All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 24, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
56:41
Cross Talk with Deana Pollard Sacks (23 August 2022)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they'll just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may The future is uncertain and
I know this.
Death is inevitable.
I know this.
But one thing is certain.
As freemen, it is our right to live unencumbered and in peace.
And those times are quickly drawing to an end.
And in these times, peace is certainly an illusion.
And as the chains grow tighter, our ability to slip those chains increase incrementally with every passing moment.
Inaction is no longer an option.
It's time to raise our voices.
Like a cacophony of thunder and lightning, and tell the masters, no more.
And this is Nighthawk, and I say, for myself, no more.
Revolution Radio Freedom Slips dot com because the freedom is slipping away.
Revolution Radio Freedom Slips
Now is the time for Counterspeech with Dina Sachs.
Bye.
Dina will guide us through the convoluted corridors of the American legal system, and she will explain how people can reclaim their country and restore true democracy.
Hi, everyone.
This is Dina Sachs.
Thank you for tuning in to Counterspeech on Revolution Radio.
I have my colleague with me today, James Fetzer, and he's actually going to be hosting the show.
So, thank you, Jim, so much for coming on with me again.
Oh, it's my great pleasure, Dina, and you get well, girl.
We need you.
You're doing so much good work.
Yeah, it's been a tough week, I'll tell you, but really appreciate your support.
I'm glad to be here, Dina.
And because you deal with so many legal issues, I thought I might share with your audience my experience in going to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I was sued back in... Go ahead, absolutely.
We're headed there ourselves on a case, so I'd love to hear your experience.
Wonderful, wonderful.
Well, I was sued in 2018 for an alleged defamation involving three sentences in a 440-page book.
Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control, where I brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs, to sort out what really happened.
We discovered that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were It was loaded with asbestos and other biohazards, damaged by a hurricane.
There would even be a major flood in the area in 2007, of which I was unaware at the time of publication.
But we were trying to sort out what happened at the alleged Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where, according to the official narrative, a young man, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, Only weighed about 112 pounds, allegedly had shot his mother at home with a .22 caliber rifle and then had come over to an elementary school in Sandy Hook and shot 20 kids and six adults before committing suicide.
There were many anomalies at the time.
It was all very, very strange.
They were broadcasting photographs of porta-potties in place.
There was pizza and bottled water at the firehouse.
There were many wearing name tags on lanyards.
There were parents bringing children to the scene, which seemed absurd for a child shooting massacre.
We have no reports of EMTs into the building, no string of ambulances to rush the little bodies off to hospitals where they could be pronounced dead or alive, no medevac helicopter called.
There were triage tarps put out, but no bodies, dead or wounded, were ever placed upon them.
And indeed, although according to the official report by Stephen Sedinsky III, There had been 489 students present that day.
If he's up track 20, for those who were allegedly killed, that 469 needed to be evacuated.
But Dickinson Drive, which was the only access route in or out, was so clogged, you would have been unable to get an emergency vehicle through, much less a string of buses of vision.
To evacuate 469 kids, not to mention some 70 custodians, cafeteria workers, administrators, secretaries, school counselors, gym instructors, and the whole like, which meant it was all extremely anomalous.
It looked as much as though it could be a staged event as it could be real.
So I brought together, pursuing A methodology I had pioneered with JFK.
I brought together a group of experts to sort out what really happened, and we discovered in short order that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students or teachers there, and that it was a FEMA drill for which we even discovered the FEMA manual.
From mass casualty exercise involving children that was being presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Indeed, one of our contributors, Paul Preston, who's rather well known for his Agenda 2021 radio show, who'd himself been a school administrator and supervised active shooter drills, was so troubled by what he saw broadcast from Newtown that day.
And reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, all of whom confirmed to him it had been a drill that no students had been harmed and it was done to promote gun control.
So when I was served with a complaint for a purported defamation, I thought this would be a perfect opportunity To get all of the evidence I'd amassed in the book through the judicial process and into the public domain in a form of vindication that would thereby be established.
I was quite astonished, therefore, when at the scheduling conference, the presiding judge explained that he was not going to allow me to argue that no one had died at Sandy Hook, that it had been a FEMA drill.
That we weren't going to go down that rabbit hole on the extensive ground that it was not relevant to the accuracy or truthfulness of the death certificate that was in dispute, which I thought was quite remarkable after all, having offered courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years.
If nobody sighed at Sandy Hook, then how could a death certificate alleging a decedent had died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds not be contradicted by that mass of evidence?
But the fact is, Dina, I mean, this is just astonishing.
This is the first sign I had other than the complaint itself.
Which attached a complete death certificate that had a file number, a town and state certification and said it was not materially different than the one published in the book, which was an incomplete death certificate that had no file number, no town or state certification.
And I draw the parallel with a driver's license.
Would anyone think that a complete driver's license with a driver's license number and a state stamp and certification Would have the same status be not materially different from an incomplete driver's license that had no driver's license number or no state stamp or certification.
