All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:55:44
The Raw Deal (21 September 2022) with Paul from CA and Mike Sledge
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I never needed anybody's help in any way.
But now these days are gone and I'm not so self-assured.
Now I find the chamber mine.
I've opened up the doors.
Help me if you can.
I'm feeling down.
And I do appreciate you being around.
Help me get my feet down.
Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on the Raw Deal.
We have several issues to address today, but I'm very delighted to have two special guests.
Paul from California, with whom everyone is familiar, and Mike Sledge.
We're going to be spending most of the show today addressing an attack piece by an unusual and unexpected source, Miles Mathis.
Where he's addressing the Alex Jones trial, but spending most of his time savaging me as though I were some kind of phony and fake, claiming my trial was staged, the whole bit.
It's really fascinating.
Paul had the idea for doing this show, so I'm going to bring him in after I review some late developments here that are really indispensable to add to today's show.
Namely, GOP's hardline tactics on migrants refocuses the midterm debate.
The Democrats are doing everything they could to shift attention away from the mass migration, soaring inflation, the pandemic, all the clumsy, the attack on Mar-a-Lago and all that.
Well, it's not working.
They've delivered migrants on planes and buses to Washington, New York City, even Martha's Vineyard.
And the Republican governors of Florida and Texas may just be getting started.
They insist these dramatic steps are needed to highlight the genuine crisis at the Mexican border, where millions have crossed the border.
I think this was completely appropriate.
I applaud Abbott, and especially DeSantis, By sending them up to Martha's Vineyard, they made a sensational statement.
It's dominated the news ever since.
It's going to carry on right up to the midterm elections, and justifiably so.
You cannot have a nation invaded by millions of migrants and not permanently affect its character, its quality of life, It's demographics and its future.
This has been disgusting and abdication of duty and responsibility.
And I believe now the voters aren't going to be dissuaded even by the Mar-a-Lago nonsense.
Even Mitch McConnell climbed on board.
I thought it was a good idea, he observed.
The governor's rhetoric was reminiscent of former President Trump's dire warnings about the 2018 that a Margaret Carvin threatened the southern border.
They lost members in the midterm for Trump.
Well, imagine what's going to happen now.
Democrats from California and Connecticut have generated momentum campaigning on the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the subsequent Bush outlawed abortion in dozens of states.
Meanwhile, the Republicans want to make the midterms a referendum on President Joe Biden and concerns about the economy, crime and immigration.
This week, at least, immigration is leading the national debate.
I'm very impressed.
I'm very happy.
This is quite significant, major development.
I believe it's going to endure right up to the midterms.
Here's another from Political Insider.
Biden.
Mega extremist speech backfires.
More Americans worried about socialists left than mega.
It seems that Biden and the Democrats are running out of scare tactics in the run up to the midterm elections.
His divisive and inflammatory speeches suggesting half his fellow Americans are extremists who pose a threat to democracy are not having the intended effect, at least according to a recent Harvard poll.
The new Harvard-Capps-Harris poll shows more Americans are concerned with left-wing socialists than mega hat-wearing Republicans, and that's not the only poll result that's driving the left up the wall.
For starters, the poll asked, are you more concerned about the socialist left in America and the power they're gaining, or more afraid of mega Republicans and the power they are getting?
Only 45% were more troubled by MAGA, 55% more concerned about the Socialist Left.
Harvard also posed this question.
Do you think there are tens of millions of dangerous MAGA Republicans backing violence and trying to overthrow the Constitution, or is that an exaggeration and a distortion?
54% say they think the numbers are grossly exaggerated.
Incredibly, to me, 46% said they believe there are tens of millions of dangerous mega-Republicans.
How idiotic is that?
Broken down, the percentage came out 73% of Democrats, 42% of Independents, and 20% of Republicans.
The hits just keep coming.
56% of respondents have doubts about Biden's mental fitness compared to 44% who have no doubt.
How can Anyone have no doubt about his fitness, if you've been paying any attention at all, if you've ever watched him speak.
As to who are the top three most favorable politicians, Trump takes the top, Biden a distant fourth, behind Mike Pence and Bernie Sanders.
And I'll guarantee you, Ron DeSantis is climbing by leaps and bounds, by the narrowest of margins.
51% think the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was politically motivated.
Here's a tweet from TC.
Maybe people are starting to wake up.
How the hell can an American be offended by the slogan, Make America Great Again?
The majority of Americans are more concerned about socialists left than mega-Republicans.
A Harvard Caps poll also has responded to what they thought of Biden's Soul of the Nation speech.
56% opposed the speech.
60% thought it was divisive.
40%—and this just dumbfounds me—thought it would be unifying for the country and move it forward.
Another 54% said the speech was fear-mongering.
46% said they believe those fears are justified.
But only a day later, Biden was attempting to walk back, saying, I don't consider any Trump supporter a threat to the country.
He continued, I want to be very clear up front, not every Republican, not even the majority of mega Republicans, not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.
I know because I've been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.
There's no question the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the mega Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.
How absurd can you get?
Kyle Becker tweets!
The socialist left is not going to back off.
They've been building up for cultural hegemony for decades.
They believe all of our institutions and morality represent illegitimate power structures, and thus are justifying things we consider immoral to destroy them.
As is usually the case, the media wasted no time after Biden's speech to deliver the message, Republicans are a threat to democracy.
A frequent far-left MSNBC guest, Ellie Meistel, for example, unimpressed with Biden's extremist mega-rant and actually thought he didn't go far enough.
I don't know who it's not all Republicans, just mega-Republicans is.
I'm sure there are some white supremacists who will vote with white supremacists who don't think they are white supremacists.
It's not for me.
A few days later on CNN, And unhinged, Roland Martin declared, this means war.
This is where we are.
We are at war with these people.
These folks are evil.
They have allowed evil into their house with Donald Trump.
He has now dominated the party.
This evil is spreading.
Martin also felt Biden didn't go far enough and needed to get tough with mega Republicans.
He said, in addition, When you're in a war footing, you have to respond accordingly.
It's about time Joe Biden got up.
According to the Harvard Caps poll, a majority are not buying Biden's extreme Republican slime.
Kind of makes you wonder what they're going to think of next.
Here's Carolina Castillo tweeting, Why are more Democrats leaving the Dem party?
Most voters, like myself, believe the Dem party is unrecognizable in his move.
Far left.
Voters are waking up.
Thank God.
In response to the headline, majority of Americans more concerned with a socialist left than mega Republicans.
Here's another.
Kevin Newsom comments about migrants arriving in Democrat cities are backfiring.
Like many Democrats, Newsom is seething over the immigrants being rerouted from border states to left-wing sanctuary cities, as though declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities didn't mean that they want to be sanctuaries for migrants, but where Martha's Vineyard political theater called the bluff and exposed the hypocrisy.
Newsom claims it's immoral, even calling for the Department of Justice to investigate Florida and Texas for having these migrants transferred.
Of course, in the case of Abbott, he sent busloads to the Vice President Harris's home at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., where Sanders sent two plane loads of 50—just a total of 50—to Martha's Vineyard.
And they had a fit over it.
Newsom went ahead to pick a fight with Ron DeSantis.
As Newsom vocalizes his outrage, he's not talking about a similar program he oversaw during his time as San Francisco mayor.
Then Mayor Newsom started a program called Homeward Bound.
Homeward Bound allowed homeless people to get free bus rides to other communities.
Newsom's outrage toward Republican governors not wanting their communities to be overrun is deeply hypocritical, given his previous defense of Homeward Bound.
When he left San Francisco, he described Homeward Bound as an avenue to help folks turn their lives around.
Brian Murray tweets, Oh, the irony.
When Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom launched Operation Homeward Bound, where they brought homeless people one-way bus tickets out of town.
The contortions these people make always amaze me.
Stunning!
Then Mayor even said homeless people in San Francisco had relatives or loved ones in other cities who could help them out.
Homeward Bound was just a means of transportation.
This saw the overwhelming majority of homeless people transported outside of California rather than simply outside of San Francisco.
Newcomb, of course, is not eager to talk about it today because it undermines, really, completely vitiates the anger he's directing toward GOP governors in Florida and Texas.
As Newsom escalates his attacks against Republicans, especially DeSantis, he's taking a lot of heat on social media, not just because of Homeward Bound.
Americans have suggested Newsom should be less worried about Republican governors and more focused on his own state.
Here's a given newsome tweet.
Hey, Governor DeSantis, clearly you're struggling, distracted and busy playing politics with people's lives.
Since you have only one overriding need, attention, let's take this up and debate.
Oh, bring my hair gel.
You bring your hairspray.
Name the time before Election Day.
Oh, that would be a winner.
Let's see a Newsome-DeSantis debate.
A lot of Americans would pay money for that.
To this day, of course, California is overrun with homelessness, growing crime, high taxes, unaffordable cost of living.
The state's electric grid isn't doing so well either.
Recall just after Newsom declared that only electric cars would be allowed as new cars in California beginning in 2035.
They had a statewide blackout with rolling electricity and declaring you can't charge your car between the key hours of the rush hour.
Which would mean if this were for real, anyone who had electric cars, and if they want to make that everyone in California, is going to be frozen in place.
We're talking about a disaster that isn't just going to happen, it's already happening.
Newsom continues to attack Republican governors while people are leaving the state and moving to others like California.
