All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:55:43
The Raw Deal (7 October 2022)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I need somebody.
Help!
Not just anybody.
Help!
You know I need someone.
Help!
When I was young, so much younger than today.
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 a gentle mind and open up the doors.
Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
And I do appreciate you being round.
Help me get my feet back on the ground.
Won't you please, please help me?
Oh, this is Jim Fetzer, your host.
I want to begin today with the Supreme Court, where public trust in the institution has hit historic lows.
And that goes for me as well, because as I'm going to explain, the Supreme Court has rejected my petition for a writ of certiorari under circumstances that I find I mean, they don't give a word of explanation, but this was such a perfect case for the court that's causing me profound distress.
I shall share and say more.
Meanwhile, according to a recent Gallup poll, faith in one of America's highest and most respected institutions is currently at an all-time low.
Only 47% of Americans support the judicial branch down from 53.
Here's what Gallup has to say.
47% of adults say they have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the judicial brand of the federal government headed by the Supreme Court.
This represents a 20 percentage point drop from two years ago, including seven points since last year.
Now the lowest in Gallup's trend by six points.
The judicial branch's current tarnished image contrasts with trust levels exceeding two-thirds in most years in Gallup's trend that began in 1972.
In addition to document record low trust in the federal judiciary, the new poll finds a record time low, 40% of Americans saying they approve, And a record high 58% saying they disapprove of the job the Supreme Court is doing.
This is pretty troubling.
I don't know whether the addition of this new justice contention of Brown-Jackson is going to increase or diminish my impressions of her highly unfavorable.
It appears she represents something called the progressive originalist methodology.
It wants to interpret everything, every law, every action in the Constitution itself in racial terms, through a racial lens.
Here, she's claiming the framers of the Reconstruction Amendment did not intend for them to be race neutral, that is colorblind.
But, you know, I think there's a profound confusion here between motivation and effect.
The motivation for passing the Reconstruction Amendments, which were supposed to ensure equal justice under law for blacks, but actually for all Americans.
I mean, the 14th Amendment was at stake in my petition to the Supreme Court, and there's one more reason why I'm dismayed that they have declined to take it.
But the effect is not racist.
In fact, it is color neutral because it's saying every American, regardless of whether you're black, white, pink, yellow, you're entitled to equal justice under the law.
Now, as my petition makes clear, we as Citizens of the United States, but also citizens of our states, are dual citizens.
As citizens of the United States, we enjoy all the rights and privileges thereto that are granted by the Constitution.
As citizens of the individual states, as I am of Wisconsin, I am also entitled to the rights of my state, but in this case, My right to a trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment if it incorporates a 7th, and this is what my case is all about, are contradicted by what happens in Wisconsin.
In other words, my rights as a citizen of Wisconsin are not equal to my rights as a citizen of the United States.
And for her, this continued Brown-Jackson beclaiming, They were race conscious.
I think that's true in terms of motivation, of course, because having had a segment of the population as slaves, or even in the Constitution itself only ascribed as a portion of being equal to a citizen, what, three-fifths?
This was setting that right.
But to claim that the 14th Amendment per se is not colorblind, in my opinion, is completely ridiculous.
It says all citizens are entitled to the same rights.
So is this woman going to help or hurt?
During oral arguments in Merrill vs. Milligan, Jackson used progressive originalist methodology to refute assertions of colorblind remedies to questions of voter discrimination.
The case centers on Alabama's redistricting map, in which lawmakers gerrymander districts in such a way that only one is a majority black.
Under the proposed map, black residents have control over just 14% of the state's congressional districts, despite being roughly 27% of the state population.
And by the way, this is not really highly Anomalous, I mean, when the states do their districting, this is called gerrymandering.
They try to draw the districts in a way that's going to be most advantageous to their party.
I mean, this is a historical practice, not that it's right.
I favor the Iowa model that has districting done by a panel of retired judges who are Pretty objective to make things come out roughly right so each district represents about a similar proportion of the population numerically but where they take into account you know fairness.
Which isn't required by you know the political dictates that's what this is all about.
At issue therefore, the story continues, is whether Alabama's race-blind approach to drawing congressional districts ultimately discriminates against minority voters.
In other words, in the past, it would be Republicans discriminating against Democrats, or Democrats discriminating against Republicans, you know, to minimize their representation in Congress.
By way of redistricting.
So, what we have is Katenya Brown Jackson arguing for, you know, racial spin, black and white.
After hearing arguments from Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour, Jackson asserted the entire point of the Reconstruction Amendment, the 13th, 14th, and 15th, was to provide a race-based legal remedy to problems That former slave states otherwise refused to adopt now I think.
Historically that's OK.
