they panic.
	They look for a source.
	Years and years ago, they honed in on Jones, but he's endured.
	Because he and his work are built for the storm.
	Let me say how much I admire John Rappaport for this blog, New Rockwell, for publishing it.
	I can, based upon my own personal experience.
	Well, the one time I interacted with Alex Jones was when he organized his American Scholars Conference, held in Excuse me, Los Angeles in June of 2006.
	I had founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth in December of 2005, and the organization had simply taken off like a riot.
	I'd invited David Ray Griffin to be my co-chair, but he declined and suggested Stephen Jones, unrelated to Alex as an alternative, or Stephen Jones as a physicist at BYU.
	I invited Stephen to be my co-chair.
	We wound up having, oh, 400, 600 members from all over the world.
	Pilots, engineers, structural, electrical, aeronautical, civil, physicists, all collection or constitution of experts, where that has been my stock and trade.
	I bring together individuals who are experts in areas where I am not.
	I am an expert in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
	I've made many contributions to those fields.
	But the fact is, in, for example, undertaking research on JFK, I brought together a world authority on the human brain, who was also an expert on wound ballistics, where I was neither.
	A PhD in physics, who was also an MD and board certified in radiation oncology, which is a treatment of cancer using x-ray therapy, where I'm none of the above.
	A physician who was actually in trauma room number one when JFK's moribund body was brought in and then two days later was tasked with the care and treatment of his alleged assassin, Lee Oswald.
	Clearly I was not there at the time, but he was.
	Another PhD in physics, this time with expertise in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects, where he did a brilliant job of critiquing the extant version of the Supruder film and proving it had been altered massively on the basis of features internal to the film, which I could not possibly have done.
	And I've replicated that pattern by bringing together experts in Sandy Hook, 13, six PhDs, discovering the school had been closed by 2008.
	There were no students there.
	That had been a two-day FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	I offered all of that to Alex Jones, and I can only infer that it was because the attorney in charge wanted to separate Alex from me, not for the right reason, mind you, but for the wrong.
	Because I had all this objective scientific evidence, all this proof that, in fact, Sandy Hook had been a FEMA drill, passed off as mass murder to promote gun control, that Neil Hesselin, for example, was lying about holding his son Jesse in his arms as he died, contradicted even by Wayne Carver, that I had proof that Noah Bosner was a fiction made up of photographs of his older stepbrother Michael Vavner, his half-brother Michael Vavner when he was a child,
	That Ariel Richardson was actually Lenny or Ben and even sang at the Super Bowl.
	That the photograph of all the kids being evacuated from Sandy Hook was contradicted by an earlier photograph where you see all these parents there were casually looking on while they rearranged the line to get a better shot.
	What kind of impact would that have had on the jury?
	Could they have possibly found Alex Jones guilty of defamation?
	Absolutely not.
	But his attorney not only would not have me and by the way he's got a group of attorneys and this guy who appears to be an ally of Eric Holder who had a key role in plotting Sandy Hook.
	He may have been the primary orchestrator of the event.
	Is not the one in with whom I was in contact, but another of Alex attorneys who appears to me to have far more integrity and dedication to the truth and the law.
	So for that reason, those of you who have been following the case may have noticed that right from the beginning, right from the get go, right from scratch.
	Well, they had a producer who seemed to me to be a halfwit, and she was being asked by this attorney about others who have sought to expose what happened in Newtown that day.
	Who was James Fetzer?
	She said he was a professor at the University of Minnesota.
	He said, well, did he have anything to do with Sandy Hook?
	Yes, he published a book.
	I think she may have said authored a book.
	What was the title?
	Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	Did anyone else contribute?
	Yes, I think James Tracy.
	And then they move on to James Tracy.
	And later had her read from an email from Joseph Watson, who I thought in the past was a good guy, to Alex Jones, where Watson was saying to Alex, we've got to keep as far away as possible from that batshit crazy fencer.
	They went on several times to, you know, commit ad hominem attacks against me because they couldn't produce any evidence that I'd done anything wrong.
	I had not done anything wrong.
	The book is virtually impeccable.
	And I'll tell you, Amazon had to ban it.
	And it appears to have been done at the request of the state because it was too good.
	At the time that happened, Amazon had 20 books about Sandy Hook, 19 of which were all endorsements in one form or another of the official narrative, which the Fourth Court of Appeals here in Wisconsin declared to be unreasonable to dispute the official narrative, save one.
	Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control, which went on sale on 22 October 2015 and was banned on 19 November.
	Even though it had sold nearly 500 copies, it was going to be a runaway bestseller.
	They could not have that.
	They can't have the American people learning the truth about these frauds or utterly destroy the credibility of the United States government whose credibility is already tattered and torn, I'd say.
	Given the government has gone so far out of its way, given this was an Obama-Biden-Holder operation in Sandy Hook, this would be a devastating attack on the credibility of this guy whom so many of Americans have admired for so long, for whom even I myself voted twice.
	I mean, give me a break.
	This is just disgusting.
	They've got to keep the lid on.
	I may have mentioned a conversation I had with James Files, who claims to be the second shooter on the grassy knoll.
	For those of you who followed carefully, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, when it reinvestigated the case in 1977-78 and issued its final report on JFK and MLK, claimed that there was evidence of a second shooter on the grassy claimed that there was evidence of a second shooter on the grassy knoll who was supposed to have been firing completely independently of Lee Oswald in the While James Files is, in my opinion, the designated player to assume that role.
	The irony is he and I had dinner together at a steakhouse in Madison.
	I like the guy tremendously.
	We just hit it off.
	But the most interesting aspect of our conversation when he said to me, not just once but twice, once the government takes a stand on one of these issues, it's locked in and will never change.
	That resonated with me.
	He said it twice.
	Once the government takes a stand on one of these issues, it's locked in and will never change.
	Notice, for example, in relation to 9-11, the FBI came up with a list of 19 Islamic hijackers who are supposed to be responsible for hijacking the planes and committing these atrocities using the aircraft as weapons.
	It's all nonsense.
	I've demonstrated through collaborative research once again That all four of those crash sites were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways.
	That two of the planes, Flight 11 North Tower and 77 Pentagon, were not even in the air that day.
	That the other two, Flights 93 and 175, 93 Shanksville, 175 South Tower, were still in the air after they'd allegedly crashed or impacted with the South Tower.
	Indeed, pilots for 9-11 Truth tracked air-ground communication and found that Flight 93 was over Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, after it had officially crashed in Shanksville, and that Flight 175 was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, after it officially hit the South Tower.
	I did additional research and verified that in fact those two planes were still flying four years later.
	They were not taken out of service or formally de-registered until 28 September 2005.