California's population decline has been so swift it lost a seat in the House after the 2020 census, and believe me, it's going to lose more.
All things considered, Newsom has bigger fish to fry than how GOP governors are choosing to protect their communities.
Now, I'm so delighted that Paul suggested we do a show today About Miles Mathis' publication, Alex Jones' second fake trial.
I was unaware that Miles Mathis had published this.
Paul, of course, has had an extremely high opinion of Miles Mathis.
I thought the guy was quite brilliant.
But in this instance, he completely lost his way.
Paul, I'm so glad to have you here, and Mike, too, of course, and I'm simply delighted you proposed this idea.
And I just read your post to Miles Mathis himself, suggesting you might want to tune in.
Tell us what's going on here, Paul.
Reading this, I was floored.
Right.
Well, thanks for having me on, Jim.
I appreciate it.
I know you're taking a chance because Mike and I are the Dangerous to democracy that Joe Biden speaks of.
You know, I've made it clear on your show before that I do have a high opinion of Miles Mathis.
I think that he's probably one of the premier, shall we say, intellects and analyzers of events online.
And I know that in the past here and there, I've exchanged a couple of emails, just brief mentioning, for example, some photo I saw or a story.
And on occasion he has answered, but I certainly don't know him the way that I know you.
I began reading him in about 2015.
The very first paper I read was on the Charles Manson-Tate-Sharon Tate murders, which I also recently recommended to Mike, and he came away with the same impression that I did, which was, wow, that thing was another fake, another fraud that we just did not know about.
And since that time, I've been a regular visitor, not every single week, but most weeks, more time than not.
I'm going once or twice to see if he has any new updates.
He writes prolifically, as you probably know, and he also has a science site, too, which he's posted.
It's a very interesting article there.
And so, you know, like I said, you know, my opinion is based upon the fact that I have seen and read and thought about things from reading his information that I probably would not have anywhere else online.
He's, in my opinion, given me a keener eye when I'm looking at photos, and he makes me look at events, you know, similar to the way that you do.
I'm looking for The fraud first, I'm looking for some of the obvious clues, but also the way that he will break down and analyze things.
And I think he gets the larger picture.
But when I read that article, of course, I had to chuckle a little bit because and I figured you would definitely want to know because of how many times you are mentioned.
And of course, he gets a lot of things wrong.
I believe that he is unnecessarily wary of other people.
I know that one time your friend Sophia Smallstorm reached out to him to have him on a like a podcast or something because she was so impressed by one of the papers I sent to her and he was extremely rude and actually later on wrote about the interaction and basically thought she was some kind of an agent.
He's made similar accusations towards you, including this other term he has used before, calling you an auntie.
And I'm not sure exactly what he means by that.
Auntie.
But I know he mostly, I think, means kind of a false front or somebody that's not really who they appear to be.
But anyway, I thought you would like to have a chance to respond and discuss the piece.
I think that, you know, you know your case better than anybody.
And legally, he assumes a lot of things that I think are incorrect, but I think he does get the bigger picture right as to the fraud of the whole thing and the absurdity of summary judgments.
So, I'm sure you'll have a lot to say.
Well, Paul, I'm very grateful you brought this up.
Yes, I mean, there are so many things about the law, and especially about the law in Wisconsin, and in particular about my case.
I found this utterly irresponsible.
I mean, it's very difficult to maintain a high regard for someone who is so reckless about the facts in a case like this.
I mean, he's going out of his way to attack me, but frankly, he has no idea what he's talking about.
I mean, there are massive misdescriptions.
He's talking about the fact is that I have a petition before the Supreme Court.
He would appear to have read it, or at least poses as though he read it, but if he read it, he most certainly did not understand it.
What's going on in the petition is my contesting a summary judgment methodology that is applied in the state of Wisconsin, but is at variance with that of other states.
But something he seems not to know is that there's a difference between a summary judgment, a non-jury or a bench trial, and a trial by jury.
A summary judgment in every other state in Wisconsin is permissible only if there are no disputed facts.
In other words, only if the plaintiff and the defendant agree on the facts is a summary judgment permissible, where it allows a judge To not have to send the case to a jury, because it is the role of the jury to resolve what are the facts of the matter when they're in dispute.
It's the role of the judge to apply the law.
So in a classic summary judgment, such as in Texas, which I used as a contrast case, because among the criteria We're bringing a petition to the Supreme Court, is that it represents a conflict between the highest courts of different states.
In Texas, what would be done is assuming all of the defendant's claims are true.
In other words, everything I purport to be a fact, that nobody died at Sandy Hook, that it was a FEMA drill, that no children or teachers were present,
Where I even have the FEMA manual, which would be taken for the sake of this process, this stage, to be true, that we have an FBI consolidated crime report for 2012, showing at the intersection of Newtown, of which Sandy Hook is a subdivision, and murders and non-negligent manslaughter, zero, the number zero,
Where the final report from Stephen Sedinsky III, Danbury State's attorney for Connecticut on Sandy Hook, Fails to create a causal nexus that ties together the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, with his victims, his mother and the 20 kids.
And the weapons alleged to have used, for example, the rifle with which he's supposed to have shot his mother, did not have Adam Lanza's fingerprints.
And in a footnote number 53 to this final report, it observes that while 150 slugs We're found at the school setting.
None of them could be matched to the Bushmaster, the AR-15 he's alleged to have used.
What that means is in a court of law, it would have been impossible to convict this man of this crime.
This was a massive forensic failure.
And if you assume the other evidence I present, then clearly a weight of the evidence supports that it was a FEMA drill and that nobody died.
Or as I pointed out again and again in innumerable videos, events on the ground corresponded to what you'd expect if it had been a FEMA drill and contradicted what you would expect had it been a real shooting.
For example, There was a sign, portable sign, everyone must check in, which even Patricia LaLorda, under oath, acknowledged had been placed there by the Department of Homeland Security, when the Department of Homeland Security ought to have had nothing to do with this if it were legit, but where FEMA, of course, falls within the framework of Homeland Security.
There were porta-potties already in place, pizza and bottled water being provided at the firehouse.
I've asked law enforcement.
Whether they ever heard of port-a-potties or food at a crime scene and they laugh because it's so ridiculous.
You have innumerable parties wearing name tags on lanyards, which is a standard part of a FEMA exercise to identify the players by color-coded name tags on lanyards.
We had children, parents bringing children to the scene with no parents going to bring a child to the scene of a child shooting massacre.
But this was a rehearsal.
This was the day before the 13th, and they were treating it as a festive occasion.
Then it was supposed to go live on the 14th.
But everything indicates there wasn't a legitimate shooting.
No surge of EMTs into the building.
No string of ambulances to rush their little bodies off to hospitals.
No medevac helicopter called.
Triage tarps were put out, but no bodies of the dead or wounded were laid on them.
The parents were not allowed to see their children.
Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, explained they only allowed the parents to see the photographs of their children.
There'd be another time for them to see the bodies which were ostensibly left in the building to be removed in the dead of night.
I mean, this is all absurd.
According to Sedinsky's report, there were 489 students enrolled there that day.
If you subtract 20 for the alleged decedents, that's 469 requiring evacuation.
There wasn't any evacuation.
It went across a massive string of buses.
Dickinson Drive, the only way in or out was blocked.
You couldn't have got a bus in or out there if your life depended upon it.
Nevertheless, we had such fakery as Gene Rosen, Claiming that a bus driver had come by and dropped off four or five or six different kids, depending on the telling, that he brought them into his home and given them orange juice to play with stuffed animals until they were able to regain their composure and tell him their teacher was dead.
Well, Gene Rosen, as we told this time and time again, always with great affect.
In other words, he's really showing great signs of emotional stress, where he, like so many of the other players, is actually an actor.
He's actually got a screen actor's card.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
And think about this on its face.
What parent would, what bus driver drop off kids at the home of someone who is not their parent or guardian?
We'll be right back with Paul and Mike.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
We'll be right back.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
RevolutionRadioFreedomSubs.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Hey everyone, it's Barbara Jean Lindsay, the Cosmic Oracle.
If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued to shut me up.
And the Wisconsin courts played along.
I have the proof and the law on my side.
What I don't have is the money.
They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
Take guns, impose tyranny.
It's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
*Pain* *Pain* *Pain*
*Pain* *Pain* *Pain* Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8pm, Wednesday.
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. - A few more words by way of framework before returning to Paul and Mike.
I think Miles Mathis is highly unfamiliar with judicial procedures.
I'm certain he's unaware that these Alex Jones trials are trials for damages only.
In other words, Alex Jones has already been found guilty of defamation to be by liable, so these jury trials are just to determine how much he has to pay in damages.
I don't think he understands that.
I also am certain he does not know that there are going to be three trials in a row of Alex Jones, all three trials for damages, all three are public relations stunts.
He got the idea right when he writes.
The whole point of these fake trials is to scare people like you and me into silence.
It's a bluff.
They want us to believe we are about to be sued or otherwise prosecuted for talking or writing.
We're supposed to believe we'll be hit with a $45 million judgment for giving an opinion.
We're supposed to believe the First Amendment no longer exists, I guess.
They did this first with Jim Fetzer, who allegedly had a large judgment against him on the same handy hook event.
No word on whether he's actually paid that.
Well, With that, I didn't have these judgments against me.