I mean they were trying to correct the problem in the States.
I don't think we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem the justice that now here she started to make sense.
Because here she's saying even if it was based on racial consideration doesn't mean it creates an equal protection problem.
Because it was motivated really to remedy a problem of the past.
She explained after she analyzed the justification of the framers of the post civil war constitutional amendments.
It became clear to me that the framers themselves adopted the Equal Protection Clause, the 15th Amendment, in a race-conscious way.
What we were, in fact, trying to ensure that people who had been discriminated against, the freedmen, those were blacks who'd been freed during the Reconstruction period, were actually brought equal to everyone else in society.
To support her thesis, she signed a report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction drafted by the same lawmakers who wrote the 14th, which in my opinion is among the most important.
The report provides the legal rationale for the constitutional protection deemed necessary after slavery.
That report says the entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed and former slaves.
The legislator who introduced that amendment said that unless the Constitution should restrain them, those states will, I fear, keep up this discrimination and crush to death the hated freedmen.
That's not a race-neutral or race-blind idea in terms of the remedy.
Going further, Jackson noted that one purpose for adopting the 14th was to provide a legal basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Which specifically stated citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens.
That's the point of the act.
To ensure other citizens, a black citizen, would have the same as the white.
Now we have the question today before us, do white citizens have the same rights as black?
It's too early to tell, but as Vox noted, even the court's conservative lean justices seem skeptical of many of LaCour's arguments.
The news outlet actually suggests Brett Kavanaugh may side with his left-leaning, liberal-leaning colleagues, given the questions he asked.
Still, Alabama is likely to prevail, albeit with a narrow, not broad, victory.
Now, in my case, the 14th Amendment figures, I submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
Where you must summarize the point of the whole case in a single question or few right at the beginning, right off the bat.
Well, here is my question.
I had only one question.
May rules of summary judgment vary throughout the states, allowing the Wisconsin judiciary to conduct and affirm a non-jury trial
Under the pretense of a summary judgment proceeding, the process of which violates all the rules of summary judgment in Texas, depriving Wisconsin citizens of their equal right to a trial by jury and due process under the 7th and the 14th Amendments, and further allowing a Wisconsin judge to determine the validity of major national events through unsound summary judgment methodology?
That's a hell of a question!
Just for background, for any who are unaware, summary judgment is a process that was introduced around 1957 to circumvent the necessity of conducting a jury trial, which is very time-consuming, expensive, interrupts lives of citizens that participate, etc.
In cases where there are no disputed facts, in other words, if both parties agree on the facts, Then the case can be resolved by applying the law to the facts and yielding what ought to be an appropriate.
Judicial solution to the conflict represented by the parties in court.
It assumes there are no disputed facts.
The role of the jury is to resolve disputed facts.
The whole purpose of a trial.
Is the thought figure out what are the facts of the case so that the law can then be applied?
That's the 7th Amendment guaranteed to a trial by jury.
It actually says it is 7th for any matter involving more than $20, but of course that was a long time ago.
The point is, if there are disputed facts, you should go to a jury for the jury to resolve them.
In my case.
The facts were massively disputed here i was being sued by a party.
Calling himself leonard posner whom i regard as a legal fiction.
For having somehow defamed him by by questioning the authenticity of a death certificate he had himself published on his own blog.
Where the death certificate itself had no file number, it had no town certification, it had no state certification.
Where the way in which death certificates are filled out in Connecticut in particular, but I expect similarly in other states, you first have the medical authority certifying the death of the party.
And there are three parts to it.
And then you have a funeral director or whatever certifying about a burial and you have the stated cause of death.
But we also have then, it has to be certified by the town clerk, the town executive of documents.
That this is authentic and then it goes to the state and gets us the state when it releases a copy as a state seal it says this is a true copy of the one certified by the town clerk whose name in this instance is Debbie Aurelia well.
All versions of the death certificate that were in question and there turned out to be a total of five stated that the decedent.
Noah Posner, by name, whom I believe to be another legal fiction, actually died at San Diego Elementary School on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds, as stated right there.
So here you have this.
I'm being sued for questioning, but look, it's an incomplete death certificate.
It has no file number.
It has no town or state certification.
This is very analogous to a To a driver's license that has no driver's license number or that has no state seal.
I mean, who would believe that a driver's license number that had no driver's license that had no number or state seal was authentic?
No one would believe it, right?
I mean, it's obviously fraudulent on its face.
I was confronted with a similar situation.
And by the way, I'm only explaining the trial.
I'm under a permanent injunction that I cannot reaffirm the sentences for which I was declared to be liable for defamation, so I'm only explaining the trial.
Attached to the complaint in my case was a complete death certificate that had all the missing ingredients, so.