It's obvious and it would take a very long time for me to eventually sort out after having gone through a trial for defamation where essentially.
None of the evidence that I wanted to introduce would be taken seriously, it all would be set aside, where there'd be a bifurcation in the case, where although I wanted to bring three counterclaims, one for abuse of process, as it was clear to me that the whole purpose of this lawsuit was to punish me for having brought together a group of experts to expose that Sandy Hook had been a staged event, where no one had died, what is known as
Strategic lawsuit against public participation, a slap suit, where individuals are drawn into court at great expense because they have to hire attorneys and is dragged out of court.
And even if they should eventually be successful in defending themselves, nevertheless, they've been severely reprimanded and punished.
And where in the course of event, I would even introduce The reports of not one but two forensic document experts who sided with me about the issue at stake here, which, by the way, I'm permanently enjoined by the court from reaffirming.
So if it sounds as though I'm being a bit indirect in my description, that's because I'm under a court order to not be more direct.
But where the court simply set aside the two expert document examiners reports as unhelpful, And where he found me guilty of a defamation, where I'm quite convinced I was not.
And when I appealed this to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for the 4th District, they published in consecutive paragraphs what the court considered to be reasonable, which was the official narrative that Adam Lanza shot his mother, then went to
Sandy Hook shot 20 kids, six adults, blah, blah, blah, citing two different court cases, one involving Neil Hesselin and another involving Donna Soto, both of which were decided on procedural grounds and where it even cited in the Court of Appeals, Fourth District for Wisconsin, that Neil Hesselin had claimed that he had held his dying son, Jesse, in his arms.
Whereas Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, during a rather well-known press conference, that was just laden with odd remarks, including that he hoped this didn't come crashing down on the good people of Newtown, that the parents were not allowed to see their children, that that would be suitable for another time, but rather were identified on the basis of photographs, which creates a presumption right off the bat.
Who is lying?
Because If Wayne Carver is telling the truth, the parents were never allowed to be in contact with their children.
But if Neil Hesselin is telling the truth and he held his dying child in his arms, they cannot both be true, but they can both be false.
And I'm the evidence I have is simply overwhelming because we even found the manual for the two day exercise, technically a mass casualty exercise involving children.
And as I've already been describing, It turns out the events on the ground were consistent.
For example, there was a portable sign that said everyone must check in.
Well, right in the manual, it says everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival.
And of course, FEMA drills provide restrooms and refreshments.
Hence, you had the porta-potties already in place and pizza and bottled water available at the firehouse.
And in fact, they identify the participants by color coded name tags on on lanyards.
OK, let me let me interject a little bit here because I'm hearing so many things that I've heard about in other cases as well, even in federal courts, which is to me a little bit surprising because federal courts.
Historically, I would say they are less likely to be tainted by corruption just because they're not elected.
They're in for life.
They have life tenure.
As a very broad statement talking to many lawyers, litigators, appellate lawyers, something has happened in our judicial system where it's kind of like our society at large.
People just make stuff up as they go along the way, and that's such a strange thing.
I remember seeing a commercial on Yeah.
TV a long time ago and this person had like a cookie all over his face and the neighbor said, Hey, cause he got something, whatever it was, he ate something of the neighbors, they said, Hey, and the guy just denied it.
No.
And the cookies are like falling out of his mouth.
And I'm like, it's like this, it's like, it's funny somehow to deny the obvious.
Um, but it's really not that funny if it becomes a social pattern and we're seeing it also in the courts.
It's one thing at large.
It's one thing among people who aren't in power.
It's another thing among judges to just, you know, completely violate the law, not allow discovery when it's clearly it's going to be reversed on appeal.
You can't make someone go to trial without their evidence.
And then you think the trial verdict is going to stick.
It is not going to stick.
The evidence needed to come in, but what they do is they run up the costs.
In Texas, I can tell you the Attorney General right now and his underlings, they go after females like misogynists on steroids.
They go after the women.
They discredit the women, humiliate the women, try to get their medical records, just looking for something.
And you know, some of us don't have anything in our medical records that's of any interest, but most people do.
And, you know, women have everything from breast implants to herpes to stuff in their records.
That's what they're digging for.
And they completely humiliated the lady who sued Halliburton, Jamie Lee Jones, I think, by doing that, getting into her medical records and telling people online that she had this or that.
It's just sick.
So there's a lot of misconduct going on.
I think a lot of it is traceable to the state's attorneys.
The government attorneys are a real problem.
They have no morals.
They have no ethics.
They do not uphold the oath of office on a regular basis.
There are just like defense attorneys, high paid defense attorneys in Jeffrey Epstein's or Harvey Weinstein's cases.
They are just totally, totally corrupt.
Immoral and violating the law and violating the standards of ethical conduct among lawyers.
So we're seeing just this massive loss of common sense and loss of ethics in the courts.
Now, on top of, you know, so you got this major problem we're talking about.
How do we fix this?
How do we fix this?
Well, I have some ideas about doing a judicial blacklist, but of course, federal judges can't be fired by the vote, but they can be impeached.