It's a matter of court record.
You could easily find I was held at a trial for damages, $450,000.
I also had a contempt because I was trying to expose that the fellow came and testified at my trial under the name of Leonard Posner, was in fact an imposter by the name of Ruben Vabner.
That in fact, there was a second contempt when I tried to find an impeachment witness and I was going for Wolfgang Halbig, who's also been Smeared during these trials, as am I, where Wolfgang was so enraged when he saw the image here of the party who had come to testify that he wrote to four stations of the FBI saying, what are the consequences for impersonating Leonard Posner in a trial for defamation in Madison, Wisconsin?
I don't think Miles Mathis has a ghost of a familiarity with any of this, where the judge slapped another lawyer's fees for $650,000, so I have 1.1 mil judgments against me.
Would that this were all imaginary.
Would that this were all fake.
What he also doesn't understand is I sought to intervene not only in all three of the Alex Jones trials, of which the second trial for damages is taking place, and there will be a third.
They want to play this out right up to the midterm elections.
But I also sought to intervene in the Remington trial, making the point that there's been no judicial determination that anybody died at Sandy Hook.
None.
Every one of these cases, including Alex Jones, were decided on the basis of procedural issues, by agreement, by stipulation, by default.
Robert Barnes reported, as I previously explained, that no one knows what failure to provide discovery Alex Jones is supposed to have committed, not even the reporter for the New York Times, who's been going after Alex Jones and me, Hammers and Tongs, and even has a whole book about it.
So it seems to me that I was, you know, unsurprisingly, in all four of those interventions, I was opposed by the plaintiffs, who were various combinations of the Sandy Hook parents and others.
But I was also opposed by the defendants.
I was also opposed by the defendants, where Well, Bushmaster didn't want me in there.
It was settled by the four insurance companies, and I believe, in retrospect, the insurance companies were willing to shell out 73 mil, because they expect to regain billions, when as a consequence, in part of these various trials, there are new laws requiring insurance, and every gun owner have to have insurance, which not only enables the government to know Who has what weapons where, but that they're going to make billions in insurance.
I was rejected in all four of those cases, including by this Judge Bellis, who's presiding over these Sandy Hook trials for Alex Jones in Connecticut.
Here we have a further from Miles, and then I'm going to turn it over to you guys.
No word on whether he actually paid that.
I believe he has claimed poverty, forcing Posner to seize his book copyrights.
Fetzer allegedly upheld his gain all the way to the Supreme Court guffaw.
Problem is, I looked up the Supreme Court case and it looks fake.
The first clue here is Wikipedia's page on Fetzer has no mention of the entire lawsuit, though you'd think it would be a big deal.
Although there is a section on his conspiracy theories, there's not one word on Sandy Hook, either his book or his trials.
As for the document I just looked at, SupremeCourt.gov, it has the form of an appeal to the Supreme Court, but it has no case number and publishes only the appendices.
I don't know what he's talking about here.
He doesn't know what to do.
He doesn't know how to do research.
The case is before the Supreme Court.
It has an appellate number.
Look up Fetzer v. Posner.
Any of you can find it there.
I'm not paying these massive judgments because I believe them to be illegitimate.
If the Supreme Court were to reject my petition, Which is really based upon the fact that during my trial here in Wisconsin, they followed the Wisconsin summary judgment procedure, unlike the one I described in Texas.
Where they have to take for granted all the defendant's positions, all of his assertions of fact as true, and proceed then only if the plaintiff agrees to them.
In Wisconsin, that would have been impossible because, of course, the man who called himself Leonard Posner was insisting his son had died at Sandy Hook.
This was a dispute over the authenticity of a death certificate, where on the death certificate itself it states that a decedent died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds, and yet the judge at the Preliminary Scheduling Conference said we're not going to go down that rabbit hole, and that the massive evidence I had that nobody died at Sandy Hook was, in his word, irrelevant to the accuracy or truthfulness of the death certificate.
Even though this is a death certificate for someone who purportedly died at Sandy Hook.
When I brought counterclaims against the plaintiffs for abuse of process because this was an improperly motivated lawsuit, it was simply intended to punish me for having exposed what happened at Sandy Hook.
In the book, I brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs, and we established a school that had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there.
That it would have been a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
OK.
Yeah, Paul, I'm going to get you right away.
I just got to give enough.
Miles doesn't, it appears to me he's never read the book.
He really doesn't understand the petition, and he has no understanding about what my appeal is about, which is the summary judgment procedure here in Wisconsin, which lets the judge, on the basis of his own subjective opinion, determine which are facts and which are not.
So he just excluded all mine on the basis that my position was unreasonable.
And they're about brought about an absence of disputed facts to rule in favor of Posner.
Go ahead, Paul.
I know that was elaborate.
Yeah, no, like I said, there's so much there to unpack because you're such an encyclopedia of politics.
You know, detailed information about this.
I think, you know, you're going to lose some people that are listening.
So, you know, the important point to keep in mind, now you mentioned about the fact that you sought to intervene and that neither side was interested.
Well, to me, you know, I think that would further buttress, you know, my thoughts and Miles Mathis' claim that these trials are fake.
You can't blame him for thinking that yours is fake as well without knowing anything about it.
Obviously, he's incorrect.
But the fact remains is that the whole legal system in these sorts of things is completely fraudulent.
And that's something that Mike and I can flesh out more for you, because he's not wrong in thinking that, you know, this whole, the whole thing is a fraud.
I personally don't believe that Remington is going to pay anybody any money.
I mean, the idea that a corporation with the resources that they would have, that would agree is, for example, to pay 70, you know, something million dollars.
They wouldn't spend a couple of million dollars on the best, you know, private investigators and forensic investigation to basically unravel that case.
No, the whole thing is stage theater and there's behind the scenes deals and agreements that have been made.
And, you know, as Miles Mathis might point out about it, I don't believe he ever did, but how could you have a real lawsuit When it's a fake event and fake deaths, you know, so therefore the lawsuit would have to be fake as well.
That's the kind of logic that I think makes sense and that he would he would also argue.
But yes, I completely agree with you, Jim.
He's been extremely unfair and his characterizations about you in the trial.
But I think Mike would agree that the important point to remember is that the whole thing is a big fraud and you're just not going to get a good deal in this system.
You're going to get railroaded.
Well, I have more to share about that, but I want to bring Mike in first.
Mike, go ahead.
Give us your overview of the situation here with Miles Mathis.
Yeah, thanks, Dr. Fletcher.
Thanks for having me on as well.
Yeah, I was listening to you, and I totally agree with your synopsis, but here's what's going on.
Just to make you laugh here real quick, I've been doing alternative media stuff for over a decade, and I remember one day I woke up about four years ago, and a friend of mine called me and goes, hey Mike, I didn't know you were in the CIA.
And I said, what are you talking about?
He goes, yeah, there's some website out there that says you're a CIA operative and a spook and you control opposition and all this.
And I was like, wow, that's pretty interesting.
Man, that makes me feel good.
I actually had an interesting life, if they only knew.
So, look, you know how this goes, Jim, in the alternative media.
You get these people that think everybody's a Fed, everybody's controlled opposition.
While there is a lot of that taking place, you get people that end up in a state of paranoia a lot of times.
And I think that is the case here.
Addressing the legal issues, I will say this.
He doesn't have any concept of the law.
I read what he wrote.
He doesn't understand the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial when it comes to summary judgments.
He's totally off base with that.
Now, as with Alex Jones, let me say this.
I do believe that Alex Jones made a deal to undermine your case.
I think it undermines your case because Alex Jones comes out and says, okay, it really happened.
Okay.
Which is all they wanted, regardless of whether it's a real trial or a fake trial.
The headline is what they wanted, not the money.
And the headline was Sandy Hook really happened.
Alex Jones says, and he apologized to the families and all this kind of stuff.
He apologized to the crisis actors involved.
Uh, that is what the media wanted.
And that's what the system wanted.
Okay.
And that is the most damaging part of this, and I believe it was rigged.
And that's why they didn't want you involved, because you're legitimate and they're not.
And Alex Jones, for those that followed him, and you know more about this than I do, Dr. Fetcher, because you used to do shows with him and stuff.
I mean, I've known for a while.
This guy is dirty.
He's a gatekeeper, if anything.
He definitely is in control of opposition.
There's no doubt in my mind about that.
So they made a deal.
So it legitimizes the official narrative of Sandy Hook, okay?
And it's in hopes it'll undermine your case.
And by the way, I don't know, Jim, if you saw the press conference Alex Jones had yesterday after he was in Connecticut and they said they didn't need him in the courtroom right now after they allegedly called him up there.
And he basically said, I'm not Mr. Sandy Hook.
Somebody else is Mr. Sandy Hook.
I'm not Mr. Sandy Hook.
I apologize to the families.
I apologized on the Joe Rogan Show years ago.
I've apologized a hundred times.
It really happened, and I feel sorry for the victims.
Blah, blah.
Buy my book, The Great Reset.
I gotta go.
And that was basically the press conference he had, you know.
So, you know, I think, I mean, basically, you know, The New York Times, Washington Post, all of the big mainstream media actors were out there after he came out of the courtroom.
And they basically gave him a free infomercial for his book.
It was amazing.
So there is no doubt at this point, Alex Jones, in my opinion, is mainstream media.
He's part of the club.