They could not have been more different from a legal point of view, and nevertheless, in the complaint, it stated there was no material difference between them.
Well, material differences are differences that matter in the eyes of the law, obviously.
Having a file number, town, state, certification, all materially different.
So this was bizarre from the beginning.
Well.
So I get this complaint.
I've got all this evidence.
I'm thinking, wow, you know, I really would like to have the opportunity to get this certified through a judicial process, because there's been no judicial process that has come to a determination of whether anybody, even one person, died at Sandy Hook.
Not one.
And indeed, you've been following the Alex Jones.
There are three trials for damages, and it's so interesting to me.
Coincidence or not, that Alex Jones decided he no longer has to show up for the circus when the Supreme Court denies my petition.
I mean, what in the world is going on here?
In fact, there was a taking of my blog that occurred on the 28th of July, just as the Alex Jones trial was gearing up to start to smear those of us who've been prominent San Diego skeptics, including Sophia Smallstorm, James Tracy, Wolfgang Halbig, and me.
They even had a producer for Alex Jones reading part of a, what is it, Paul Joseph Watson memo to Alex saying something like, we got to stay as far away as possible from that batshit crazy fencer.
Well, just when they're introducing this in the Alex Jones, they've taken my blog.
That's when they took it.
I've been protesting this all along.
It's all wrong.
Again, it's a violation of Wisconsin law.
The way it was done is just stunning.
But the timing, I think it was the timing that set the whole process, you know, in kind of a lockstep sequence.
They had to take it.
They had to have the blog by the 28th of July, because otherwise hearing about this batch of crazy venture, they might go to jamesfetzer.org and find out what this batch of crazy guy has to say about Sandy Hooker.
There's a vast repository of information there about Sandy Hook.
I mean, for God's sake, you know, how long have I been doing this?
So when I looked up about summary judgments, I discovered in a summary judgment.
The court has to adopt all of the positions of the plaintiff, the party being sued, also known as the non-moving, because he didn't move to bring the action in the first place.
Where the plaintiff is known also as the moving, because the plaintiff is bringing the action.
You have to assume all the positions, assertions of the non-moving, of the defendant, of me in this case.
To wit that nobody died at San Diego was a FEMA drill to promote gun control presented as mass murder that the FBI consolidated crime report for 2012 shows at the intersection of murder and non negligent homicide in Newtown of which Sandy Hook is a subdivision zero.
That all the events on the ground correspond to what you'd expect from a FEMA drill.
Including the sign, everyone must check in.
It says right in the manual, everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival.
porta potties in place, pizza, bottled water at the firehouse, all standard for FEMA drills.
They provide restaurants and refreshments.
You had a whole lot with name tags on lanyards.
Well, that's what FEMA does.
They identify the players by color-coded name tags.
I had a mess of evidence, okay, that I'd already outlined in my answer to the complaint.
So I knew from my understanding of summary judgment that they had to assume the truth of all of my positions and then ask the defendant if he agreed.
And if he agreed, then and only then would you have no disputed facts and the judge could simply rule as a matter of a summary judgment. - Right.
That's what I thought going in.
I was there for a completely baffled when during the scheduling conference.
The judge asserted that by understood I had certain opinions about.
Sandy Hook not having happened more accurately not having happened as the official narrative would have it because something happened there.
But that he was not going to go down that rabbit hole and he asserted.
That my position on these issues had nothing to do with the accuracy or the truthfulness of the death certificate full stop full stop.
Full stop.
Now, we not only had this legal absurdity in the complaint that there were no material differences between an incomplete death certificate and a complete death certificate with regard to file number, town and state certification, which was absurd on its face, but now you got the judge committing a logical blunder.
I mean, this is just incredible.
Claiming that my position that nobody died at Sandy Hook had nothing to do with the truth or accuracy of a death certificate claiming somebody died at Sandy Hook.
There were attorneys involved in this case who immediately concluded that this was not on the up and up.
Let me put it that way.
That this was not on the up and up.
Now.
So I was now confronted with focusing exclusively on the death certificate, right?
And in fact, I had, you know, various questions about the death certificate, because there were the different fonts, different type styles, blah, blah, blah.
At that time, I hadn't fully appreciated, at the time of publishing the book, how these death certificates are made out by three different parties at different times, and therefore you have these differences in font, etc.
So even during the oral hearing I explained, I told the court that some of my reasons for having believed it was fake, and again I'm just recounting the case, were wrong.
My conclusion That it was fake was correct.
This is all in the trial transcript.
You can find us all there.
I'm not reasserting.
I can't reassert, right?
I'm under a permanent injunction.
I'm just ascribing a trial.