And with sufficient evidence, they could be impeached.
We need private websites for these things.
Private websites to judge the judges, put them on lists, put them on blacklists, get them out of office, things like that.
So there is a problem in the judicial system.
What you're describing to me, unfortunately, is common and not allowing evidence or just refusing to allow discovery in a case.
Those orders are especially hard to appeal.
Those orders I mean discovery orders what comes into evidence are largely left to the trial court's discretion.
Now not always obviously if it's important evidence that doesn't get to come in or like in your case none of the evidence got to come in that would be grounds to reverse the discovery order but in most cases They are unfair and there's just not much you can do about it.
So that's the overall problem we have in the court system.
Just people who have lost any sense of right and wrong.
Immoral people.
People with huge egos who say, I'm a federal judge.
I can do whatever I want.
Well, no, you can't.
And I always laugh saying, you know what?
You're going to be judged too one day, buddy.
You should be very nervous about that.
But aside from that, let me ask you something about your case.
How is it possible that with a city as big as Newtown, it's not a big city, but it's got thousands of residents, how could it have been kept secret that that school was closed?
And why hasn't any person who lives there come forward and said, I live a block from that school.
I know it was closed.
Where are the people?
How could you keep it secret if the school was closed and this thing happened supposedly?
Where's even a single witness to say that school was closed?
Well, actually, there were witnesses at the time where Alex Jones had, and I believe it was actually Dan Bongino.
Dan Bongino was there speaking to local residents who were saying they were surprised there weren't any students there because the school had been long closed.
But Sophia Smallstorm put her finger on the key.
Namely, it was a capstone event.
The Department of Homeland Security negotiates with communities for the right to conduct these drills, and they have everyone sign non-disclosure agreements.
In this case, they were for 10 years, and they're going to expire on December 31st of 2022.
So they're about to expire.
Some will may no doubt renew, others not.
But if you participate, you get benefits where I'm given to understand they include not having to pay any federal taxes.
In other words, they're basically hiring the whole community to participate and giving it a massive financial benefit, which I would guess Dina was on the order of a hundred million dollars to participate and that's independent of for example the fifty million they gave to the community to build a new school to replace the old one.
Which was in such a dilapidated state in fact when i heard the grant was for fifty mill this was simply a kindergarten through a fourth grade school.
And I looked at overall across the country for such a kindergarten through fourth grade school, the cost is only seven million on the average across the nation.
So they were getting seven times seven million.
Not only that, but sympathetic, but gullible Americans were contributing donations.
Which, by my best estimate, ran from $27 to $130 million, divided by the 26 surviving families.
That's between $1 and $5 million for feigning having lost a child at Sandy Hook.
And I'm willing to bet some of these were do-gooders who thought, we've got to show what could actually happen if we don't take guns away from the American people.
I believe originated in the fertile imagination of Eric Holder back in 1995, when at a National Democratic Women's Conference, he explained that we got to brainwash the American people in order to change their attitude toward guns.
And just to give you a follow-up, further confirmation, Not long before, this was in November before the December 14th event back in 2012, the mayor of Boston was on a show called Greater Boston that was hosted by Andy Rooney's daughter.
And he was boasting about how he was buddies with Joe Biden.
Now, the vice president had told him that gun control would be a done deal by January of 2013.
Well, Andy Rooney's daughter was just floored and said, what could possibly happen to call legislation to pass so fast?
A mayor would not say.
But it's very clear he was talking about Sandy Hook.
And indeed, in the aftermath, the governor would give a press conference where he said he and the lieutenant governor had been spoken to that something like this might happen.
And when I began to ponder what he could have meant, there were really only two alternatives.
First, that he'd been warned someone was going to go berserk and come into a Connecticut school and shoot up a bunch of kids, in which case he had the obvious obligation to warn the school systems to take measures to tighten their security to ensure that did not happen.
Or alternatively, he'd been told they were going to take an abandoned school, conduct a drill, and present it as mass murder to promote gun control, which is exactly what happened.
And when I asked, you know, by whom he had been spoken to, it turned out Eric Holder had traveled to Connecticut and met with the governor on November 27th.
For the event that would take place on 14 December, so less than three weeks before he'd been there to explain to the governor what was going on, which is why the governor had been spoken to that something like this might happen.
Dina, the evidence is just so overwhelming.
It's really shocking.
But yet the way they presented it was so cleverly designed to have maximal emotional impact.
I'm convinced they consult with social psychologists and psychiatrists about how to maximize the emotional impact.
So what we're really dealing with is a form of domestic terrorism.
Yes, it was a feigned act of terrorism, but it had the same impact because acts of terrorism are calculated to instill fear into a target population, to make them more amenable to manipulation, to promote a political agenda, in this case, gun control.
Yeah, no kidding.
Well, it's extremely disconcerting.
I have to think, though, that at least one person will choose not to sign an NDA and will go public, and maybe someone who's terminally ill, maybe someone who has, you know, has had a come to Jesus meeting, as my husband calls it.