And that's what I have to say about that.
Now, going back to the law.
Basically, Miles Mathis in that piece basically accuses you of being a crisis actor yourself, which is preposterous.
You know, he's saying that they originally... what I gathered from the piece that he wrote was that they originally wanted to have a fake trial with you, but it wasn't high-profile enough, so they went to Alex Jones.
And now they're going to use the Alex Jones trial and go back to you.
And these are all staged events, which I think is preposterous in your case.
Now, what Paul said, I believe is there is truth to that.
I believe that the Alex Jones trial is a complete show.
And I believe it is to undermine legitimate cases like yours, because after all, I mean, you have The most research, incredible info on Sandy Hook, and they're afraid of that.
That's why all your stuff's been banned.
And so I do believe that the Alex Jones sets a precedent, whether it's real or fake, it sets legal precedent and they get the headline that they wanted, which was Sandy Hook was real.
See, even Alex Jones says it's real.
So therefore, in the minds of the masses, through the brainwashing Talmud vision, it must be real, right?
So there you go.
Well, I think those are all good.
Yeah, go ahead, Paul.
I was going to say, first of all, excellent impression of Alex Jones once again.
But yeah, I would just comment quickly that the setting of the precedent is extremely fake.
I mean, most precedent in the end means nothing.
We can talk a little bit more later in the show, but my personal experiences, and Mike knows the same thing, that when you get into these courtrooms, which are designed to protect the establishment, they're designed to protect monopoly and power and politicians.
That's what they do, their job.
They are gatekeepers.
Judges are gatekeepers.
So the law doesn't matter.
Precedent doesn't matter.
I've seen this firsthand.
That was my awakening, right?
When I saw the fact that I could walk in there with a with a penal code or a vehicle code and court decisions, and it's like, it didn't matter because it's not real.
And I get that's my my underlying premise of the fact they can you can claim it's a legal precedent or not.
But in the end, they make it up as they go.
And I've seen this firsthand with my own eyes.
And I've read about it with other people's cases.
And I'm sure Mike can relate similar experiences.
It's not a real thing.
It's like you cut a two by four, eight foot, it's an eight foot two by four.
But in the world of law, they just make it up.
Well, Paul, those are all good comments.
Now, just to show how little Miles Mathis understands about the case, he found another Supreme Court document dated August 31st, 2022, that he claims is equally fishy that was addressed to Justice Barrett.
But Petzer repiled it a week later to Justice Gorsuch.
He must have filed a similar appeal on May 16th, since that is the date of the appendices linked above.
I finally found it here, and it's not addressed to any specific justice.
Now, the May 16th is the petition for a writ of certiorari.
This is asking the Supreme Court to review my case,
To appreciate that the summary judgment procedure applied in Wisconsin is out of whack with those of other states, that it does not protect the rights of the defendant in Wisconsin, and to set it right, not just reversing my case, but correcting that in Wisconsin and in other states where, interestingly, it turns out that of the first nine of the 10 amendments to the Constitution,
The Supreme Court has in past cases affirmed that the first nine apply, that nine of those ten apply to all of the 50 states individually, but oddly enough, that's not happened for the seventh.
What this means is I'm also giving the court an opportunity to affirm the Seventh Amendment like the other nine of the first ten apply to all 50 of the states.
This is a formal issue, but it's extremely important.
Now, this guy, Miles Mathis, when he says not address any specific justice, that's because he's talking about the petition addressed to the entirety of the Supreme Court, as is appropriate.
But he's looking about the other.
That's an appeal.
That's an appeal for a stay until the Supreme Court settles a case where he got mixed up.
He talked about, I had claimed poverty and Forrest Posner, who sees my book, What Posner did was after I filed the petition, and I believe it was motivated by my filing the petition, he saw the prospect there that the court might actually rule in my favor.
So they moved to take, against this massive 1.1 million judgment, my blog and the copyright to the book.
Well, now this is crazy.
In Wisconsin, you can only satisfy a monetary judgment by a monetary award.
Intellectual property is not a monetary award.
In order to translate intellectual property into a monetary award, you have to appoint a receiver, the receiver that would take bids on the intellectual property.
Not only, therefore, was this an unlawful taking because the judge went ahead and gave my blog and gave the book to Posner without going through the due steps, but the fact is that it would only be limited to the amount of money they could earn on it.
Then it would have to return to me.
He hasn't used it for the proper purposes.
he redirected jamesfetzer.org to Posner v. Fetzer, legal documents, but most important, his past practice made it impossible for him to actually take these documents and the book, my blog and the book, because his entire case was built upon and his whole past practice has because his entire case was built upon and his whole past practice has been built upon eliminating from the internet anything to do Anything that exposes Sandy Hook as a sham,
This guy, Ruben Vabner, has been very active.
He's even boasted of taking down 1,500 videos off of the Internet.
There's a judicial doctrine known as estoppel that says that a plaintiff prevailing in a lawsuit on the basis of one stance or attitude to wit that this is all defamatory and wrong and shouldn't be published cannot then benefit from his past action.
That's what's going on here.
And interestingly, the judge even acknowledged that was the case.
He said he so far as he could tell and this is in the transcript, it has no monetary value, but you know plaintiffs frequently use the courts to satisfy a personal, you know, grudge or vendetta or words to that effect.
He was acknowledging in the transcript during a hearing when I protested this taking that this was in fact all improper.
Now, here's something really crucial.
He claims that in the document of 31, this is the appeal to stay, which I did submit to Justice Barrett, but which she declined and where under the court rules, I can submit to a second justice.
I had no choice about Barrett.
Because since I'm in Wisconsin, that's in the Seventh Circuit, the states are divided among the nine justices, so they each have responsibility for individual appeals from their states.
I had to go to Barrett first.
After she declined, I was able to submit to Gorsuch.
So I submitted it to Gorsuch.
And now, The fact is, and this also contradicts everything he's saying, this whole Supreme Court is supposed to be rubbish.
I just learned before coming on the show, Gorsuch has submitted my appeal for stay to the entire Supreme Court of the United States.
In other words, not only is it not fishy,
Not only is it already the case that my petition was going to be subject to a conference on the 28th of September, which is only 10 days or so or less, actually less, what, a week away, 28th of September, but now my appeal has been sent to all members of the court, which is very, very good, because my appeal explains something I did not explain in my original petition to wit the peculiarities about the Seventh Amendment.
Let me say here just another quote from Miles before I kick it back to you guys.
On page 20 of the August 31st documents, that's the appeal for a stay until the Supreme Court rules on my writ, we discover Fetzer's outcome in Wisconsin was a summary judgment without jury, which again is illegal.
This is Miles Mathis saying a summary judgment without jury is illegal.
Well, that's what a summary judgment is.
It has no jury.
The role of a jury is to determine the facts.
The point of a summary judgment is there are no disputed facts for the jury to determine.
So this is a very fundamental point where Miles Mathis has his head where the sun doesn't shine.
The document even admits, he continues, since in such cases a defendant is allowed to request a trial by jury.
Well, the fact is a plaintiff in the original complaint requested a trial by jury.
That applies to everyone involved in the lawsuit.
He says Fetzer brings up the 14th Amendment, which concerns equal protection and the fact that Wisconsin's summary judgment method does not match that of Texas, for example.
We are supposed to believe no one in a libel case in Wisconsin has ever obtained a trial by jury, I guess.
Well, there's Justice Breyer's massive ignorance.
He doesn't understand the facts of the case.
He doesn't understand the law.
He doesn't understand the difference between a summary judgment versus a non-jury trial where the judge is entitled to make up or determine the facts versus a jury trial.
I mean, he even states in the document that juries determine facts.
Judges only decide, you know, apply the law.
But in fact, in my summary judgment, he did both, which is a reflection of the corruption of the summary judgment procedure, which if Miles Math has really understood the documents he pretends to have read, then he would know and recognize that this is a tremendously important case because it has to do with the viability of a right to trial by jury for every American citizen.
Mike, let me go to you first.
Well, we got a break.
We'll be right back with Paul and Mike.
We'll be right
back. - Is it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
I love it.
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! - City. - 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 and pose tyranny.
It's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Miles Mathis had so many smears here that are unwarranted, unfounded, and display massive And even venality on his part, I find it grossly offensive.
But let's talk about what we've covered so far.
Mike, go ahead, your thoughts.
Yeah, I think the most important thing here, Jim, is the fact that, look, the Alex Jones, I believe that show trial was timed to be a smokescreen to cover what's taking place with you.
I mean, your trial is the legitimate Uh, hearing and proceeding and the media, I believe, is using the Alex Jones, not only number one to get Alex Jones to say Sandy Hook was real, which, uh, which gives the mainstream media, uh, total credibility on the, on the subject.
Uh, but also all the press coverage and the show and, uh, and, uh, and the stunts that he's performing with these trials.
Really gets such all the press coverage and nobody in the mainstream media is covering your case because they don't want the people to know anything about your case.
And, uh, as far as the Miles Mathis goes, I think he's, uh, uh, in paranoia land.
Uh, I think he's, uh, falling for the belief that, uh, you know, everybody is controlled opposition.
Everybody is the fed and, uh, you know, That gets ridiculous and tiring after a while, but I think the main point here is, is that the Alex Jones trial is a smokescreen to cut, to not cover your proceedings and the information you just put out with Gorsuch.