And indeed, I had two, not one, but two forensic document experts who confirmed All four of the death certificates, versions of which were in evidence, the first two, the one I'd originally published and one attached to the complaint, and two others, one of which Dave Gehry had obtained from the town clerk, Debbie Aurelian, and one I'd obtained from the state.
All four of them, according to the forensic document experts, were fake.
All four.
I thought I had a slam dunk.
And then during the oral hearing, I find Dave, Not only did the plaintiff introduce a fifth I'd never seen before, and I don't even think this is proper procedurally to introduce yet a new document that the defendant had never even seen before, which I've subsequently examined under a microscope, and I'll just tell you, it ain't any more authentic than the others, indeed even more shabby in my opinion, but I'm
I'll leave that to the side momentarily and just say the judge said that the reports of the were just opinions.
The document expert reports were just opinions and he found them not helpful and he just set them aside, ruled there were no disputed facts and found me guilty of defamation and liable for a future trial would be set to determine the amount of damages I owed, which when occur.
To the tune of 450,000.
to the tune of 450,000.
We're back after the break. .
Listen 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 of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomsubsid.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution. Radio. Radio.
Hey, everyone.
It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, the Cosmic Oracle.
If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then 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 all in the form of a ceramic First it's 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 bullhorns 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 quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
Oh, oh, oh, oh. oh.
Oh, oh. oh.
Oh, oh.
by the guests, all in listeners, or chatter, solely the opinions of the original source who express them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the radio.
FreedomSlips.com.
Get staff or a friend.
Radio, FreedomSlips.com.
100% listener-supported radio.
And now we return you to your host.
Now, again, Now, again, maybe it's only a coincidence that the sound was going in and out there when they were talking about my pitch regarding give send go dot com slash funding fat cert. maybe it's only a coincidence that the sound was going
And notice how I talk about how it was with Remington's help when we're talking there about the Remington lawsuit, whereas in the case of the three Alex Jones lawsuits, I also sought to intervene to make the point that There's never been a judicial determination whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
And in all of those cases.
I was opposed not only by the families of the fake parents, which was unsurprising, but by the defendants.
Even Remington.
The poor insurance companies were more eager to pay 73 mil than allow me to come in and point out that there's never been a determination that anybody died at Sandy Hook and therefore this whole thing has been proceeding on the basis of a premise that has not to be not yet been established in others.
Begging the question, which in logic doesn't mean inviting a question, begging the question means taking for granted the solution, the answer.
Without establishing that it's true, begging the question, taking for granted something that requires independent establishment.
Well, there's an irony there saying, with Remington help, because it just so happens a circuit judge here in Wisconsin who heard my case is named Remington, Frank Remington.
And, you know, there must have been 20 different motions I made that involved, you know, upholding my rights one way or another, and the court in this case ruled against me every single time.
I cannot think of a single instance in which the court ruled in my favor, even when I was making the point that since we're dealing with this Leonard Posner and Noah Posner, where the defense was having a blood sample test to verify that Leonard Posner stood in a Paternal relationship to Noah.
I explained, of course, that's a case because, in fact, Leonard Posner is a real fiction and his real name is Reuben Vabner and Noah Posner is a legal fiction and the real party is Michael Vabner, where Noah is a fiction created out of photographs of Michael Vabner as a child.
So you're going to come back with a positive familial relationship.
So I propose expanding the blood test.
To not just Leonard Posner and Noah Posner, but to Michael Vabner and Ruben Vabner.
But of course, they would have come back the same.
The judge, of course, ruled against it.
I mean, it's just astonishing how many rulings were made in this case.
I mean, it's like a work of fiction.
So now I'm taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
I teed it up for the Supreme Court.
This is a question of massive magnitude, not just Because it involves me, but because it turns out the methodology that was applied in my case, the summary judgment methodology that is in place in Wisconsin, allows a judge to exercise his own subjective opinion about which facts are reasonable and which are not.
And if he decides, the plaintiffs Facts are not reasonable.
We can just set them aside and treat them as though they did not even exist.
That's what happened in this case.
It took me a long time to sort out what had happened to me when I'd come in with just bristling with evidence.
And I felt logic, evidence, the law were all on my side, only to discover that in Wisconsin, All that matters is, or what makes a decisive difference, is a judge's attitude toward your case and your facts.
And if the judge disagrees with your case or your facts, he can just set them aside as though they did not exist.
I mean, look what he's doing here!
He's saying there's, you know, that the truth or falsity of my mass evidence isn't relevant to the Accuracy or the truthfulness of a death certificate when they're in direct conflict?
I mean, they couldn't be more in opposition.
Indeed, when I appealed to the Court of Appeals, Fourth District, they reaffirmed that this was a case.