	So how can planes that weren't even in the air have crashed on 9-11?
	And how can planes that crashed on 9-11 have still been in the air four years later?
	It's absurd!
	David Ray Griffin and his magisterial work, the 9-11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, makes as his very first point that a half a dozen or more of the alleged suicide hijackers turned up alive and well the following day and made contact with the British media.
	Even Mohammed Adam reached out to his father, who reported hearing from his son, who said they had nothing to do with it but was terrified and at risk of his life, for good reason.
	But has the government ever made any alteration?
	No, they still publish the same list.
	They stand by the same list.
	They stand by Lee Oswald having been the lone demanded gunman with a possibility of a second shooter, a role for which it appears to me James Files has been designated to play.
	In spite of massive evidence that Lee Oswald was actually in the doorway at the time the JFK motorcade came by.
	That Lee Oswald, therefore, cannot have, not only not have been the lone demented gunman, he cannot have been one of the shooters of whom we now have identified eight.
	Yes, eight!
	And I can give you the location, the name, the shots they took for six.
	Olly Domogard identified the seventh, with which I agree.
	The only one for whom we have no accounting is the eighth.
	Was actually at that single tree on the grass opposite the grassy.
	No, you wouldn't even think there was a location there where a shooter could have been secreted.
	But in fact, I've seen photographs held by two different experts on JFK showing him standing with his rifle in his arms.
	And because we've identified the others as a Dallas Deputy Sheriff as an Air Force expert, as a CIA shooter, as Lyndon Johnson's hitman, as an anti-Castro Cuban, as a Dallas cop with ties to the CIA, as an Israeli shooter from Toronto representing the Bronfen.
	My suspicion is this guy probably represented the Eastern Establishment and the Fed.
	But the fact of the matter is we have the evidence, we have the goods.
	Just a simple fact.
	Lee Oswald was standing in the doorway, which is provable on the basis of the most famous photograph taken by AP photographer James Ike Alchins.
	And if you want confirmation about 9-11 or JFK, go to my blog, Bitchute Channel Jim Fetzer.
	Just put in the search bar 9-11.
	Special report, which I dedicated to Robert David Steele.
	You'll have it.
	Or a real deal JFK special, which I dedicated to Oliver Stone, published on the 18th of November 2021.
	And you can review all the evidence.
	It's all there, because every time I do one of these presentations, I show you the evidence.
	I give you the evidence.
	I do not make assertions I cannot prove other than with qualification that this is a speculation.
	This is my best guess.
	I let you know where I'm coming from and what I'm doing.
	Now, regarding Alex, our exchange, the only personal interaction we had was really in relation to 9-11 when he orchestrated, organized and moderated the American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles in June of 2006.
	Alex Jones invited me, Jim Fetzer, to give the keynote address at his American Scholars Conference on 9-11.
	That was on Saturday.
	And the following day, on Sunday, there was a panel discussion that was covered by C-SPAN, where all four of the members of the panel, which was moderated by Alex, were members of Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
	Steve Jones, that physicist who might be my vice chair, Bob Bauman, who was a Korean war ace, having shot down some 101 MiGs, if you can believe it.
	But it was notable because he had a PhD in nuclear engineering from Caltech, and it served as a scientific director on Star Wars for two presidents, Reagan and Ford.
	Webster Tarbly had published a book entitled 9-11 terror, synthetic terror made in the USA, a very fine book with a lot of revealing aspects, including a discussion of the immense, immense amount of energy required to destroy the Twin Towers, neither of which collapsed.
	It wasn't even physically possible they could collapse.
	They were blown apart in every direction from the top down and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
	Which is a signature, by the way, of the use of nuclear devices, which is what occurred there.
	I even have a book on it, you can catch it at Moonrock Books, called America Nuked on 9 Lab and Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons, and the DoD and the Mossad.
	This was an Israeli-inspired operation to draw American forces into the Middle East, where they were used to take out the modern Arab states that served as a counterbalance to Israel's domination of the entire region.
	Check it out.
	But in addition, then, I was the fourth as a founder of Scholars and talked about the top 10 reasons how we know the hijackers are fake.
	You can still find that online C-SPAN covering the American Scholars Conference.
	It ran an hour and 45 minutes.
	They actually played it at seven or eight very good time slots.
	If you want more, I have a piece about Richard Gage and about Judy Wood and their role as limited hangouts where neither Richard Gage and architects and engineers nor Judy Wood and her two's group will talk about who is responsible and why, which is a major red flag.
	And both give inadequate explanations of what happened to the Twin Towers gauge hung up on nanothermite, which cannot possibly have been responsible, and Judy Wood, directed energy weapons, but where she cannot account for some of the phenomena that took place on 9-11 in relation to the towers on the basis of directed energy, whereas the nukes can account for everything she claims and much more, including The U.S.
	Geological Survey's study of dust samples from 35 locations in lower Manhattan, which revealed elements that would not have been there, would not have been present had it not been a nuclear event.
	Barium, lithium, lanthanum, strontium, tritium, some of which only exist in radioactive forms.
	It was when I made Judy aware of those findings and she refused to address it that I recognized she was not being scientific.
	Because it's part of scientific reasoning, you must be open to new evidence and alternative explanations, or you forfeit your status as a scientist, which she has not.
	Alex is very good at the first two, at the fourth stage of the scientific reasoning, puzzlement and speculation, but he's weak on the third and fourth, adaptation of hypotheses to evidence and Explanation when all the evidence points in the same direction.
	I could have been of great benefit to Alex Jones in these law cases.
	I did my best to join, but I was rebuffed.
	We'll be right back. .
	We'll be right back after this message.
	- Where are you 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.
	Oh, my God.
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do!
	and we must fight back.
	You can torture us and bomb us.
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, You burn with us!
	Good evening.
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Obviously, I'm quite a fan of Alex Jones in general, but he mishandled these legal cases completely, totally mishandled them.
	I I could have provided him with massive support instead.
	They have sought to use the occasion to attack everyone who's investigating.
	JFK, 9-11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing.
	They're trying to wipe out anyone who they could qualify as a conspiracy theorist, when in fact we are conspiracy realists, because conspiracies are actually as American as apple pie.
	It is the most prosecuted crime in America.
	Conspiracy for this, conspiracy for that.
	Even most American conspiracies are economic.
	If you want to see a layout where I go through the four stages of scientific reasoning and how they apply here, you can find online my piece, Thinking About Conspiracy Theories, using JFK and 9-11.
	Thinking About Conspiracy Theories, JFK and 9-11, another specifically focused but laying out my approach, which I pioneered of bringing together experts.
	Reasoning about assassination, reasoning about assassinations.
	Those are both available online.