Now, so he's allowing the case to go forward to the entire Supreme Court.
Am I correct on that?
The appeal, the appeal for the stay.
Now it's one of the conditions of a stay that you have the prospect of prevailing before the court, which may be the reason that Amy Barrett declined to grant the stay, but it's against taking my property when I have an appeal pending.
And in this case, they often offer stays against lawful orders for taking.
This was an unlawful order for taking, because if my writ is granted, it reverses the case.
And these claims against me for 1.1 mil will disappear.
So it's an appropriate thing to delay.
And I think I'm really delighted, even ecstatic, that Gorsuch has sent it to the entire court.
The court rules say that the judge may, the justice may, but he's not obligated.
He may share it with the court.
And now he's done so.
And what that means, Mike, is that there's like 40 more pages of argument, especially about this very peculiar aspect of the Seventh Amendment.
Well, you know, really, a retired professor of law described my case as incorporating the 7th within the 14th Amendment.
But unless you follow the history of the case, you wouldn't understand the point I already made, namely that the Supreme Court has never affirmed, of all the first 10 amendments, the 7th Amendment applying to all 50 states.
So what I explain is we're all dual citizens because we're citizens of our states, but we're also citizens of the United States.
And as citizens of the United States, we're entitled to all the constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States.
It's just that in some cases, in some states, they're not following the Constitution.
Yeah, let Mike say more, and then Paul, you.
Go ahead, Mike.
Okay.
Yeah, and a lot of this falls under, I don't want to get into the corporation issue, but it is true.
I mean, yes, that's exactly true what you just said.
You do have, we are dual solicitors.
There's the state, at the state level, the state that you're domiciled in, and then there's the United States of America, which is the corporation, which has been totally in control of the bar, the British Accredited Registry, for a long, long time, since they took it back over, going back to the War of 1812.
But I will tell you, I still think that's actually good news that Gorsuch did that.
At least you have a shot at this point, and I think that's very good news.
But Amy Comey Barrett didn't want to even touch it, it looks like.
But the bottom line again is, you know, with the media we have in this country, unfortunately, they set the narrative no matter what happens in this.
And I think the big story here is that Alex Jones gave them the headline they want, and And now most people, I'm not saying most people, but a lot of people will be swayed into saying, well, it must be real then, see?
The number one guy in alternative media said it's real, you know?
Apologize to the families, you know?
And that's what they really wanted more than money, you know?
Mike, I agree with that.
I don't think it's going to have any impact whatsoever on the Supreme Court, though it may have been intended to do that.
Paul, your thoughts?
So I would just come back with this.
So I was less interested in the smaller details that Miles Mathis got wrong.
But the larger ones where he's he he's done this in other papers, too, where he talks about the Constitution, OK, or jury trial or any of these other things, which, you know, he he says we're all entitled to.
And that's not correct.
I mean, there's a legal case.
There's more than one, but there's one main legal case.
It's well known where the judge ruled that you're not a party to the Constitution and you're not entitled to its protections.
There's a big misunderstanding about what a U.S.
citizen really is, and it's essentially you're an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., more or less.
This is an entire show in and of itself, and believe me, Mike and I have hours and hours and hours into this.
What I call alternative reality, it's the real reality.
So here's an analogy that I've been kicking around for days and this morning, too, various ways to look at this.
And let's look at it from the context of the moon landing and all the lies that we're all subjected to all the time and how everything is fraud.
And you know this well, Jim, the money system is fraud.
OK, the media is fraud, the government, the elections are fraud.
OK, but here's here's a good example.
The moon landing.
Well, let's let's look at it from this.
NASA is real.
The billions of dollars that they get, that's real.
OK, the hardware that they work on here on the ground, that's real.
The Saturn V rocket is real.
The lunar module was real.
But, you know, we're talking about essentially, OK, what's the what's the proper bolt torque pattern on, you know, the lunar module?
Right.
No, that's real.
There's bolts on there, and that's true.
But in the end, what is the overall picture?
And the overall picture is this.
NASA is a fraud.
They never went to the moon.
They've never been to Mars with any of their missions.
The space station is a fraud, right?
All the things that they do, it's CGI.
Anybody who's looked into this, who spent the time studying it, knows it's a complete and total farce, and all they do is steal money.
And so, you know, when you look at the court system, the way I do, and the way I think Mike does, and the way even Miles Mathis does, is see, he's basically saying it's all nonsense, and so forth, and he's absolutely correct, okay, where he's incorrect on some of these details, but some of these details that you talk about, in the end, Gorsuch is like, you know, the NASA engineer on the ground, fooling around with the bolt torque pattern on the lunar module.
Let me respond to this.
In order to deal with fraud and deception, you have to be able to separate the genuine and authentic from the fraudulent and the misleading.
He has not done that here.
Let me read part of this more.
This is Miles Mathis.
It looks to me like Fetzer is making himself look stupid on purpose, pampering the Supreme Court with multiple and poorly written appeals.
He has become an anti.
First, he questions Sandy Hook, then blackwashes himself.
It's textbook.
You will remember.
Fetzer tried to rope me into this mess, asking for permission to use my research in his book on Sandy Hook.
I said no, not because I was afraid of a lawsuit, but because I didn't want to be tarnished by association with Fetzer.
Good call, eh?
Well, that would have been back in 2014 if I reached out to him and wanted to include something he'd written about Sandy Hook.
He ought to have been flattered.
I had already published a trilogy about the JFK assassination that blew the cover up out of the water.
I was already pioneering research by bringing together the best experts to sort things out.
Even Vincent Bugliosi in his 1,500-page whitewash of the Warren Commission acknowledged mine were the only exclusively scientific books ever published on the assassination.
We blew apart the cover-up, the autopsy X-rays altered, second hit to the head, substituting another brain.
There's a Bruder film being massively edited.
So, he doesn't want to be tarnished by association with me.
Give me an effing break.
Then he continues, Paul, get this.
But the document admits what we already know.
Even though both Texas and Wisconsin have a right to trial by jury in their state constitution, it is not protected equally in the summary judgment methodology practice in the two states.
That's quoting from my petition.
The right to trial by jury is in the Wisconsin State Constitution, he highlights.
That being true, there is no possibility Fetzer could have suffered a summary judgment and the failure of two appeals.
This whole storyline is impossible from the first word.
So this Supreme Court document should not exist.
This is a betrayal of his massive ignorance, for God's sake.
He thinks we've got something written in the Constitution being practiced and fulfilled in the courts in every day-to-day trials?
I mean, this is incredibly bad, and this is as irresponsible as it gets, especially, Paul, when everything is laid out in these petitions in detail.
And by the way, the Posner team did me a huge benefit because it was during the course of this Opposing, you know, my motion in opposition of the taking order the judge had issued to allow him to take my blog and my book.
And by the way, that was implemented on the 28th of July, just when the first Alex Jones trial was going on, and they were starting to trash me as this batshit crazy fetzer.
Well, so again, I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, and I'm not here to defend Miles Mathis.
I'm just looking at the whole thing in context.
It's like you.
I couldn't find out what he had to say.
I mean, it's all very clear and clever.
And Miles Mathis has just fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.
I find this embarrassing, Paul.
Your thoughts?
Well, so again, I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying.
And I'm not here to defend Miles Mathis.
I'm just looking at the whole thing in context.
It's like you.
You and I have had our differences.
But I defend you in general.
And as a matter of fact, more times than not, we're in agreement about the things that we see and that we analyze.
You know, to me, like I said, it is a little worrying, you know, in terms of, okay, exactly, maybe, who is this guy?
I'll have you know, since Mike mentioned earlier about, you know, everybody's CIA, everybody's a Fed.
You know, it's funny.
I've had multiple conversations over the years with a friend of mine.
I may have mentioned him before, but his name's Gary.
And, you know, he's got a master's degree in physics.
And he's a brilliant guy.
I mean, he knows about politics.
He knows about economics.
He knows about history.
In many cases, some of the nuances of the rises and falls of various civilizations.
We've had multiple conversations exceeding one hour.
Over the years.
And when I started, you know, sending him stuff from Miles Mathis, and he took a look at his science site too, and he was of the opinion that Miles Mathis couldn't be a single individual.
He thought he's got to be some kind of Fed government committee, CIA committee, something like that.
He said there's nobody that could write that prolifically, have so much information and knowledge, and especially on a science site, you know, he just thought this guy's of the intellect of an Isaac Newton.
You know, and I remember when we talked, I said, as opposed to Einstein, he goes, oh my God, Einstein's not even in Newton's League.
He goes, really?
And he said, yeah, he goes, Isaac Newton was orders of magnitude more brilliant than Einstein ever thought to be.
So it was just an interesting take.
So, you know, here's a man who, like I said, I respect his intelligence.
We've had many discussions and, you know, he thinks that Miles Mathis can't be real as one single individual.
You know, I don't know.
I mean, all you do is research and write all the time and appear constantly, and you're a prolific mind, a prolific intellect.
So, you know, it's possible that there's people out there.
But yeah, some of the things that you do say about what he misses and what he gets wrong, it's a little troubling.
But I'm sure he's a normal human being like you and I. Sometimes you and I, we just shoot from the hip.
I know I do.
I just spray my opinion out there and let it fall where it lies.
But Paul, he goes overboard here without actually understanding the case.