You know, some epiphany, some idea that, you know, there's value to just being honest and telling the truth, and there's If you're religious, there's incredible power in doing the right thing and assuming that you will be protected in doing the right thing.
But I don't know if, you know, these people, I'll tell you when I drove through Connecticut to see a friend on the river there, we went kayaking.
It was really cool.
I was driving between Maine and Philly and stopped over there, but there was the creepiest vibe in the small communities around Connecticut.
Like, I don't know how to put it, just people were Just weird looking at each other as at the stop signs just really really staring into your car like what is that about it was weird so I thought Connecticut was weird and I thought that people were weird and kind of cliquish and that's actually really common too that's on the rise this cliquishness this bullying is on the rise and locals can be like that in any small community and I was in a kind of small Connecticut very upscale
um community so who knows maybe that's somewhat typical today but I just got the weirdest feeling I wanted to get out of there and I kind of felt the same way about Newtown I just didn't feel comfortable there and the people the way they behaved was like kind of like almost like if they had something to hide that's how they might treat people just real weird and just weird standoffish where you from just all these questions just like it just seemed odd so I I don't know what to say about that but I'll say there was a
Vibe that I felt that indicated something wasn't right in that area.
So I can only hope someone comes forward and decides to come clean because that's ridiculous.
And the other question I had for you is you said your PhD witnesses knew it was a FEMA drill.
Well, tell us more about who these witnesses are and what evidence they relied on.
Was it the pizza and the bathrooms being set up so quickly or what?
Who are the PhD witnesses and what did they say?
Did they sign declarations or affidavits?
What did they actually testify to?
No, this was collaborative research, Nina.
I brought together 13 experts, including five other PhDs, and we did our research and we discovered the FEMA manual.
And what I'm explaining is that the events on the ground, as they were being reported from Sandy Hook at the time, corresponded To what you'd expect if it were a FEMA drill, and they did not correspond to what you expect if it had been a real shooting event.
There were massive anomalies at the time.
Not only that, but the condition of the school was deplorable.
Now, in 2014, I traveled to Newtown with Wolfgang Halbig.
We spoke at a meeting of the school board that evening where we each had three minutes to speak and we knew that there'd be no questions we asked that the school board would actually answer.
But I asked, when were the parents informed that their children were attending school in a toxic waste dump, which in fact is the reason why the school had been abandoned by 2008?
But the forms of evidence are multitudinous.
We put up videos of the school building inside and out for months and had comments coming from teachers saying, oh, yes, that's what they do with an abandoned school.
They use it for storage.
They had the furniture all shoved up against the wall.
This was an event that took place on 14 December, which is approaching Christmas, but there were no Christmas or Hanukkah decorations.
I mean, that's what you do with a kindergarten school in the Christmas season.
You make decorations, but it's bereft of decorations.
There are all kinds of stains inside.
There's moss on the building.
It's completely unkempt.
It's not consistent with American with Disabilities Act requirements.
There's no handicap parking.
That means that I verified Connecticut law and federal law at the time.
It could not have been legally operating as a public school.
There was no special faculty or staff parking.
There was no unloading dock.
If you looked at a photograph of the parking lot, it was very peculiar because the two center rows of vehicles were all part facing the building.
When if you came in from Dickinson Drive, the driving instructions clearly demarcated on the driveway itself indicate you curl to the right and then around and would park facing away.
But in this case, it appears it was simply much easier to bring them all in a single file and put them in two by two by two.
After all, who's even going to notice?
As a lawyer, who took the photos showing the state of the school before the supposed shooting?
Who had the photos that it was abandoned, mossy, toxic?
Who took those photos?
Because that's critical to lay a foundation and to authenticate the photos.
So who took those photos?
Well, it was local news was flying over and taking the photos.
Connecticut State.
Before the whole Sandy Hook thing, right?
Back when it was abandoned?
No, they were doing it on the day of the alleged shooting.
I mean, that was big news, right?
It was news all over the nation, even all over the world.
Again, as a lawyer, I'm looking for the credibility of the witnesses.
I'm looking for authenticating the photographs.
I'm looking for laying a foundation for the photographs to show this.
And I'm not hearing that kind of evidence that I would need as a lawyer, that a judge will need.
And so you're talking about all these things, these pieces of information and evidence, but I'm trying to trace it back to verify Who these people are, who took the photos, how we know they're real, you know, who are these local witnesses saying that school was closed?
And it seems like it sounds like a lot of buzz and not a lot of clear evidence on these issues, but you're saying you had a local resident who was going to testify about the school being closed for many years and that person what disbailed on you or what happened with that No, Dean, I'm saying Alex Jones had a reporter on the scene whom I believe was Dan Bongino, who was actually talking to local residents who were saying they were surprised.
There's overwhelmingly more evidence, Dina.
There was no evacuation of 469 students.
It didn't take place.
for years.
But there's overwhelmingly more evidence, Dina.
There was no evacuation of 469 students.
It didn't take place.