They actually stated it, right?
And I didn't fully appreciate the enormity of this until by and by, and I realized why I had to carry this to the Supreme Court.
It states right in the rejection of my appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in virtually successive paragraphs, it's reasonable to believe.
Adam Lanza shot his mother, then went to San Diego Elementary, shot 20 kids and six adults, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Official narrative.
Then it says it's unreasonable to believe This was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Even though I had government documents like the FBI Consolidated Crime Report to support, even though I had a copy of the FEMA manual, which I've now, based on ongoing research, Confirmed in more spades even than the fact that all the events on the ground were in conformity and the following day there was no surge of EMTs into the school.
No string of ambulances to rush the little bodies off the hospital to be determined to be dead or alive.
No medevac helicopter call.
No evacuation of what should have been 469 other students.
Nobody's dead or alive, but on the truth, honest to God, the evidence here is so overwhelming.
I'm embarrassed that people who apparently have never actually taken a look at the evidence, most certainly have never even read the book, tell me, you know, they can't believe that I'm a bad guy.
I'm a bad guy because I've disputed the official narrative of Sandy Hook.
Well, It turns out there's this methodological problem, which is why my question was phrased the way it was phrased.
And now it turns out that it went to conference on the 28th of September.
And now I was notified, it was actually published on the Supreme Court docket, petition denied October 3rd.
That was Monday.
Honest to God, it's taken me this long to absorb it and to be prepared to share with you what's happened here because I'm flabbergasted.
I'm really stunned.
Because as I began to explain, this doesn't just affect me.
I'm not stunned for me personally.
I mean, given what I've gone through, I'm not surprised at all.
What I'm surprised is this is the Supreme Court of the United States.
And among the criteria for the Supreme Court to take a case is that there is a conflict between the highest courts of different states.
Well, I use Texas as the example.
The summary judgment procedure I described would have been applied in Texas.
The case would have either been thrown out or I would have had my jury trial and the opportunity to accomplish what I entered the whole matter to accomplish, to get all this evidence.
Into the public record and an outcome of a judicial finding that nobody died at Sandy Hook.
But it didn't happen, and it's because Wisconsin has this perverse methodology that's applied to every resident of Wisconsin.
Every resident of Wisconsin is subject to the same absurd, just absurd, Methodology that allows a judge on the basis of his subjective opinion, his personal beliefs to decide what are the facts.
I mean, this is just ridiculous beyond belief.
The United States Supreme Court is going to allow that to stand.
Not only, but in the course of my research, I discovered.
And this happened when I was protesting the taking of my blog.
In the book, okay?
The blog and the book, Nobody Died Sandy Hook, have been given to Leonard Posner by the same judge, by the same court, which I was protesting because then I had to hire a whole nother attorney here for this with another five to seven grand in debt.
I mean, that's part of what's going on here.
This is to punish you for exposing inconvenient truths.
The government doesn't want, even Leonard Posner on his own blog when he was questioned about the Wolfgang Halbe case, which he lost because he declined to show up for a video deposition and the judge ruled against him.
So I said, well, you lost in that case, didn't you?
And he said, well, no, not really.
He said the objective was to drag him into court so he'd run up legal bills.
And thereby punish him, and he took down his blog.
Well, in my case, he ran up my legal bills and he took my book.
That was the whole idea.
But no, I didn't run up legal bills, but because I was fighting this and being what I thought was very resourceful, I got slammed, not only with 450, by the jury of 12 Madisonians, and Madison is a very liberal state.
12 jurors, age 30 or younger, one man and 11 women, all of whom affirmed they'd never even heard of Alex Jones.
Can you believe that?
I find it hard to anywhere in the world.
You can find 12 people who've never heard of Alex Jones for crying out loud.
So they nevertheless, it was very emotionally projected the image of little Noah, who is incredibly telegenic.
In fact, when he was a kid, Michael Fabner was a model for commercial products for advertising LifeVest, for example, in Canada.
He was a model.
They projected his image up on the wall during the trial for the images, and the lead female attorney made an emotional plea, broke into tears, all this sob story.
It was ridiculous.
There was an interesting highlight to this when I was put on the stand and I was asked about the findings of, you know, about the declaration I'd made, you know.
In the status of the death certificate, I turned to the judge and I said, am I under oath?
And he assured me, yes, I was.
And I said, well, they're fake.
All four, all of them are fake.
And the judge was so upset.
He cleared the courtroom and reprimanded me for not lying under oath, as Kevin Barrett would put it, and a brilliant piece he would subsequently write that you can find it on UNZ.com.
Illegal lynching of a truth seeker.
A Jim Fetzer Stalinist-style show trial.