He's entirely unfair to you, and I completely agree, and he does not understand all the details.
I agree with that as well, but nobody does.
You know, very few people are going to keep up and follow this.
You know that.
Oh, but Paul, it's all laid out very clearly in the appeal for the stay and in the petition.
And that's what he's writing about.
And he's claiming to have read them.
Listen to this.
You will tell me Fetzer is a bozo and that anyone can appeal to the Supreme Court.
All you have to do is enter a document.
Yes, but the documents refute themselves, not because they prove Fetzer is a dodo, but because they prove the case could not have proceeded as we are told.
Fetzer would never have waived his right to a trial by jury, and we aren't even expected to believe he did.
We are expected to believe he wasn't offered that opportunity, and that neither appeals court noticed that.
Of course the Supreme Court will not hear this case, since I assume they know it isn't even real.
So we will be expected to believe Fletcher was thrown into the poorhouse and his copyright stolen by Posner with no jury ever finding against him.
They want you to believe this is the fate awaiting you if you analyze research this week about any major news item.
If you disbelieve any mainstream story or call a crisis actor a crisis actor, you are potentially guilty of defamation.
The trouble was I ignored the Fetzer trial knowing it was fake and it passed under the radar of most people, so they had to try again with Jones.
They needed a much more high-profile fake, hopefully to scare us all silent.
But this is ignoring what happened in my court case.
I agree.
On its face, it sounds absurd that the judge wouldn't allow the massive evidence I have that nobody died at Sandy Hook to be entered into a dispute about a death certificate for someone who purportedly died at Sandy Hook.
But that's exactly what happened here.
You wouldn't believe that he'd bifurcate the case so I couldn't do discovery on the abuse of process because this was improperly brought to punish me, or to fraud against those who collected all the money as faking having lost children at Sandy Hook, or that was a fraud upon the court because the guy who posed as Leonard Posner was actually Rubin.
I spelled all this out from the beginning, Paul.
Or, you wouldn't have put one more point, Paul.
Or you wouldn't believe the court would simply set aside the reports of two forensic document examiners on my side.
Two of them.
Simply set them aside as unhelpful approval.
There were no disputed facts in a case where everything was disputed.
This is an absurd case, but not for the reason that I was at fault, for reason of the procedure that was applied in my case.
Okay, okay.
So again, you know, just an interjection if I may.
So, you know, yes, again, these are all, like I said, you're correct on so many things that you're doing.
And I was going to interject, you know, that bifurcation, that was precious.
That was a precious move, right?
But as you recall, I predicted all of this.
I didn't predict the details, but I just told you, I tried to warn you that they're not going to let you present a defense.
Remember, we had a wager on that, just like we had a wager on the appeal.
We don't really have a wager on the Supreme Court case, but if they hear it and rule in your favor, I told you, I'll come to Wisconsin and buy dinner and drinks for, I don't know, for whoever I can afford to.
But yeah, that's the thing.
The whole thing is designed to thwart you, all right?
And as far as being entitled to jury trials and all that, you know what?
That's fine in principle, and I'm not saying no fair trials ever take place.
That's not my point.
But again, you're entitled to exactly whatever it is they want to give you, and in many cases, they're going to give you a railroading.
We've all heard the term, I've been railroaded.
Well, that's what's occurring, and it doesn't matter how right you get all the legal procedures, because you're up against the beast.
Yeah, I like all that.
Yes, yes, yes.
But the fact is, this is coming from Miles Mathis.
This isn't coming from Elizabeth Williamson, who's a hack journalist for the New York Times.
Who's been out to savage me and Alex Jones from the beginning to defend the official narrative.
This is coming from Miles Mathis.
This is coming from a guy you would probably offer as the best example of someone who cuts through the smoke and mirrors and gets down to the brass tacks.
But here himself, he is issuing nothing but a monstrous pile of bullshit.
I mean, for him to pretend that he's read these documents and then savage me over them based upon his ignorance and misunderstanding, that's ridiculous.
And it's embarrassing to those of us who have looked at him as a worthy guy who's very smart and who's made so many valuable contributions.
This was a catastrophe for Miles Mathis, in my opinion.
He got everything wrong.
I mostly agree, and I thought you would like to read it.
And when I read it, I was a little bit miffed that he was, you know, coming after you again.
I don't like that.
I mean, look, despite all our differences over the years, you know, you're my guy, man.
If you're walking down the street and a woke Antifa mob is assaulting you, I'm coming in and I'm throwing it out.
I love it.
Well, I've always liked your calls, even when we had strenuous disagreements.
Mike, I want you to offer your observations.
Go ahead.
Yeah, the thing that kills me is, you know, the guy's written a lot of great research.
I've read his stuff since Paul turned me on to it.
It's very good.
It's very intelligent, very in-depth research.
Miles Mathis, his work.
But in this piece, I'm not a lawyer, but I've always been interested in law, and I've studied the law, and I've read a lot of law books and this kind of thing.
It's just a hobby of mine, and just the lack of understanding of basic law research in this piece is ridiculous.
The statement that, as we've talked about already, the jury, there was not a jury trial, so it must be fake.
There doesn't have to be a jury trial in a summary case like this.
There doesn't have to be, okay?
So, automatically, just looking through this, there's a massive ignorance of basic law in this piece, and that's what really disturbed me, is that, okay, you do all this great research, how come you can't put in there, you know, The truth about basic law.
It's not in there.
It's a hit piece.
He basically accuses you, Jim, of being a crisis actor and being a phony and a gatekeeper in this article basically in so many words.
It's a hit piece and he puts you on the same level as Alex Jones as being a disinformation expert.
That's basically what he's hinting at in this piece.
I haven't known you for a long time, but what I do know is, having done a couple shows with you, I can tell everybody out there listening that James Fetzer is an honorable person.
I know that already.
But the basic misunderstanding of basic law in this piece is horrendous, and there really is no excuse for it for a guy that does in-depth research, in my opinion.
I think those are excellent comments, Mike.
I agree 100%.
By the way, the whole idea of introducing summary judgment, which only came into play around 1957—in other words, a relatively recent innovation—is to, on the one hand, circumvent the necessity, the cost, and the complexity of jury trials,
In cases where there are no disputed facts and therefore no role for the jury to play in resolving disputes about the facts, but also to uphold the defendant's right to a trial by jury, because if there are any disputed facts, then he's entitled to a trial by jury.
There are massive disputed facts in this case.
If you were to read the appellate court ruling in two consecutive paragraphs, and this just reflects the absurdity of the Wisconsin Summary Judgment Protocols.
In two virtually consecutive paragraphs, it says it's reasonable to believe, and then it goes on to say Adam Lanza shot his mother, then went to San Diego and killed 20 kids and six adults.
Then it says it's unreasonable to believe that it was a two-day FEMA drill, that nobody died at Sandy Hook, and that it was promoted to promote gun control.
In virtually consecutive paragraphs, They declare the one is reasonable and the other isn't, which is the absurdity of the Wisconsin process.
It allows the judge to exercise his subjective judgment about what is and is not reasonable.
And if he finds facts to be unreasonable, he can just set them aside as though they didn't even exist.
There could hardly have been a greater juxtaposition of position than mine and that of Leonard Posner in this case.
But the judge, by simply eliminating all of my arguments and even my forensic document experts siding with me as unreasonable, he was able to apply a summary judgment on the ground that were no disputed facts.
That's the absurdity of the case.
Miles Mathis hasn't begun to understand.
This is like a bullet between the eyes of, you know, anyone who believes in due process and equal justice under law.
And Myles Mathis blew it big time.
Mike.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And the fact is, you know, the judge would not allow.
See, here's what they do all the time in the court system.
It's so corrupt.
These judges are out of control.
They've been out of control for quite some time in this country.
What they do is we have a case like this a lot of times that goes against the system.
And the official narrative.
There's a lot of there's a lot at stake here for the establishment in a case like this.
I will tell you that.
And as you well know, and what the judge will do is they'll deny you of all of your documentation.
They'll say it's not reasonable.
Like you said, that's one of those legal loophole words that can be used by a judge and they can use it however they want and twist it.
And then once they say that all of your documentation, you or whoever it is, is unreasonable and it's not credible according to them, then that's how you get denied of the jury trial and they move to a summary judgment.
It happens all the time.
It's tyrannical.
And by the way, you're right.
The summary judgment laws are fairly new.
It's a new thing.
And it really gives more power.
Again, it gives more power to the judge and takes it away from the jury trial.
And this was done on purpose.
And another reason, Mike, we're hitting the break and we're going to take calls after 5403524452.
Another reason they're going to take the case, I believe, is because, as a retired professor of law explained to me, the abuse of summary judgment is a major problem affecting the American judicial system today.
This is a chance to clean it up.
We'll be right back.
*music* You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines at battles against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomsubstance.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Ó Sumector, Ó Sumector Ó Sumector, Ó Sumector
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
The U.S.
Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuked on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
Paul, go ahead, give us your thoughts.
So freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Paul, go ahead.
Give us your thoughts.
Well, I would just add to what Mike said about, you know, the judges and summary judgment.
And I would say the other thing they do is they make cases disappear.
I know two people and I'm one of them whose cases disappeared from the court system.
You know, they they're they're not there and one of them was a guy who appealed a traffic case here and in this county actually.