And what they showed us that was supposed to be an evacuation involving a string of 15 students was actually a stage photograph because Shannon Hicks, the Newtown photographer, took that photograph, has acknowledged also taking an earlier photograph, I'd say about five minutes has acknowledged also taking an earlier photograph, I'd say about five Where you see a whole lot of parents there casually looking on, hands in their pockets, where they're rearranging the kids to get a better shot.
So in the earlier photograph, you got a little girl in a pink sweater and a short skirt, but they replaced her with a little boy in blue jeans and a dark sweater.
He was more telegenic.
It was a better photograph.
But what would parents be doing there?
Mind you, Shannon Hicks has written and confirmed she took both photographs.
These photographs show that the famous picture that was sent around the world, what was supposed to be an evacuation, was in fact a staged photograph.
And you can see parents just so casually looking on that I've described this second photograph, which was taken earlier, where you can see the parents as lounging at the massacre.
And then we have a whole host of other photographic evidence that confirms that.
One is we have a crime scene vehicle in the parking lot and there's crime scene tape up.
The flag is at full mass.
You got Wayne Carver leaning against the wall with his arms folded, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
But there's a string of windows in Classroom 10 that are undamaged.
Now, this is crucial.
Because after the event, they'd be shot out, but here they're not shot out, which means that either this photograph was taken with the crime scene tape up for a crime before it had even been committed or alternatively, although officially the crime had already taken place, they had yet to finish how they were fabricating the evidence.
And where I did an interview with Brian Davidson, who's a PI in Texas, about his mastery of internet research techniques.
So I thought, including a photograph.
So I thought, well, I'll just try out Brian.
And I tossed him this photograph without any identifying information.
He tracked it to the parking lot at Sandy Hook.
He identified the magazine where it had first been published, and better yet, he tracked it to the photo archives of the Connecticut State Police.
Well, it turns out we're running the scene, the whole operation behind the scene.
He got in there and found all kinds of photographs inside the school, including of the hallway where there was supposed to be two bodies, but there is not even a speck of blood inside classroom 10, which is supposed to be loaded with a stack of little bodies that they didn't even remove until the dead aligned, according to the medical examiner.
And not only are there no bodies, there's no blood, there are no pockmarks.
It turns out they even fabricated holes in the window there, of those string of windows, where they used a drill.
They drilled through the aluminum, and they stuck pink rods in, and the pink rods are all exactly parallel to one another, 90 degrees to the window panes.
And guess what?
They had removed the metadata from the photographs so that it would not be possible to introduce into a court of law, which obviously is an indication of consciousness of guilt.
But this one photograph is so outstanding, Dina, because even if you do not have the metadata, the vehicle is there, and yet the windows are undamaged.
So it's a clear implication that the Connecticut State Police were involved in running the shot behind the scene.
And indeed, in my book, In Chapter 7, I had 50 photographs that came from the Adam Lanza home, which appears to have been a rental that they just furnished for the occasion, where Kelly Watt with her keen eye spotted that in the Nancy Lanza bedroom, we have some red stuff on the bed, but it doesn't look like
Blood to me, maybe raspberry jam, or they had some folders on a cedar chest because we also find in other photographs from the house because they were keeping records of how they arranged the furniture.
And then with her keen eye, no doubt because she has her own commercial and home cleaning service, she spotted a blue moving pad that in their haste they had forgotten to remove.
They tried to make it look as though we're still in functional school.
and refurbishing the school, even including the moving vans that came in with new furniture to try and make it look as though we're still in functional school.
But as I say, those photographs also, although I did not know it at the time, came from the archives of the Connecticut State Police who were really doing quite an exceptional job, Dina, photographing their own handiwork I mean, it's really stunning what we have here.
I think the proof could hardly be more conclusive.
And, you know, if someone came forward and said it was a fake, That party would no doubt be attacked and an attempt would be made to discredit them.
I think you have to look at the totality of the evidence.
We have the FEMA manual, the events on the ground correspond to the manual.
They contradict that it was actually an emergency situation.
I mean, look, when you have no EMTs rushing into the building, who's pronouncing the kids dead?
EMTs are not allowed to do that unless, say, the head is severed from the body.
They had to be transported to a hospital to be pronounced dead or alive, but they were never transported to the hospital.
And the idea of leaving these bodies in a pile inside the classroom is just ridiculous.
Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, said, They didn't allow the parents to come in contact with the kids, but identified them on the basis of photograph and that he had very good photographers.
And it's rather clear to me that's because the kids, for the most part, only existed in the form of photographs.
For example, Noah Posner, who is a decedent over whose death certificate I was being sued, turns out to have been a legal fiction manufactured out of photographs of his The party's supposed to be his older half-brother, Michael Vavner, when Michael Vavner was a child, just as when the lawsuit was taking place and we had Lenny Posner, who's supposed to be Noah Posner's father, come.