It's just a brilliant piece.
If you want to get one piece that captures exactly the spirit of what I've endured, Kevin Barrett nailed it.
Nailed it.
So, the petition's been denied.
Seemingly, that's an affirmation of this bizarre proposition.
When they took the blog, I knew this was all wrong, but I also felt it would be futile to apply to the Court of Appeals here in Wisconsin because they'd already ruled against me.
And because I was already in the Supreme Court, I had the option of I could go directly to the Supreme Court.
So I initially submitted because I'm in the Seventh Circuit.
It turns out all 50 states are divided into nine circuits, clusters of states.
And each of the respective justices has responsibility for initial hearing of appeals coming from their circuit.
So I sent my initial appeal to Amy Coney Barrett because she has responsibility for Wisconsin as part of the Seventh Circuit, which she denied.
Now, it turns out You can make a separate, you gotta know the rules of the court, and they're not always easy to find, but there's a publication about the rules of the Supreme Court, you gotta read it pretty carefully to ferret all this out.
But it gave me the option to appeal to yet another justice.
And I asked myself, well, which of these justices is the most like Scalia?
Because Scalia was an absolute constitutional, Scalia would have had fits over what happened to me.
And it turns out Gorsuch was a huge fan of Scalia.
Broke down sobbing when he heard of Scalia's death, which, by the way, I believe was murder to affect the composition of the court because Scalia was so strong, such a formidable intellectual force.
And Gorsuch, instead of denying it, distributed it to the court for a conference on the 7th.
Well, guess what?
Today is the 7th.
I appeal for a stay to block this wrongful taking, which is in violation of Wisconsin law, because Wisconsin law says, and this is to satisfy the $450,000 that the trial for damages awarded to the legal fiction Posner, can only be satisfied by monetary award.
You can only satisfy monetary judgment by a monetary award.
Well, a book and a blog are not monetary.
So they're not even candidates for being a monetary work unless there's a procedure for handling intellectual property goes to a receiver the receiver puts them up for bids to see who is gonna wanna.
You know, take control of these properties.
And I tell you, that book, if it were published, and I made this point repeatedly, that this was improper to give to Posner to satisfy a monetary award because he's actually even judicially estoppeled for taking it to market it.
He cannot benefit from his previous position.
This is a well-known doctrine under the law.
So it wasn't even proper to award him to satisfy a monetary judgment.
And they just pulled the figure out of the air, more or less.
Of $100,000 and said they were going to take $100,000 off of the $450,000 for the book.
But the fact is, that's just a gratuitous assignment of money.
It's not a proper determination.
That would have to be made by a receiver.
No doubt Posner was worried that someone else would take the book.
But published, even if you had to edit out the three sentences in the book that were found to be offensive under the law, It would sell like mad.
In fact, I was even explaining if I had the right to market the book in an edited version, I could probably pay off the 450 grand in a couple of years max.
I would estimate I could make A minimum of $125,000 or more from marketing the book in a redacted edition and pay it off.
But the judge didn't see it that way.
And of course, Posner didn't want it to go that way.
He wanted the book.
And the judge even admitted, Posner himself, by the way, not being physically present, or Ruben Vabner not being physically present, but the judge even admitted that he had Appreciate my point that the book seemed to have no marketing value, but that often, you know, in legal cases, one party just wants to have something for their own personal satisfaction.
And this was it.
And he gave the book and the blog, but it was in violation of Wisconsin law.
So I laid all this out in my petition for an appeal.
My application for a stay that this be this taking order be held in abeyance Until my petition the Supreme Court ruled on my petition now The whole point was to get that appeal Before the court before they ruled on my petition, but it never caught up with a petition So now they've ruled on the petition.
So now it's in conference today What are they gonna do with it given that it's already?
Already been decided.
I mean, is there anything they will do?
Here's the conclusion of the application.
This application first day proves that regardless of the truth of the mass media cartel narratives about the Sandy Hook mass shooting.
The judicial system has allowed it to become a proven judicial public reality without a jury ever hearing, seeing, or considering any evidence for or against the event that is used to disarm them against the law of the land.
This present system would also allow any future theatrical event to become adjudicated reality, even if the prior ones were real.
Reality should not be based on stipulation and assumption and the subjective reason of one judge in a flawed summary judgment methodology.
Judicial rulings that the media reports and the people adopt must be based upon facts established by a jury or by a judicial method that protects the right to a trial by jury of the one at risk of losing it.
The American people are placed at risk by anything less This application has also shown that the taking order to be stayed is an abusive process and hence cannot harm the judgment creditor by law as they are also judicially estopped from claiming the property taken had it value to them to begin with.