And, uh, you know, they didn't want his, they, they claimed they lost the prosecution claim.
They, they lost it.
And then according to, uh, the judge, he actually got a letter and he dismissed the case because they would rather dismiss his case than have his appeal be on record with the issues that he raised.
And this thing probably goes on all the time.
If it happened to me and it happened to this other acquaintance of mine, you know, on some of these matters, just in other words, raising uncomfortable truth and a comfortable reality of the system.
Because as I've tried to tell people so many times, all the laws are in place, and all the court decisions are in place to offer us all the remedy and the protections that we really are entitled to.
But they don't give a damn.
They just ignore them.
And I think you know I speak the truth here, and that's where I'm coming from.
And I'm not disputing all of the arguments, legal and otherwise, that you've made.
Because I know you're right, and I know you do your homework.
And it's sad to say that, unfortunately, a lot of the homework in the end won't matter because, as I mentioned, we're dealing with the beast.
Oh, I understand the politics, Paul.
It's a matter of just getting the truth right.
We have a couple of callers standing by.
Brian, go ahead.
Join us, Brian.
Give us your thoughts.
Well, what you reminded me of today with this show was Veterans Today a few days ago had Hitler's Uh, 25 point platform in the 1920s for his political party.
And you read it, it just blows your mind.
One of them was German.
One of the points of Germans be subject to common law in place of Roman law.
And, uh, uh, that it's the no lying in the press that they wanted to, uh, make sure there were no wires in the press.
They weren't financed by entities outside of Germany that could influence the press.
Uh, close the borders, okay?
No non-Germans in the government.
I mean, when you read this 25 points and we could put them together, there would be no problems in the United States.
I mean, it just made my jaw drop.
And then Paul made this comment, Paul made a comment about, We need a central authority.
That's the only way things are going to work.
And the last point was we need a central, powerful authority to enact all this.
So, I mean, I would encourage everyone just to read it because it was just mind-blowing to read.
It just fit us perfectly, every aspect of it.
Brian, that's all very good.
Meanwhile, we have another caller from 724 Pennsylvania.
Join us, caller from Pennsylvania.
Hi, Jim.
This is Isaac.
I just was calling, so I was taking a look at your case.
So it looks like you should know now what their decision is.
It looks like on October 10th.
So the conference is October 7th, and then they'll release their decision on Uh, the Monday following the conference.
So that would be October 10th.
So, so you should know then.
So I, but the question I had for you, you know, I hear you, you're talking all this summary judgment and things like this again, but you know, and obviously this person you're just been talking about has no idea what about anything that they're, that they criticized you for and that the Supreme Court case is fake and all this stuff.
I mean, for God's sake, it's on the website.
Um, but you know, uh, you know, there's also this, the whole thing is, Jim, you could have had a, you could have had the jury trial.
The jury could have awarded you the verdict.
They could have said that, uh, no, Jim Fetzer did not defame Leonard Posner.
And the judge can just do a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and enter a verdict in Posner's favor anyways, and just disregard the verdict of the jury because he can say that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable.
So I mean, it's not just it's it's not just the summary judgment procedure.
There's so many if the judge doesn't think it's reasonable to believe in Sandy Hook, he can just set aside the jury's verdict and enter his own verdict and override it.
So that's the that's the law.
I mean, and that it's not very common that that happens.
But there is, you know, judgment, notwithstanding the verdict is a thing.
And it occasionally does happen.
It's supposed to.
It's supposed to be in place to protect people.
You know, if you're, you know, Jim, you're not the most popular person in Madison, Wisconsin, these days.
If you, if you, if you sued somebody for, you know, that owed you money and the jury didn't like you and didn't give you the verdict, the judge is, you know, it's supposed to be able to protect you so he can step in and, you know, protect you and say that the verdict was unreasonable.
But, you know, they can use that kind of stuff.
So I'm just saying that there's so many ways that they can get you.
But, you know, then there's the whole issue about why was it put, you know, I don't even want to respond to the things that this other person has written because they don't know what they're talking about.
But, you know, the fact that if you say that Gorsuch put this to the whole conference is a sign that, you know, he thinks it's meritorious or something, then why why didn't he just grant the stay himself is the first question.
And then, you know, allow it to proceed to the conference on the 28th of September.
Why did they move it to the 7th of October?
And, you know, is the question, you know, so those are some questions that you might think about.
Why didn't he just grant it summarily?
And, you know, they could, you know, he had the authority to do that.
He could just grant a stay.
So I don't know why he would refer to the whole conference.
The other thing I just, and I'm going to hang up as I don't have time.
I like this.
I want you to stick around.
I got answers for you.
Go ahead.
But just one other thing I just want you to think about is, you know, a stay typically, a stay typically stops a case.
So it means basically you cannot proceed or that order is prohibited from being from being executed.
But in this case, Posner's already taken the property and the order has already been perfected.
So actually, it seems like you would need a, not just a stay of the taking, but you would need a return of the property, not just a stay.
And then again, I don't want to go down this rabbit hole again, but you could have gotten an automatic stay of the taking order if you'd have filed bankruptcy.
But you know, that ship has sailed.
It ain't ever coming back.
So I just, you know, those are my thoughts.
I can't stay right now, but there's someone working on my air conditioner.
- Okay, well these are excellent. - But I'll listen to what you're saying.
- Thank you for calling.
- Thank you, thank you. - Thank you for calling.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I believe if I filed for bankruptcy, it would have initiated any further legal proceedings.
So I did not want to do that.
I would rather have the judgment hanging over my head and fight it out on legal grounds.
It's very unusual anyone's in a position of taking a case of the Supreme Court.
And the idea that Miles Mathis suggests anyone can file any document with the Supreme Court is completely absurd.
They're very elaborate procedures you have to go through.
The Supreme Court receives 8,000 to 10,000 submissions every year, but only hears about 800 out of that 8,000 to 10,000.
I've already gone through 10 of the 12 steps to get there.
Now, the date that the caller was mentioning is a hearing on the stay.
Yes, I was wanting just to stay the taking of the property.
It would now entail returning the property.
I agree with all that.
But the fact is that the original petition is going to be heard.
It's in conference on the 28th, which is just seven days hence.
And I'll actually know whether the court's going to hear it by the 3rd of October.
So what I find so valuable about this is that it lays out all these subtle issues about the Seventh Amendment that I began to explain but didn't finish explaining.
During the course of the argument for the taking order and my desire for a stay, one of the criteria for issue in a state is the likelihood of prevailing before the Supreme Court.
And among the arguments that the Posner team offered was because the Seventh Amendment doesn't apply to the states.
I mean, I was astonished when they made that argument.
So doing research on this matter, I found actually they were citing an earlier state of play that there's been a subsequent decision that in Puerto Rico, for example, a territory of the United States, The Seventh Amendment does apply, which I used as one of the keynotes Cases I cite in my petition regarding the stay, but I would have been unaware of the fact that there's any question here whatsoever.
I would have naively assumed, as did Miles Mathis, that of course the Seventh Amendment applies to the state.
What could be more obvious?
Except it turns out it isn't.
And this is another way I fault Miles Mathis.
If he's going to go on a tirade and smear me with this Really despicable attack.
He needs to know the facts, and he didn't get the facts straight from the beginning.
And the problem, Paul, is not that he isn't a good guy and he's usually right.
That's the reason this is so telling.
He is a good guy.
He is usually right.
But in this case, he missed it colossally on an absolutely fundamental issue.
And if he can't tell the difference between fake trials and real trials, between real truth tellers and those who are not, then he's falling far short of our expectation and doing a disservice to those of us who are seeking the truth.
Paul?
How do you know that it's still holding the conference on September 28th and they didn't move the conference to October 7th?
Because the way I read it, They moved the conference to October 7th.
Is that correct?
Of your petition?
I believe that they're considering both a petition for writ of certiorari and the application on the 7th.
That was my reading of it.
Well, that's very interesting.
I will look further at that.
My impression, I mean, it already said it.
The petition was distributed for the conference on the 28th.
Sometimes a petition can be relisted or moved to another conference if there are later developments like these.
I do have to go, but sometimes a petition will be relisted.
Sometimes a petition can be relisted or moved to another conference if there are later developments like these phones or if there's too many things on that date, so they may have pushed it.
I'm just saying.
So my guess would be October 10th, but I do have to go.
No, that's good.
I'm really delighted you called in, and I appreciate this clarification.
You may very well be exactly right, and I'm mistaken.
Paul, go ahead, Paul.
Just quickly before you go, I mean, we're all probably assuming that you're an attorney, correct?
Well, I do.
I do.
I do oil and gas.
Well, no, I don't.
I don't do any.
I don't do a civil litigation, but I have a procedure.
I'm licensed.
Yes.
Unlicensed.
OK.
OK.
I thought so.
Yeah.
No, no.
Appreciate your contribution.
It's all it's all good stuff.
And, you know, yeah, Jim, I would just say prior to the interaction you just had with our caller and you went to me, I agree with most mostly what you say.
It is troubling to me again.
You know, it's sort of like when you say certain things that I disagree with, I don't, on occasion I might find troubling, but, you know, we don't all get everything right.
I am willing to say that, but yeah, it is, you know, like I said, the slapdash way that he slammed you and put all that stuff together, I was bothered by, and that's why I sent it to you and suggested we do a show.