	You can download Thinking About Conspiracy Theories, JFK and 9-11, Reasoning About Assassinations.
	Here's another on UNZ.com review.
	What's wrong with conspiracy theories?
	What's wrong with conspiracy theories?
	Check them out.
	On my blog, and I've had to create a new blog at jameshfetzer.org, where they took my old blog at jamesfetzer.org and now I've redirected it to posnervfetzer.com, which is a website with documents related to my court case in Wisconsin, where they had to try to seize a blog.
	I didn't appreciate immediately the great urgency, but then once the Alex Jones trial began, I saw it was because they were going to attack me.
	And once they mentioned my name, they knew people would try to figure out what I had said about Sandy Hook that would warrant these disparaging comments like, uh, fat shit crazy from Paul Joseph Watson.
	I mean, look, I thought Paul Joseph Watson was a good guy, but this was a stupid statement.
	I have no idea where it came from.
	They denigrated also James Tracy, who had been a professor at Florida Atlantic.
	He was a very good scholar.
	I think he was probably their best academician.
	He was doing work in the program in communications.
	One of his courses was even on conspiracy in the media.
	He did a blog in which he dissected Wayne Carver's press conference, where Carver said they did not allow the parents to come into contact with the children.
	There'd be a time for that.
	But only identified them on the basis of photographs, which contradicts Neil Heslin's testimony in the court, testimony to Congress, testimony everywhere.
	It's total bullshit.
	My understanding is Neil Heslin is not even married to the woman that he poses as his wife.
	They do not have a child.
	This is all totally fake.
	That was true of the Sandy Hook family.
	Most of them were synthetic families.
	Most of them are not even married.
	There's an exception, the Kowalskis are married, the Adornos are married, but not the other families.
	It's all so fake, it's all so phony.
	The Lenny Posner guy even had to change the death certificate, the address, because Leonard Posner had never lived at that address.
	Guess who had lived at that address?
	Reuben Vavner.
	I mean, I was making all these protests to the court and I was being suppressed.
	Every motion I made, every attempt at discovery was rebuffed.
	I mean, it was outrageous.
	So now I'm before the United States Supreme Court.
	Now listen, if you want to do something to help me, you can do something to help me.
	You can go to givesingo.com slash fundingfetzer and toss a few bucks into the pot.
	I need the money.
	I have had to hire another attorney to do this taking business.
	Rent up another five grand.
	If I could pay that off, that would be terrific.
	I would like your help.
	If you could go 10, 20, 50, look.
	If 100 people gave $50, that would be $5,000 and I could pay that off.
	I wouldn't have that hanging over me.
	It's just you wouldn't lend a hand and you'd be making a contribution.
	Remember, while the case I originally thought was a first and second amendment, it turned out because of this summary judgment procedure in Wisconsin that's so aberrant, so contrary to that employed in different states where I use Texas as a contrast case.
	We're in Texas, my case would have been thrown, the suit against me would have thrown out or sent to a jury for trial where I could present all my evidence and not have a judge find it to be unreasonable and set it aside.
	This is what I'm up against.
	I am doing this on behalf of all the citizens of Wisconsin, but also all the residents of the United States who deserve to have their right to a trial by jury affirmed by the Supreme Court.
	And get this, In the course of my research, and because I have an opposition brief that you can actually find if you go to jamesfetzer.org submitted by the Posner team, And this Leonard Posner is a legal fiction, OK?
	This is the Posner team.
	They're using this legal fiction.
	It would not surprise me if Eric Holder, with the brains behind all these legal moves to suppress the massive evidence that I've accumulated, Eric Holder himself, you'll find they claim that there is no right to jury trial by the citizens of the various states.
	That's only applicable in federal cases.
	And if you wade into the The history of cases that have been held in the United States are all over the place.
	There's some who claim yes, some who claim no.
	The point is, while they're arguing that my prospects are dim before the Supreme Court and therefore the judge should not grant the motion to stay, which would keep them from these ongoing efforts to take my property, it's actually another reason why the Supreme Court is going to take my case.
	Because all the other of the first 10 amendments have been affirmed, certified by the Supreme Court as applying to the states.
	Oddly enough, and this is a historical anomaly, a right to a trial by jury has never been affirmed as a right enjoyed by every citizen of the individual states by the Supreme Court of the United States.
	So what I've done is to tee up a case that's going to make it irresistible for the Supreme Court to rule.
	That affects your right to a trial by jury.
	And look, it may be I'm the one on the hot seat now with regard to all these legal cases, but my case has significance for every citizen of the United States, I believe.
	It's going to be irresistible to the Supreme Court to take this case for a whole host of reasons where I am merely the messenger.
	We had an earlier case of a pro se defendant by the name of Gideon.
	That ensured that Americans, when they're arrested, are given their legal rights, including to an attorney.
	The Gideon case, very famous in the annals of American jurisprudence.
	Well, Gideon was a pro se petitioner.
	I am a pro se petitioner.
	I've run out of money.
	I had to file a pauper.
	I had to file with the Supreme Court.
	A statement about my financial status and why I'm unable to hire an attorney to carry that as well frankly.
	I believe my going without an attorney was of enormous benefit because I I saw the case differently than the attorney I had planned to go forward with who wanted to argue about the denial of my.
	You know that they wouldn't hear my evidence, but he was casting it in the wrong fashion.
	It had to be cast in terms of taking on the entirety of the Wisconsin judiciary from the Circuit Court to the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court, which denied my petition for review.
	I had one advisor along the way who wouldn't even read my petition because it mentioned Texas.
	And it was her opinion that Texas had nothing to do with this.
	Well, if only she had read the brief, she would have seen why.
	Texas was a contrast case where Texas has a very appropriate summary judgment procedure.
	The first statement of the Texas for three step procedure is assume everything the plaintiff asserts to be the case as true and then find whether the plaintiff agrees with all of those assertions.
	Because then and only then are there no disputed facts.
	This is to guarantee the defendant's right to a trial by jury.
	They do not go forward in any way compromising his rights.
	That right is vitiated in Wisconsin.
	So Texas has a very appropriate summary judgment procedure that would have led to my case being tossed or either sent to a trial by jury.
	I wanted to help Alex This was his trial for damages, yes.
	He was, as was I, ruled to be guilty of defamation by the judge in his case, ostensibly on the basis of his failure to comply with discovery requirements.
	Well, Robert Barnes has done a brilliant critique of this trial and considered it to be a complete sham, even a made-for-TV movie production, where you can find his commentary on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer, you'll want to watch.
	Go in about the first hours on other issues, but when you get near, I think about, 47 minutes in or so, he and his compadre begin talking about the Alex Jones trial.
	Fascinating stuff.