Further, the admissions without objection in open court during Dr. Fetzer's motion for reconsideration and to stay The taking order reveals a true motive of the entire lawsuit and the use of a judicial process that lends itself to weaponization to accomplish the goal to shut down investigation of Sandy Hook and any book and website to prevent public access to any evidence indicating that Sandy Hook did not happen as they have been told.
This is an unlawful purpose of litigation and post-judgment execution laws and a denial of First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press.
The question Dr. Fetzer has asked is high, hard to answer is...
Bay rules of summary judgment vary throughout the state, allowing the Wisconsin Judiciary to conduct an affirmative non-jury trial under the pretense of a summary judgment proceeding, the process of which violates all the rules of summary judgment in Texas, depriving Wisconsin citizens of their equal right to a trial by jury and due process under the 7th and 14th Amendments, and further allowing a Wisconsin judge to determine the validity of major national events
Through unsound summary judgment methodology?
This application to stay the taking order further elaborates on the same question by asking, can a dual citizen of Wisconsin and of the United States be denied their Seventh Amendment right under the United States Constitution when it would have been protected in Texas or California?
This is the very purpose of the federal government.
To resolve questions between states as to how they interact with each other and also how they protect dual citizens.
If it was not clear in the beginning that the 7th Amendment applied to all state citizens, it was resolved with the 14th Amendment, making all state citizens into United States citizens with the rights of their state and those of the United States Constitution.
This also allows the Supreme Court of the United States to establish a uniform summary judgment process in every state and territory that will protect state and federal rights.
Based upon the foregoing showing all the elements necessary to obtain a stay of the order granting plaintiff motion for turnover of property to satisfy judgment taking order in the Wisconsin-Dane County Circuit Court.
Dr. Fetzer respectfully requested his application for an administrative stay along with a stay of the said taking order in all other forms of execution until disposition of his petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
Now let me tell you, I don't think it's a coincidence we're getting all this interference and you may not be able to hear a single word.
I think we're being monitored in real time and that this is deliberate to obfuscate what I'm seeking to share with you about this matter.
Anyone who wants to learn more, there's a wonderful archive about it that was maintained by a fellow who knows a lot about summary judgments in Texas, and through a conversation with whom I really got a clear conception of what was going on here, post wtc.com slash pvf dot html, I repeat,
P-O-S-T-W-T-C, postwtc.com slash P-V-F for Posner versus Fetzer dot H-T-M-L, where you'll find not only virtually all of the documents in this case on the left-hand side, but you'll find a whole lot of commentaries on this case on the right-hand side, including Kevin Barrett's legal lynching of a truth teller.
Ron and I have discussed And now we're wondering what could possibly happen today.
Here's a summary of bare bones of his thoughts about it.
I wonder what's going to be distributed on October 7th for conferences on the schedule.
The petition is denied, but what about the stay?
I think the stay is better than the petition.
I don't think it's likely, but I think it's possible for the court to change its mind.
The overall feeling I get from reading the Supreme Court rules is that they can do pretty much whatever they want, however they want it.
I think you're right.
The state did not catch up with a petition.
The state was referred to the court but not distributed for conference until October 7th.
That makes all the docket consistent.
A referral to the court by a justice does not distribute it to the court.
That's done by the clerk.
I do not believe the docket schedule was changed at all and moved up.
The latter date was simply the distribution for conference of the referral to the Court of the State.
I expect to see one more entry in the docket regarding the Court's decision on the stay, regardless of their opinion on the petition.
Besides, regardless of the merit of the petition, the taking order is unlawful, however, may not be judgeable by the Supreme Court's strictest statement.
This case is just too messed up for the Supreme Court not to do anything.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns 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. - Whoa!
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do!
and we must fight back.
You can torture us and bomb us.
Fire is catching.
And if we burn, You burn with us!
Good evening.
Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
But time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
Revolution.
Radio.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued, they 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 health.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Well, I thought I'd bring you up to date, Karen.
I've had enough time to absorb the body blow.
This really dumbfounds me because it turns out, oddly enough, I mean, this is highly ironic and peculiar historically.
Well, the Supreme Court has affirmed the applicability of all of the other nine of the first 10 amendments as applying to all 50 of the states.
It's never made that formal determination with regard to the seventh.
So that in my motion for the stay, I added a whole lot of argument and explanation related to the original writ, and I even reviewed the criteria on the basis of which The court selects cases, including that they represent conflicts between the highest courts of different states, that there'd be a publicly significant case.
I mean, listen, there's so many ways this is a public significance, including not just that Sandy Hook is of huge consequence and is being used to affect public policies, in particular to infringe our right.
Keeping bare arms, which the Declaration, the Second Amendment, shall not be infringed.