It's unfortunate that the vast majority of people know nothing about this.
And I'll just remind everybody one more time, all the listeners, and Jim, for you as well, just to keep this in mind, just think about the absurdity of what got all of this started, all of this paperwork, all of this turmoil, was an event that really never happened.
You know, we're talking about essentially a movie, okay?
In the end.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, I think the callers make wonderful points.
And you know, I'm just so glad that the appeal has been combined with a petition then because it really doubles the amount of argument I've been able to produce on some very subtle and complicated issues related to the Seventh Amendment that but for the hearing on the motion for taking and the arguments made by the Posner team, I would have been unaware completely and therefore would have
Potentially had to do a rear guard action to deal with them if they were to be accepted, and we have to do a rebriefing, whereas now, basically, I have all the ducks in a row, and if the caller's right, and it's now going to be heard on the third, and I'll know by the tenth, I think that's excellent.
I don't have any problem with that.
I'm delighted to get the clarification, because this is a major case, as I see it, if I'm correct in my interpretation.
Because it has to do with the applicability of the Seventh Amendment to all 50 states.
It certainly would be worthy of a hearing on its own part.
So I'm so glad to the call.
Paul, yeah.
Yeah, no, it is interesting.
I will say that.
OK, it is of interest to me.
I'm sure it's of interest to Mike.
It is an interesting thing.
No doubt about it.
And before the show ends, I wanted to say kudos to Brian.
Thank you for bringing up the 25 point platform, which I've mentioned many times on this show and others.
You know, yeah.
I mean, imagine those terrible Nazis wanting, you know, to have a little freedom and sovereignty.
And the other thing that I might mention, Brian, I'm sure if you read it, is they mentioned the fact that all large incomes not based on work will go away.
Such as, for example, huge investment firms and hedge funds owning tens of thousands of homes and rental properties.
And have secure borders, Paul?
Who would have thought?
Mike, go ahead.
can increase their earnings and profit off the backs of the working American who all they want to do is have a place to live and lay their head at night.
So yeah, imagine those terrible Nazis, what they tried to do.
And have secure borders, Paul, who would have thought?
Mike, go ahead.
Mike, yours.
Yeah, I think an interesting thing about summary judgment is the history of summary judgment.
You You know, when it was brought in, it actually was taken and adopted based upon British law, which is very interesting.
In England, the judge has authority to determine when a jury trial can take place, basically, automatically, off the start of anything, of any procedure.
And they took a portion of that from British law and brought it into American law, which is heresy, in my opinion.
But this has been happening for a long time.
As I said, going back to the War of 1812, then what occurred in 1871, of course, titles of nobility, Esquire, the Bar, British Accredited Registry.
They have, over time, slowly, slowly infiltrated and put us back under Crown law.
Which is not what we had in the very beginning at all.
It's been totally subverted in many ways.
But yeah, the history of summary judgment, actually, it was adopted and it was basically copied from British law, which is very interesting to look at the history.
No, excellent, excellent, Mike.
And just quickly, too, I think Mike will agree.
I think it should be retitled.
I don't like it.
And I think what it really should be called and what it really is, is judgment on the pleadings.
OK?
And in federal court, you can make a motion for judgment on the pleadings if the other party has not really properly contested your pleadings.
And also in common law, you have basically you file an affidavit, a sworn and notarized affidavit, and if they don't counter that with their own sworn and notarized affidavit that sufficiently rebuts or disputes the points that you make in your affidavit, then you essentially win the case because it's known as what it should be known as and what it is known as.
Well, Paul, you were wonderful to suggest this, to inform me of what Miles Mathis had published, and I'm just very glad we had this opportunity to discuss it.
as a weapon in this case, and I'm sure it's not the first time.
Well, Paul, you were wonderful to suggest this to inform me of what Miles Mathis had published, and I'm just very glad we had this opportunity to discuss it.
Brian, if you're still here, Brian, give us your further thoughts.
Brian, are you there?
If not, Mike, your thoughts?
I think this has been a very productive conversation.
I'm very happy with it, by the way.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And I think, you know, it's interesting.
One of the callers mentioned that if a jury was to find in your favor that the judge could just simply, you know, overrule the jury's decision, that can happen.
But it's very rare that that happens because Frankly, it looks really bad because you have, on the record, on the court records, documented that the jury said that we believe the defense and the judge overruled it.
Very controversial.
The judge can do that, but it very rarely happens because it looks very bad, you know?
But Mike, the point he's making is that this being a very controversial case that could have been done in this case, precisely because it involves Sandy Hook and exposes the complicity of the government in a major deception against the American public.
I mean, I've had any number of people suggest to me that this is a huge case, because if I were to prevail, It's going to have enormous ramifications for impugning the integrity of the government and that there are so many other cases where they perpetrated similar frauds that this is going to blow open the dam.
It may or may not have that effect, but it certainly would be a step in the right direction Because none of these cases have actually legitimately determined that anybody died at Sandy Hook, and that's where they're playing the public on a massive scale.
Not the Remington, none of the three Alex Jones, and certainly not mine.
Was there any actual judicial, proper judicial determination by a jury that anybody died?
They were all decided on procedural grounds.
Mike?
No jury has ever been able to actually look at the facts in this case.
That is the bottom line.
That's right.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
And that's on purpose.
But the media puts it out because I check in with the news to see how they cover things on the Jones Show for instance.
But the media makes it sound like, oh see they had a trial and the jury disagreed and Alex Jones now admits it happened and all this.
And this is the spin.
But the bottom line that people need to remember is that no facts in this case have ever been able to be presented in a court of law.
Yeah, it's astonishing, but that's right.
It's never been submitted to a jury.
Paul, go ahead.
Right.
And that's the idea, right?
In other words, that's the malevolent purpose, the somewhat more benign purpose, I suppose, of summary judgment is to keep matters out of the courtroom.
In other words, we can't have too much clogging of the courts, allegedly.
But I think that's another absurdity to essentially prevent most Americans from receiving justice.
I mean, the fact that in all these counties, there's basically one courthouse.
I mean, if we can have more than one Starbucks and more than one McDonald's, I think that we can have more than one court.
But they don't want these matters to really be adjudicated.
That's that's the issue.
And I had a lawyer tell me a couple of years ago when we were talking about a few things, he's been practicing.
He was closing in on 80, but he still sounded like a very, you know, healthy, vibrant man and still practicing his trade.
He said to me that over 90% of cases in this county never see a courtroom.
They're all settled out of court.
Yeah.
Well, it's expensive, time-consuming to convene juries.
Most of them are done on pleadings.
Yes, yes, yes.
He wasn't talking about summary judgments per se, of course, but his point is well taken.
Mike, more thoughts from you.
Yeah, we have one of the most corrupt judicial systems in the West, in Western civilization, right here in the United States.
It's very corrupt.
It's been infiltrated and, you know, our laws have been overturned for a very long time, going back to the history that I always talk about.
But yeah, the fact of the matter is that 98 to 99% of all court cases never go to trial.
They're done with pleas, like you said.
It's a rigged system for the most part.
In order to really prevail in this country, you have to have a lot of money and connections, unfortunately.
It's a system for the top elites, and it's not a system for the working class at all, or the poor.
It's a system for the people at the very top.
It's a country club.
It's a club and they're not part of it.
And this, in my opinion, is why both sides have so strenuously opposed Donald Trump.
He actually represents the people's choice.
He actually cares about Americans.
I mean, we can debate all we want about details, but I think Trump is a threat to the establishment, which is why they're trying so desperately to get rid of him.
And while we were on the air, There was an announcement from the Attorney General of New York of a massive lawsuit being brought against a whole Trump family for some kind of fraud.
I mean, my God.
You know?
Yeah.
There's just no end to the politicalization of the law enforcement in the Department of Justice.
In this case, at the state level.
Really, really bad.
I think Jim and Mike will probably agree with this, that the more important point to remember about all these actions taking place against Trump is not so much that he is for us or is on the side of the American people, which may be partially true, but it's to essentially undermine any strong, powerful figure that has an enthusiastic following, right?
pathetic, weak, milk toast or despicable people.
That's who they prefer.
And it's obvious when you look at who the politicians are that get promoted and they get FaceTime on the media.
They're in many cases, odious people.
And I think that's just part of what they like to do, which is slap us in the face with the ridiculousness of it, right?
Joe Biden, for God's sake, I mean, prime example, but many, many others, as you know. - Yes, yes.
Well, I think you guys have been excellent.
I'm really delighted with the discussion.
Brian made valuable.
And, of course, the guy from Pennsylvania is sensational.
He really knows his stuff.
And I suspect he's exactly right that my case has been set for a later conference, but that it's all proceeding.
And I think he suggested I would know by the 10th of October.
That's a week later.
But given the importance of the appeal being considered together with it, I am very happy with that.
I don't have any complaints whatsoever.
Real short, one sentence, Paul, one sentence, Mike, and then we'll close it out.
Paul.
Um, well, I don't have a whole lot more to add in a sentence, but thanks for the opportunity today, Jim.
And we're all on your side.
We're rooting for you.
And, you know, it's just, I think we all perceive what we're up against.
Oh, you had a great idea.
Mike, your final thoughts?
Yeah.
The law has been weaponized against the working class and in this country.
And it's been weaponized against people who want to protect and defend western civilization.
▲
Export Selection