	Now, here's an irony.
	Robert Barnes, although I regard him as among the most astute attorneys in the United States, still believes Sandy Hook was real.
	I'm blown away.
	But the fact is, his commentary on the trial is simply sensational.
	It's something you do not want to miss.
	I'm glad, by the way, to open the call-in lines early.
	I'll open them now.
	I'll continue to talk about these matters, but I'll take your calls.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	And I would welcome first-time callers.
	One of the patterns we have with talk shows is you often get into kind of a groove where you have the same callers calling in.
	I like first-time callers.
	So if any of you out there are a first-time caller, call Mitchell 540-352-4452 and share your thoughts and opinions.
	I don't mind, by the way, being contradicted.
	I don't mind argument and debate.
	I actually like—this is my bread and butter as a professional philosopher.
	Sir Karl Bopper, by the way, emphasized that our most reliable method for discovering the truth is open, unfettered debate, critical discussion, the exercise of reason, logic, and evidence.
	And he's absolutely 100% correct.
	That's why they are using the Alex Jones case in effect as a form of censoring everybody, just in my case, with this massive judgment against me, 450,000 by the jury.
	And then another $650,000 because I tried to find an impeachment witness to contradict the identity of the Leonard Posner, whom I'm convinced was Reuben Vabner, who came to Wisconsin, and the judge threw in Legal fees, even though there wasn't supposed to have any legal fees, because they were all doing this out of the goodness of their heart, pro bono.
	And add it, get this, $650,000 more.
	So I have these judgments of $1.1 million plus.
	Check it out.
	You can find the whole case outlined at GiveSendGo.com with links to all the key documents.
	Now, we have a caller from the 724 area code.
	Caller, give us your first name, your state, and join the conversation.
	Hi, Dr. Fetzer.
	This is Zach, and I'm in Virginia.
	So, I was just calling you because of the Alex Jones case.
	We had talked once before, and I was interested in some of the things that you were saying.
	I had mentioned these to you the last time we talked, and maybe you didn't remember, but it's been, I think at least since the 1800s, the Supreme Court has said that the Seventh Amendment doesn't apply in state court suits.
	Um, and they have reaffirmed that, and I can, I can provide you Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court cases where they have cited those, those precedents, uh, for, for quite a long time, uh, in, in recent years.
	I mean, even in the past 10 years where they have reaffirmed to those holdings that, that the seventh amendment does not apply, uh, to the states and that essentially you're afforded due process under the law.
	As long as, for example, you know, you're afforded due process if you are afforded some judicial opportunity to resolve your case according to the law of the forum state.
	So I can tell you, for example, Maryland, in their state constitution, I think it's Maryland, they're just raising their statute, their constitutional limit to a right to a jury trial in the state of Maryland, a civil jury trial, I think to $50,000.
	It was like 20 before.
	So that would obviously $50,000 is a lot more than $20.
	So if you had a right to a civil jury trial in the state under the Seventh Amendment, Maryland couldn't be having such a limit.
	Right.
	So clearly, clearly, you know, that has been that's what we would call in the legal system or the legal profession, black letter law.
	It has been known for a very long time that that's the case.
	But I wanted to ask you more.
	By the way, this is wonderful.
	Send me, please send me some of those links, some of those sites.
	An easy address is jimatmoonrockbooks.com, jimatmoonrockbooks, plural dot com.
	Send me those links.
	I'm in the process of replying to their argument, which is claiming that I do not have that right to a jury trial.
	What you're citing is very important and relevant.
	Please do send it.
	And I'm just very grateful.
	Go ahead, go ahead.
	I will absolutely do that, Jim.
	I mean, I can't, I can't just tell you just as a disclaimer, I can't, I'm not giving you legal advice, but I can send you some cases that you can look at.
	But I can tell you, I'll just read you two sentences.
	It says, the states, so far as this amendment are concerned, are left to regulate trials in their own courts in their own way.
	A state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process, but this does not imply that all trials in the state courts must be by jury.
	The requirement of the Constitution of due process is met.
	If the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings, due process of law is processed due according to the law of the state.
	So basically, I can send you some cases, and I can send you some cases within the Within the last, you know, these are some old cases, but there's cases where the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that.
	But more importantly, I was calling you on something else, which is what I'm kind of more interested in, is I had talked about to you the last time we had spoke about the ability of you to kind of short circuit these people, their judgment, if you had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
	And you know, one of the things that you could do, and it would not moot your Supreme Court case, because still, of course, even if you were found, you know, if you went through bankruptcy, that does not necessarily moot your Supreme Court case, because if, you know, you know, because they could still have standing to litigate in your in your bankruptcy, you know, or to, you know, they would become a creditor and, you know, an unsecured creditor in your bankruptcy, whatever.
	So it does not at all moot your case.
	But I'm wondering why you chose not to file bankruptcy before they filed this motion for taking, or before the court issued an order on the motion for taking.
	Because if they had filed this motion for taking of your site, and then they had in their motion, they said they were valuing it at $100,000.
	And then you had filed your bankruptcy.
	First of all, when you file bankruptcy, it automatically deprives the state court of any power to continue in a taking process.
	There's something called an automatic stay that prevents.
	It's an automatic order basically from the bankruptcy court that stops all state court collections and things like that.
	And actually, if Posner and his team had continued, you would actually be able to have him held in contempt of court if they continued to contact you or continue to try to collect on that after you filed.
	So I'm just wondering why you chose to do that because now once they got your domain off of you, it's going to be very, very hard to get that back.
	And if you had filed bankruptcy before then, and they had already in their pleadings said that your property was worth a hundred grand, and based on what you have said in terms of the value of your house, you're married, and you don't really have any assets, Well, that's fascinating.
	they'd be left holding the bag.
	Their judgment would have been discharged in your bankruptcy and they'd be left without any enforcement mechanism whatsoever.
	So it's interesting to me that you didn't choose to do that, and so I was wondering a bit why.
	Well, that's fascinating.
	Possibly, had I been aware of the reasoning you've just outlined, I might have taken a different course.
	We're all restricted by our resources, and the availability of the legal advice we receive.
	You seem to me to have an impeccable legal mind.
	I'm very impressed with everything you've been telling me.
	I'm very glad your timing is exquisite, Because I have to respond.
	I have to reply to their responses to my motion for reconsideration and my motion for a stay on Monday.
	So I'm in the process of finalizing my replies.
	And in fact, included in the reply is, you know, why I believe that the court is going to want to rule on this to clarify the status of the Seventh Amendment and its application to the various states.
	Bankruptcy, I don't know, never appealed to me.
	It seemed to me to be a form of evasion.
	But you're talking about how it can be deployed as a legal defense and that it can have beneficial ramifications.