I'm convinced the man who came and testified under oath as Leonard Posner is actually Ruben Vabner, who is the father of Michael Vabner, so that when the plaintiffs during the course of the trial wanted to have a blood sample comparison between Noah Posner and Leonard Posner, I said, because I'd been insisting from the beginning, the very first sentence of my answer said, assuming the plaintiff is a real person,
Alluding to this person calling himself Leonard Posner, I said, let's expand the DNA sampling to include not only Noah Posner and Leonard Posner, but Michael Vabner and Ruben Vabner, which a judge declined to do.
But they got a match, even though they got the blood sample from the wrong storage facility in Connecticut.
Well, because actually the party was playing the role of Noah Posner to it.
Michael Vavner is actually the biological son of the man playing the role of Leonard Posner, whose real name is Reuben Vavner.
But the judge, if I had 20 motions before the court during all of this, Dina, I mean, extending now to a taking of my blog and the book to satisfy a financial judgment, which isn't even legal under the procedures here in Wisconsin.
I must have made 20 motions.
Every single one of my motions has been denied by the court.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's the thing is that, like I said, we're seeing more and more courts just, you know, not doing the right thing.
What you're describing in terms of the sloppy sloppiness is exactly what I saw at TSU where I worked for 20 years and this school ran off numerous female professors by allowing and in fact promoting the people who committed sexual assault
Hid sexual harassment of other men's the other men committed inside the law school And they actually we found a pattern of not just not doing anything about these very serious complaints filed by women with law degrees from Harvard and Berkeley and two from Harvard and I mean, it's just incredible and That the way they handled everything was so despicably unprofessional and just not being sloppy.
You know just hiding documents, shredding documents, leaving a trail behind them, falsifying documents, us being able to verify that through other documents.
I mean that's what people do when they think they're immune and this is an HBCU and I can tell you Every time something came to pass in the faculty meetings, you know, the ABAs threatened to shut down the law school for its, you know, 35% bar passage rate or 55, whatever it is, way below the standard.
The professors would all start screaming racism and they would literally scream, bang the table and call it racist.
And I don't think it was.
I think this was just a technical problem with the school, but it doesn't matter.
They were immune for their own reasons.
Being an HBCU, they're almost immune.
So that's what they did, and it was such sloppy, foolish behavior.
But we see that over and over again.
Look at Bill Clinton denying, you know, I had never had sex with that woman, not realizing there's hard, cold evidence in her closet.
I mean, when you're going to deny something with that amount of vigor and attitude, Wouldn't you think they would make sure there wasn't evidence showing it's not true?
But because they're so used to getting away with it.
I mean, he's not stupid.
Bill Clinton is smart.
So he didn't even bother saying to himself, you know, there is evidence out there.
Maybe I should not say it like that.
He did the cockiness.
So this is what I find so disconcerting.
Are you aware that the Sheriff's Department in LA Has an investigation going on about a subgroup of certain sheriff's deputies who are in a clique, a gang.
They're in a gang.
Listen to this.
Some of these high-ranking people in the sheriff's department are refusing to give testimony, refusing to answer questions.
How can this be happening?
We've got a gang apparently, allegedly, inside the L.A.
Sheriff's Department of sheriff's deputies on the streets doing things to people And they're all like protected by like almost like a what do you call it the Freemasons?
What's the old group?
I think that's the word.
So it's just it's there's a lot of really deeply entrenched and organized misconduct.
Well, Dina, there's a fascinating aspect of my case that is not typical, which is the following that in Wisconsin, The judges are allowed to decide whether facts are reasonable or not on the basis of their subjective opinion, and if they think they're unreasonable, they can set them aside as though they did not exist.
So while I had the FEMA manual, I had FBI consolidate crime report for 2012.
Showing that in the category of murders and non-negligent manslaughter in Newtown, which includes Sandy Hook, the number was zero.
I had the final report from Stephen Sedinsky, the Danbury State's attorney, on what happened at Sandy Hook, which failed to establish a causal nexus that tied together the alleged shooter with his mother.
And the weapons he's supposed to have used are the 20 kids and six adults.
I mean, it's a forensic failure.
He could never have been convicted on that basis.
It became clear to me only when at the appellate court level, they said in consecutive paragraphs, it is reasonable to believe, and there followed the official media endorsed narrative, it's not reasonable to believe it was a FEMA drill to promote gun control, blah, blah, blah.
In other words, you could hardly have Facts that were more obviously in dispute than those of Leonard Posner and Jim Fetzer.
But the court in this case simply set aside Fetzer's facts to make their no disputed facts so that he could rule in favor of Leonard Posner on a defamation.
And when I billed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they declined to review, which left me 90 days to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
And at this point, I'd come to the realization that the summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin was completely out of whack, that it did not protect a defendant's right to a jury trial, and thereby violated the 14th Amendment, which says all citizens of the United States are entitled to equal due process under law.
Because in Texas, for example, what would have happened is they would have assumed all of the plaintiff's claims about the facts are true and then ask all of the defendants, my facts are true.
In other words, that it had been a FEMA drill.
No one died.
It was, you know, it's a remote gun control.