	I'm very impressed with everything you said.
	We could therefore possibly suggest it was inadvertent not knowing more.
	I'm not, of course, an attorney, though I'm now, since I'm operating pro se, as I was in the beginning in the circuit court.
	It only secured an attorney at the level of the trial for damages and then he appeals to the Court of Appeals in Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
	I'm of course limited by my own knowledge and understanding of the law, which has been greatly broadened by all the efforts I've been undertaking here.
	By the way, there is wonderful stuff about the Second Amendment, where there's an expert now at the University of Illinois Law School who has written about this.
	Let me just mention to you, you may or may not know about her work.
	She seems to me to be completely brilliant.
	This is a woman named Sonia Suja Sujia.
	Suja Thomas, now at the University of Illinois College of Law, Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional, an article that appeared originally in the Virginia Law Review, Volume 93, 2007.
	She has another study that I find also fascinating, which is the Seventh Amendment Modern Procedure in the English Common Law.
	In the Washington University Law Quarterly, which was published in 2004, and I believe she may have an interest in my case.
	Now, she may confirm what you've been suggesting to me as a line of defense.
	I can only say, listen, I'm very impressed with everything you've had to say here.
	I especially am keen to learn more about any citations by the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	Why do you suppose that would be the case, by the way, we'll have the opportunity of your Well, you know, that is a great point.
	That's a great point.
	it be the case that of the Ten Amendments, the only one that hasn't been affirmed as applying to the state specifically is the Seventh Amendment, and you're suggesting that they've even reaffirmed that it does not apply to the state courts.
	Tell me, what's the rationale?
	Well, you know, that is a great point.
	That's a great point.
	I think that if all things being equal, I think if you were looking at the Constitution with a modern perspective, with a modern lens, I think you would say absolutely.
	The Bill of Rights, the Seventh Amendment as implied, and the Fifth Amendment, your right to not testify against yourself.
	Why is it that this amendment, on its own, has not been incorporated to the states through the 14th, through the due process?
	You know, through the due process of law provision.
	So I think that that's a total reason, a modern way of looking at things.
	And I think most would agree with you.
	You have to understand that the country, you know, some of these things, some of these precedents are hundreds of years old.
	I can, I can look into it, but, you know, you have to understand and, you know, and this is another point that you, you, I think you've written a paper, for example, that said logical reasoning systems Uh, you can never necessarily do a formal proof of a, of a, of a program or something like that because, because of the system, you know, the system, the physical manifestation of that system is necessarily imperfect or prone to error.
	And the same thing here is true of the law.
	These cases, and particularly this line of reasoning was handed down, I think in the 1800s, you have to remember, That this was right after the Civil War during Reconstruction.
	I'd have to look at the dates on these.
	I know some of them go back to the 1860s, 1870s, 80s.
	So these, you have to look at the political situation at the time where, you know, these certain types of cases were used to deprive, you know, deprive people of their rights and things like that.
	And that there was a lot of deference to the state courts.
	So I would, you would necessarily, I think if you're just looking at it from a logical perspective, a modern perspective, I would say that it's obvious that it should, but you know, I can take a look at that for you.
	Please, please hang on.
	This is one of the best calls I've ever had.
	Hang on after the break.
	We tried to stop the break, but it looks like we're going to have the break anyway.
	Oh, it has been killed.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Continue.
	I managed to have it killed.
	Go ahead.
	You have no idea how much I appreciate and how timely is your call.
	I mean, this is just blended.
	I'm just delighted, simply delighted.
	Go ahead, go ahead.
	Go ahead and take your other call, and I can take a look and see.
	I want you to stay on, because the other caller almost certainly is going to comment on what you've had to say, and I'd like to have an exchange between you both.
	The other caller is Paul from California.
	Paul, join the conversation.
	I'm fascinated by what I'm just hearing here and now.
	Your thoughts, Paul?
	Well, there's no escaping this judgment, Jim.
	I am recently applying now for a new position at the Posner-Wabner Memorial Foundation in the collections department.
	And I better not catch you slipping, because I will strip you down to your socks and underwear to collect this righteous judgment from the court, I'm telling you right now.
	You got it, Paul.
	You got the spirit of the whole thing exactly right.
	It's also fraudulent.
	It's absolutely unbelievable.
	I'm so jealous of all the praise that you've lavished upon this caller, who, by the way, like I said, is raising some very interesting issues.
	I also am impressed, but I'm kind of feeling, you know, with your call for first-time callers, I'm kind of feeling like the old dog that's been cast out.
	No, no, we're not, Paul.
	You know, I appreciate your calls.
	I just want everyone to know they're welcome to call in, and especially first time callers.
	But I, I always appreciate your calls.
	And I think today is especially appropriate.
	I'm glad you've called in.
	And look, I think it remains the case, notwithstanding everything we've just heard, that I'm giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider the Seventh Amendment and its application to the various states.
	I had a Retired professor of law who knows my case very well, who when he reviewed my petition, which you can download if you go to the Supreme Court docket for Fetzer v. Posner, all the cases here in a foreign Wisconsin courts were Posner v. Fetzer.
	This is Fetzer v. Posner.
	You can download the petition.
	You can read it for yourself.
	Uh, he said he liked my idea of incorporating the Seventh Amendment within the 14th.
	And, you know, at the time I didn't fully appreciate exactly what he meant, but it's now been spelled out exactly why.
	That's what I'm asking the Supreme Court to do and why I'm going to reaffirm.
	I think given all this history, the observation being made here of from a modern point of view, this is a teen up the case for the Supreme Court to do the right thing.
	And it's clear.
	The Supreme Court has the courage to act in accordance with the Constitution as it sees it.
	Paul, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Right.
	So all these things you've said many times and they're all well and good.
	And I'll start out with, you know, the complimentary stuff before I throw the cold water of reality on it.
	So, yes, Jim, it's obvious you have the intellect, you know, you have the skills and ability to Uh, you know, master the law.
	You know, you have the ability to read, to think, to write.
	These are things that a lot of people have the ability to do.
	I, you know, when I dabbled in it, I quickly found out, yes, I have the ability to understand this, to reason things out, to use, uh, you know, certain phrases and, you know, to use, uh, the law and case, you know, court decisions as they're available.
	But the thing is, unfortunately, None of it is real.
	It's just the way that it is, and it's a hard pill to swallow.
	You want to hear a good show, I'm going to recommend to you yesterday's show, The Sane Asylum, with Giuseppe and Scorpio, also a guy by the name of John Percent, and also Dennis Camino.
	So there was four people, and they spent two hours.
	They talked quite a bit about the Alex Jones case, about you and your case, and things in general.
	And if you want to hear, in my opinion, one of the best overall perspectives that I've heard in many weeks about these issues, you'll hear it on that show.
	Some of the things you'll like to hear, other things you may not like, but it's a very realistic assessment of what it is we're looking at.
	So the key word that you're missing here from the 7th Amendment is at common law.
	In other words, in suits at common law where the value exceeds $20, the right to a jury trial shall be preserved.
	You're not entitled to the common law.
	None of us are.
	As long as you're a U.S.
	citizen, quote-unquote, or a resident.
	So when anytime you see your name, resident of Wisconsin, that's it.
	It's a done deal.
	Okay?
	The system is rigged against you.
	You are not entitled to the Constitution.
	I could go on and on like this.
	I could send you links.
	You could listen to people.
	You could read things.
	They don't tell us these things.
	Okay?
	They take what they call silent judicial notice.
	So I had in my face, in one of my court experiences, a judge tell me it doesn't apply in this courtroom.
	You know, and I was naive at the time.
	This is many, many, many years ago.
	I was blown away.
	OK, I thought it did.
	I thought the Constitution applied, but it didn't and it doesn't.
	And if you understand the work of Roger Sales and what he talks about with a state citizen or American citizen or what they call a national, Versus quote, US citizen or resident, you'll understand exactly what I'm saying.
	So they didn't send you the memo.
	But the fact of the matter is, is they can and will do whatever they want.
	And it doesn't matter what the law is.
	I mean, that's the thing that was hardest for me to understand, or to realize.
	But, you know, now I do.
	I mean, I've accepted it.
	You know, you heard me on this show many times years and years ago, I used to say, there is no law.
	I said that multiple times.
	And it wasn't just a what I would call a pejorative or making a statement.
	The fact of the matter is that they can and do choose to ignore the law when they want to or apply it when they want to.
	And I think Wisconsin's got a better chance of winning the national championship than the Supreme Court has of ruling in your favor.
	But we'll see.
	It's entertaining.
	Well, Paul, listen, here's part of what Suja Thomas says in her article, Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional, published in the Virginia Law Review in 2007.
	She says, this essay is the first to examine the question and takes a seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional.
	The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment, which provides that, in suits at common law, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, and according to the rules of the common law.
	The Supreme Court has held that common law in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791.
	This essay demonstrates that no procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law.
	It also reveals that summary judgment violates the core principles of substance of the English common law.
	The essay concludes that despite the uniform acceptance of the device, summary judgment is unconstitutional.
	The essay then responds to likely objections, including that the federal courts cannot function properly without summary judgment.
	By describing the burden that the procedure of summary judgment imposes upon the courts, he argues summary judgment may not be necessary to the judicial system, but rather, by contrast, imposes significant costs upon the system.
	I think there's a lot here for the Supreme Court to consider.
	And without prejudging, I mean, I welcome all estimates and evaluation.
	No one ever thought I'd get as far as I have already before the Supreme Court could easily have been filtered out early on.
	If the court didn't have a keen interest in hearing that these are very significant constitutional issues about the Seventh Amendment.
	And I believe one way or another, they're going to want to clarify the applicability or inapplicability of the Seventh Amendment to the various states using my case.
	As the tipping point, I think it's very, very timely.
	I welcome both of your calls.
	I'd like you, Paul, to give a summary of the pros and cons.
	Dennis Camino and I go way back.
	But we have had various, just as you and I have our occasional differences, Dennis and I have had our occasional differences, but Dennis, like you, is among the smartest guys I've known.
	So, I value what was going on there in that conversation.
	Give me a summary, just a kind of a brief, about the pros and cons that took place during the Usain Asylum, and I'll seek to get it posted on my Bitu channel.
	Yeah, well for sure.
	Way more important is for you to just, you know, relax a little.
	I know you've taken a lot of material and you're always producing, you're always writing, you're always reading, and you're always speaking, which I think maybe you could do a little less of because sometimes I hear your voice starting to fail, so I'd like to see you a little bit more rested.
	But yeah, just take the show in.
	You know, it covers a lot of ground and You know, some of it is, you know, favorable and others, maybe not so much.
	I mean, Alex Jones is a mixed bag.
	I don't think that well of him for a number of reasons.
	But what you just talked about here, just quickly with the Seventh Amendment and all of that, it's all well and good, and anybody can understand it for the most part.
	On principle alone, it's obvious what has occurred is a wrong.
	Okay?
	Nobody should win or lose a court case on these really weird and arcane procedural rules and technicalities.
	Nobody should win or lose a court case based upon the decision, in many cases, an arbitrary decision by a judge.
	It's just plain wrong.
	And most people intuitively, they know this.
	One of the things that I discovered from reading, you know, the law and reading case law is, to use one of your terms, how full of bullshit most of it was.
	I mean, I'm able to maintain certain ideas and maxims and principles in my mind when reading these things.
	And I do have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the various amendments as well as a sense of right and wrong.
	And when you read what's what has gone on with some of these cases and what they call case law, you know, in other words, prior court decisions that are used to justify other court decisions, you have to ask yourself, what the hell were they thinking?
	What is going on here?
	In other words, there's some things that just shock the conscious.
	OK, so we're living in a world, as you know, that's run by liars, liars, thieves and murderers.
	They don't have any morals or scruples, and they're running the media.
	They're running the court system.
	In many cases, all they have to do is make a phone call.
	OK, so that's what we're up against.
	We're not up against, you know, we're not dealing with the Constitution or the law, as I've made clear.
	So I mean, you know, you win.
	I mean, you deserve to win.
	Okay.
	But unfortunately, um, it's not, it's just not the way it's going to go down.
	And as far as Alex Jones goes, there's lots of stories about him.
	I never dealt with him.
	I never met him.
	I've never done business with him, but there's lots of stories online about who he really is and what he's like to deal with.
	Okay.
	I can tell you from, I heard it from somebody who knew who heard it firsthand that he was in business.
	He was doing business with John Stapmiller who started RBN and they were Okay.
	coming up together at the same time.
	And Jones screwed him over and even allegedly stole physical equipment.
	Okay.
	It got so bad that according to, I'll just say, well-placed sources, that Stattmiller pulled a gun on Alex Jones.
	Okay.
	And said he wanted to kill him, that he was thinking about shooting him.
	Okay.
	And if you've ever heard David Knight talk about Alex Jones and some of his shortcomings.
	So, yeah, there's lots of good and bad, but in the end, you know, you have to come away from the fact that Alex Jones is in many ways a liar.
	He's a liar and also a coward.
	See, you're not a coward.
	I respect you.