And then ask the plaintiff in that case, Leonard Bowser, whether he agreed.
And if he did not agree, then it would have gone to a jury to sort out the disputed facts.
But in Wisconsin, that did not happen.
So what I have done now is to submit a petition to the United States Supreme Court based on the violation of my 7th and 14th Amendment rights.
I've explained how the summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin is out of whack with that of other states, that we have a clear conflict between the states, I'm given to understand by a retired professor of law That the abuse of summary judgment is a major problem affecting the American judicial system today.
So I believe, I believe, Dean, I've teed it up for the Supreme Court to whack this ball down the fairway, not just reversing the finding in my case, but acting to benefit all the residents of Wisconsin.
And indeed, if there are any other state jurisdictions where they're out of whack, To set it all right, and I believe they're going to do just that.
I have made it through 10 of the 12 steps to be heard by the Supreme Court.
My case is included in conference on the 28th of September.
I will know by the 3rd of October whether or not the Supreme Court is going to hear my case.
And because there are four criteria The court uses to select cases where mine ranks high on all four.
Number one, is it a publicly significant case?
Well, because I'm a high profile defendant, because of my Sandy Hook skepticism, it's a case drawing great attention from the public.
Is it a legally significant case?
Yes, of course, because the summary judgment procedure in Wisconsin is grossly biased in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants.
Does it represent a conflict between the highest courts of different states?
Yes, it does.
Well, I use both Texas and Wisconsin to contrast and illustrate the point.
Then fourth of all, does it involve correcting a major error in regulation of factor process?
And obviously it does, because the procedure to which I was subjected was completely wrong and inappropriate.
So even though I was in court, Just last Wednesday, Dina, because they pursued this matter of my having 1.1 million in judgments against me to claim my blog and the book itself, which are forms of intellectual property that require under the law the appointment of a receiver.
The judges went ahead and gave them directly to the plaintiff in this case, and it turned out the timing was exquisite.
I thought it was very odd they were doing this now, because, I mean, the case has been settled for quite a while now.
But it was because Alex Jones' trial was taking place, and they knew that on the 28th of July, Alex Jones' trial was going to be used to attack me, Sophia Smallstorm, James Tracy, Wolfgang Helbig.
And when they started talking about me, they didn't want the public to look to jamesfetzer.org and find the vast repository of information I have about Sandy Hook.
So they took the blog on the 28th of July, just when a producer for Alex Jones was on the stand and being asked by an Alex Jones attorney about an email from Paul Joseph Watson to Alex Jones saying, We've got to keep as far as we can away from that batshit crazy fat sir.
There just might be a lot of Americans, Dina, who'd want to know what that batshit crazy guy had to say.
So they had to make sure they couldn't do it.
Because for all the kinds of evidence I'm adumbrating here, it's all available and documented on my blog.
So they took the blog and they transferred it to look at court documents related to this taking.
Well, I'm still engaged in protesting against it and where the judge denied my motion for reconsideration and my motion to stay.
I was making the fairly obvious point that since my case is already up to the conference level before the Supreme Court, why don't we wait and let the Supreme Court rule before we go about this taking business where I and my other motion had explained the taking was improper because you can only use financial
Uh, solutions for financial judgments, and this was not, and that you had to appoint a receiver to figure out the value of intellectual property, which was not done, but he denied both motions.
So I'm now contemplating an appeal of that motion to stay.
But Dina, the timing was clearly in relation to the Alex Jones trial, which we're trying to convert as a way to attack everyone who's a skeptic about Sandy Hook.
Or about any other major government claims such as JFK 9-11 and all the rest.
Yeah.
Well, you know what, Jim, I think you should definitely seek donations through your website.
I know Alex Jones for a while had donations coming in to help him in his defense.
And by the way, listeners, while you're at it, please get on to freedomslips.com and give a donation to Revolution Radio.
Keep us on the air, keep us talking.
And Jim, the other thing I was going to say to you is what strikes me, I keep doing like a big broad view of this, what strikes me is especially concerning is how all the people who discuss Sandy Hook as being a FEMA drill or being some kind of something being wrong with it just doesn't add up.
They've all been attacked with in well in civil courts because civil sanctions can be a thousand times literally more punitive than criminal sanctions.
And that's exactly what the Supreme Court said in New York Times versus Sullivan, because the civil penalties were a thousand times more than the highest criminal penalty in that case.
So they go after people civilly.
The standard is lower, easier to prove civil liability.
And then if they're on the take somehow, they can.
eliminate your evidence to prove your case.
And then you go to court with either no evidence or what they did is threw your evidence out before you even got to court before a jury.
But, you know, they give the jury, you know, one piece of evidence out of five or 10 pieces and the jury doesn't really know what to think.
They basically ruin it for the plaintiff to be able to prove his or her case.
So then you have to go to trial a second time because they're reversed on appeal normally because what they did is they know what they're doing is not just unconstitutional, but unlawful, unethical, depriving a plaintiff of her evidence specifically to run her through the court system, that kind of thing that's going on in Texas.