	You'll go to your grave saying nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	I have a feeling we could put you up against a wall in front of a firing squad and say, Jim Fetzer, all you have to do is say people died at Sandy Hook, children died at Sandy Hook, and we won't shoot you.
	And you just might say, screw you.
	See, that's the kind of person I've been most of my life.
	I used to joke about the IRS and say, you know what?
	The IRS could put me in front of a fucking firing squad in front of a wall and say, Paul, if you disagree to pay us $1 in income tax, uh, we won't, we won't shoot you.
	I'll just say, fuck you.
	I'm not paying you a nickel because I just feel like there's certain things you have to have integrity and character on.
	That's why I respect you.
	And I like you.
	Alex Jones is not like that.
	He's a sellout and a coward, and I think in many ways he's a liar.
	But on the other hand, all the stuff you read about Lew Rockwell, what he said about him and John Rappaport, it's all true.
	He's woke a lot of people up.
	He's covered important issues.
	So, you know, there's a spectrum to all human beings, but I just wouldn't trust Alex Jones.
	I would trust you implicitly.
	I would trust you with a penny.
	I would trust you with a million dollars.
	I would trust you to watch my baby.
	I would trust you to watch my puppy.
	I don't know if I would trust Alex Jones like that.
	Those are wonderful thoughts, Paul, very clearly expressed, and I greatly appreciate them.
	You're 100% correct.
	I'm not going to compromise.
	In many ways, that's why I didn't want to go the bankruptcy route.
	It did rise at one point or another, but I felt it was a concession, that I had done nothing wrong, and there's no reason in the world why I should make a concession, just as I have no interest in paying a single penny of these judgments.
	Because they're absurd, they're improper, and I'm going to protest them to the max of my ability.
	If it should prove to be the case that the Supreme Court rejects my petition, if they don't reverse my case, then I'll be in the quandary of, you know, I simply have no assets to pay them off anyway, so I'll just have them hang over my head until I'm put six feet under, but that's just the way it'll play out.
	You have my character right, and I'm profoundly grateful for those expressions, Paul.
	I want to bring back our caller from 724, who has such an excellent mind.
	Caller, please comment on anything Paul said or my question about why the court ought not now, from a modern point of view, to rule that the Seventh Amendment does apply to the states, as I am inviting them to do.
	Yeah, I'd have to take a look at that.
	I can tell you that there are, by the way, I mean, the Seventh Amendment isn't unique in that.
	There are other rights in the Bill of Rights that haven't been incorporated.
	You know, for example, there's the, in the Fifth Amendment, there's, you have a right to a presentment by a grand jury if you're going to be indicted.
	You know, and that says basically if you're going to be indicted, I don't remember exactly if it's a felony or whatever, you have, that has to be brought before a grand jury.
	The Supreme Court has said that that doesn't apply to the states.
	That binds the federal government.
	So there are a number of other things that haven't been incorporated.
	I believe, and I don't know it off the top of my head, I believe that they have some historical test and they also have some case law that says whether a constitutional right should be incorporated or not.
	I have to look at that test.
	To tell you what that is, and maybe I can send you that.
	But at the end of the day, though, I have to agree with what the other caller said, because at the end of the day, your work, like I said, you're working in, you tend to approach this as if the legal system is a machine that's going to follow the letter of the law, like a formal proving system.
	Like, you know, I'm making an analogy to that paper.
	And the reality is that there's political considerations, there are practical considerations that are taken into account, and that's why, but I think, I go back to, I don't frame it for you, I think you're framing it for yourself, that if you were to discharge this debt or stop Posner and them from going after you further in a bankruptcy filing, But that somehow means that you have lost or you admit that Sandy Hook didn't happen.
	It doesn't mean that it happened or whatever.
	I mean, that's your personal thing.
	I'm not going there.
	What I'm saying to you is that at the end of the day, that's you framing it that way.
	The way you could frame it is that the law being what it is, the law being what it is, if you file for bankruptcy, then the onus becomes on them.
	They would, if they want to prevent you from discharging their debt, they have to then show up in bankruptcy court work, which is now designed to protect your rights, not their rights, your rights.
	And they would have to actually have another trial in the bankruptcy court.
	Uh, and they would actually have to prove that you acted with malice.
	Well, I'm trying to remember what it is.
	A willful and malicious injury.
	I believe it is.
	They would have to show that you willfully defamed, uh, officer.
	And that you not only willfully did it, you did it maliciously.
	So you intend, that's a very hard bar to meet.
	And I don't think they'd be able to meet that in your case because clearly you, you believe the things you're saying and things like that.
	So I don't, I don't think that they would, they would, they may try because they try everything else, but I just feel that that may be your best option.
	And the reason I say that is, These people aren't going to stop.
	I mean, I told you this the last time I spoke with you, that to please be aware of the, you know, that there's an escape hatch for you through this bankruptcy system.
	And if you had done that, you perhaps would not have lost your website.
	And you know, what's to stop them now, Jim, from saying, well, we also own, we want to execute against his intellectual property on his Bitchu channel.
	Why can't they just say, well, that's a form of intangible property we want to execute against.
	We want to execute against all his other books.
	We want to take everything.
	I mean, at some point, I feel you have to, if you want to continue doing what you're doing, you're going to have to act to protect yourself.
	And I know that you want to see the Supreme Court play out, but you know, I have to agree with, um, with Paul, I can tell you that, uh, it's just very unlikely because they've had many opportunities to do this.
	Although I will tell you, um, it was within 2019, they incorporated They incorporate.
	There was another thing that they just chose to incorporate to the states.
	Again, the prohibition against excessive fines for many, many, you know, for hundreds of years, that was not incorporated against the states.
	And in 2019, they did incorporate that.
	So.
	So, I mean, you know, they did just do that.
	So maybe that'll work for you.
	But this case, you know, they've had other opportunities to incorporate.
	I don't know if they're going to do it with this case.
	Well, this has just been a sensational call from you both.
	Both you and Paul, I think, are spot on, and the advice you're giving, not legal advice, mind you, just your commentary, is fascinating to me and extremely valuable.
	And you're observing, I would still have the bankruptcy option available to me even as we speak.
	Yes, absolutely.
	I mean, it doesn't move your case.
	I mean, you just have to file, you file for Chapter 7, that automatically, but you know, what I'm saying, Jim, is it's like now it's almost kind of becoming too late, because already you're starting to become judgment-proof.
	And, you know, I would have done that before they took your websites.
	But, you know, what I'm saying is, you know, because you're not going to get them back.
	Um, I'd have to check into that.
	I don't really deal a lot with that, but there may be some provisions to claw back things that have been executed.
	You know, I'm not sure about that.
	I know there are in some ways that you can claw back items that have been taken, I think, within so many days of the bankruptcy, but there are conditions on that.
	But my point is if you want to litigate this again, because it seems like that's what you're trying to do, your best chance might be to do that through the bankruptcy case.
	Because then Posner's team has to come into court in bankruptcy court and they have to have another trial to argue that you intended to defame him and that you were malicious and things like that.
	And I just don't see that happening.
	But, you know, I'm saying that just from a practical point of view, and this is the last thing I'll say, you need to ultimately protect yourself.
	And, you know, if they're going to take everything you have and they're going to take your every blog you have and you're just going to keep keep trying to, you know, let me just say this.
	It's pretty clear to me that the court and the judge that you dealt with in Wisconsin was not, was not amenable to your arguments and he was not going to entertain what you were saying.
	So that's why I'm saying that, you know, I, my feeling is just get rid of their judgment and discharge them.
	Wow, you can, and then maybe if you need, you can save money, and then you know what?
	Then let them take, if they're going to take your camper or whatever you have, you know, you said you have some kind of a vacation home or something, I would have, I would have rented that thing out to a bunch of the rowdiest college kids in the universe for a couple weekends before they do a sheriff, you know, trust me, we know all the, we know all the tricks on how to do things like that, you know, you, you know, and have it
	And then let them take it and the minute it's gone, you know, there's other things you can do to try to do that.
	But, you know, I'm just saying that you're going to keep doing your work.
	I know that.
	But, you know, you also have to protect yourself and don't just die a moral victory because I'm never going to file bankruptcy.
	I'm going to go down with a fight and then they're going to just take everything, every piece of property you ever own and your websites and your get you channels and they're going to take all your books and who knows what they're going to go after next.
	Maybe he's right, they're not going to do that, but just protect yourself and don't give them any more tools.
	That's my advice to you.
	I'm going to come back to Paul.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Finish the thought.
	I'm just going to wrap up.
	No, but I mean, I don't, maybe he's right.
	They're not going to do that, but just protect yourself and don't give them any more tools.
	That's my advice to you.
	Don't give them any more tools to destroy your life and, you know, and do whatever you have to do to protect yourself and protect your future things.
	And I'd be very careful to not mention that person by name or whatever, but it seems like you've got a bunch of vultures here, you know, and that are very much going to try to do any, if they see money, they may, you know, to be honest with you, I have a feeling that they were probably disappointed when they found your finances were not what they expected that they were.
	One final question.
	They weren't able to, you know.
	So anyways, I'm going to let you go.
	But I really, you know, I wish you well.
	And I will send you those links that I recommended.
	And I just hope you're, I wish you well, but I hope you're realistic about things, too.
	I mean, yeah.
	One final question.
	If the Supreme Court does reverse and bind in my favor, aren't they obligated to return anything they've taken?
	Well, that's an interesting question.
	That's an interesting question.
	Under state law, I mean, it depends on the state.
	I can tell you the state that I know, that I'm in right now, an appeal does not stay execution of a judgment.
	So if someone is appealing something, the plaintiff is allowed to continue executing on the judgment.
	Typically, if the judgment is reversed, You can then, uh, you know, you can file a motion within the court to have the property turned back over.
	The judge may grant that.
	If not, you would actually have to file a separate action against them for, you know, um, you'd have to file a lawsuit against them to, for any value of the property that they took for you or to get a, you know, there's something called a, um, a, uh, action in REM.
	You know, you could try to have the property returned to you.
	Um, there are, there are other things, uh, you know, there are other types of cases to, um, To have the property returned to you that you can file.
	I mean, I'm not going to go into those here, but you know, there are, you would actually, it depends on the, I'm not, let me just back up.
	I'm not familiar with the law in Wisconsin.
	Okay.
	I know the law in my state.
	Sometimes you could just do, do a motion to a judge would just order it.
	Other places may require you to actually file a suit against them to to return the property.
	There is, there is a specific type of lawsuit that requires the return of property.
	Wonderful, wonderful.
	some states have.
	But I would say that, yes, if their judgment is thrown out in the best-case scenario for you, they would be then liable to you for anything they took from you.
	Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
	I can't thank you enough.
	I can't thank you enough.
	I've submitted motions for reconsideration and motions to stay that I'll send to you when I hear from you, so please do.
	I'm very grateful for this call, one of the most significant I've ever had on any show I've ever done, so I'm very grateful.
	Thank you so very much for all of the above.
	Paul, I know you want to add it briefly, and then we got Brian to get a few words in edgewise.
	Paul.
	Okay, yeah.
	So, I mean, I just wanted to comment.
	So, I agree with all that advice.
	It was a very long-winded way of saying that, essentially, Jim, you have nothing to be ashamed of.
	You're in the right.
	There's all kinds of, shall we say, you know, nefarious people and nefarious reasons people do this to, like, get out of pain and to keep money, okay?
	They screw people over in business and then they get out of it.
	You're not doing anything like that.
	You're protecting yourself from predators.
	Okay, so use whatever tools are available to you.
	That's what he's saying.
	That's what I'm saying.
	And I sort of more or less told you that from the start, without all that detailed knowledge.
	The only other thing I would take issue with what he said, was he he politely said the judge was not amenable to your argument.
	I laugh.
	I'm like that.
	Yes.
	The fix was in with that son of a bitch.
	And we both know it.
	And the fact of the matter is that anybody is entitled to their quote day in court.
	And what that means is you get to present your arguments in front of an impartial jury, or at least an impartial judge, and they get to weigh the facts and the evidence.
	We all know you were deprived of that.
	That's the big tip off that none of this is real.
	Go ahead, Brian.
	Thanks, Jim.
	Yeah, let me squeeze in, Brian.
	Paul, excellent call, excellent call.
	Brian, your thoughts here, and we're right at the end.
	Give us- I know, I'll make it quick.
	Yeah, Paul was spot on when he talked about all this, the law.
	I got a camera speeding ticket in Ohio and got this thing in the mail, and it was in capital letters, my name.
	I turned it over, and on the back I said, I can see by capital letters, you assume I'm a citizen of the United States.
	No, I'm a national residing in Missouri, and that was the end of it.
	Later on, when I got picked up on something, you know, in another state, they'll usually cause you problems, but I never got anything because of the things Paul was talking about.
	He's spot on.
	Well, thank you, Brian.
	Thank you, Paul.
	Thank you, Collar.
	Really fascinating stuff.
	I'm so glad we had this conversation.
	We're hitting the weekend.
	Spend as much time as you can with your neighbors, your relatives, and people you love and care about.
	We do not know how much time we have left.
	Spend it wisely with those you truly care about.
	Back on Monday with the raw deal right here on Revolution Radio, which really is a bastion for freedom of speech.

▲