And not just with me in my case, numerous witnesses.
So, in fact, I had some of them testify about what was done to them by Ken Paxton's office and his little assistant attorneys general, who are not very talented, by the way.
I mean, really nasty.
And, you know, the kind of guys like with the one I dealt with, you take one look at him.
And you can see, you know, he's got a problem with women.
He's been rejected by women.
I can see it in his eyes.
The guy's a puffy nightmare, very angry toward women.
I could see it in him.
And I had to deal with this guy.
He's short, too.
He's just had a problem.
He's had some problem with women.
I could feel it.
When you're a female and a guy has that kind of anger and hatred toward women, and he's divorced already, he's not that old.
I mean, he's got major problems.
And they will take it out on a female who, you know, is making more money than they are, which I was making double his dollar.
I mean, all that stuff.
They want to know.
Nail a female.
That's what they do.
And that's why I might in my second book, I have a whole section called the numbers of me to that go way beyond sexual assault.
It goes to the way women are treated in court, the way professional athletes, lawyers, doctors are targeted for abuse, target for slander.
And of course, your prettiest women, like your models and actresses are also targeted terribly in so many ways to just rip them apart because I guess because they're so pretty and they're in the spotlight, I don't know.
But there's a lot of stuff going on.
And if you're on the outside, like you and Alex are on the outside of the mainstream, your thorns in their side, you know, they're attacking.
And when reporters are attacked like this, at this level, it's one of the things mentioned in Naomi Wolf's book, The End of America, when reporters and journalists are put in jail or fined at the level you and Alex Jones were fined, that shuts down reporters.
And that's always part of a fascist takeover because part of fascism is not letting the public know what's really going on.
So my biggest concern with you, I mean, I hear the details.
I've heard the details.
My biggest concern is a kind of a global review of what's happening and how the reporters who are—this is political speech.
This is the most fiercely protected speech.
Snyder v. Phelps said that again.
This is political speech.
If you're talking about the government lying to us, that occupies the highest rung of First Amendment protection.
Your number one claim is First Amendment protection.
All the other stuff just melts away compared to The way the courts have upheld First Amendment protection of political speech.
So they managed to deprive you of it.
You know, you should, other people should have been allowed to question you, you know, debate you.
But that's what we're supposed to be about is open debate on these political issues.
And instead they are shutting people down through fines and, you know, they can't afford it.
I mean, Alex Jones I assume the jury determined he could pay $45 million because when you assess punitive damages, you look at the defendant's net worth.
But my goodness, I was surprised.
I never thought he could afford a chargement like that.
Well, I'm told that in Texas, Dina, actually there's a max of $750,000.
So I think he's not going to wind up paying anywhere near that amount.
But I think it's a public relations state.
I sought to interview in all three of Alex Jones cases, and you're going to see two more unfold to point out that no one had ever determined, there'd been no judicial determination, whether anybody died at Sandy Hook on which the cases are all premised.
And I was opposed by both sides.
That I'd be opposed by the plaintiffs was not surprising, but that I'd be also opposed by the defendant.
Came as quite a surprise.
I even wrote to one of his attorneys and offered to serve as an expert witness on his behalf, but there was no interest shown.
And I appreciate it.
It was kind of you to mention.
I do have a fundraising site at GiveSanGo.com slash FundingFetzer.
GiveSanGo.com slash FundingFetzer.
What do you mean GiveSanGo?
How do you spell that?
g-i-v-e-s-e-n-d-g-o-dot-com.
Oh, give, send, go.
Got it.
Give, send, go.
Got it.
Got it.
I couldn't understand what you were saying.
Yeah, well, I'm glad because you guys need support and the people who understand that, you know, you really weren't given your due process rights to establish your First Amendment rights, which you had the right to do, people should pitch in.
They should pitch in and help you.
You'll love this, Dina.
Even though I submitted to the judge a seven-page summary overview, including all my credentials as an investigative journalist, he never ruled on my status as a journalist, which would have made it impossible to bring the finding of defamation against me because I'd done nothing negligent.
I'd shown due diligence.
I'd shown thorough research and good reasons for everything I claimed in the book.
And by not acknowledging my status as a journalist, he made it possible to render a finding that otherwise he could not have.
Right, because it's a private figure, the plaintiff was a private figure of public concern, which would require only a negligent standard.
If it was a public figure, it would have been a higher standard called actual malice, which means you knew it was not true.
You knew it was not true, and you said it anyway, and that's a higher standard.
But you had probably the middle standard, GERTS.
Thank you so much for your time and coming in and telling us all about your case, Jim.
Thanks, Nina.
Thank you so much.
amendment liability for speech so i'm so sorry this happened i um i know how thorough you are so i i don't know personally about what happened i only know what people have told me i wish i'd been there so much i wish i could say for sure what i saw there but anyway thank you so much for your time and coming in and telling us all about your case jim and thanks dina thank you so much i'll see you soon okay you got it my friend Thank you.
▲
Export Selection