They're doing just that.
I mean, Biden's a gun grabber.
Obama was a gun grabber.
They want to take our guns.
And to say they're tools of the New World Order is a bit of an understatement, in my opinion.
It is grotesque.
Not only, you know, so here you have the Supreme Court having a perfect case.
To affirm the 7th amendment applies to all the states, it turns out as a retired professor of law who very much liked my petition observed to me.
It also provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clean up the biggest judicial mess affecting the nation, which is the abuse of summary judgment.
So they can set uniform standards that apply throughout all 50 of the states regarding summary judgment, make sure they're exactly the same so there aren't oddities like Wisconsin.
And remember, as I began to say, this affects every resident of Wisconsin.
They're subjected to this absurd summary judgment.
Allow the judge to decide your case just about the basis of his subjective opinion.
I mean, that's ridiculous.
It's the antithesis.
Of what the law is supposed to be all about, and believe me, if there has been anything that has distinguished the United States of America and made it a beacon for the world, it's law and order that we have the objective administration of justice.
Flawed, but still objective administration of justice, where now what we have is the implied endorsement of the subjective administration of justice.
After all, One of the signs of objectivity, and this applies in science for example, which is one of its greatest strengths, is that different inquirers, different scientists, looking at the same body of evidence and the same alternative hypotheses, would come to all and only the same conclusions.
What happens in Wisconsin, by contrast, with regard to this summary judgment methodology, is different judges looking at the same evidence and the same laws could come to totally wildly different conclusions.
I mean, suppose this had been a judge who thought, you know, well, there might be some merit to this skepticism displayed by Fetzer.
I mean, look at the evidence he's got.
What happened to me instead was the opposite.
My evidence was all set aside.
It didn't matter.
It was because I was presenting unreasonable facts.
I mean, this is stupefying, stupefying.
And the Supreme Court let an opportunity to set things right, to make the, you know, nine to correct the deficient procedure in Wisconsin.
I mean, and then I become an exemplar.
Of why this should be done because even controversial defendants are entitled to their right to a jury to resolve disputed facts.
Even someone as controversial as yours truly.
I mean.
It's just astonishing to me they have all the marbles.
Everything in their hand.
The third criterion, by the way, is that it be a legally significant case.
And obviously, this was a legally significant case, as I'm spelling out.
I mean, what could be more fundamental than the application of the Seventh Amendment in all 50 of the states?
We all naively assume we have the right to a trial by jury.
Well, in Wisconsin, it ain't so.
It ain't so.
It sounds good.
It just ain't so.
And for them to let this go?
To forfeit the opportunity to clean up this mess?
Give me a break.
Unbelievable.
Meanwhile, all other forms of abuse are taking place.
I'm just staggered by what's been going on here.
That the United States of America That the United States of America should be committing a crime against humanity by destroying pipelines that are bringing gas to Europe, natural gas to Europe through pipelines?
That the United States should destroy those?
And let there be no doubt about it.
Let there be no doubt about it.
I mean, the case is rock solid.
We did it.
Biden said we were going to do it.
Victoria Nuland said we were going to do it.
We did it.
They got some harebrained, you know, just big liar, big mouth liar.
Biden seems to be the Biden admin.
It's not actually run by Biden, of course.
This guy literally is a papa.
And he's making so many gaps, and he's being corrected by the staff so frequently that questions are being asked about who's really running the shop, who's really running the White House.
Well, I guarantee it ain't this guy who pretends to be Joe Biden.
I mean, it's other forces.
Barack Obama behind the scenes.
Some have suggested Susan Rice is actually making the day-to-day decisions.
I say If you simply think of George Soros as the acting president, then you get a handle on what's going on to the United States.
George Soros.
This guy has had his dream to destroy America.
He's a billionaire.
In any other nation, a guy like this who's out to destroy a nation would be arrested and tried.
This is mass treason.
This is unbelievable.
He's out to sabotage America, destroy the government, and he's doing a pretty good job of it.
Do you remember that it was George Soros' son?
It was not?
Even the DNC that announced that the vice presidential nominee to run with Joe Biden was going to be Kamala Harris?
Kamala Harris, a total airhead, not fit to run a A 7-11.
I mean, she is utterly incompetent.
This is the most vacuous airhead ever in a high position.
I mean, and that's saying something.
We've had other nitwits in high position in the United States.
None quite as completely brainless.
I mean, utterly brainless as Kamala Harris.
She goes to South Korea and she declares our great friendship with the Republic of North Korea.
I mean, that's like Biden, you know.
He's being savage in the Saudi Arabian press, by the way.
They're doing all these skits about Biden as introducing Kamala Harris as a first lady.
It's the kind of stuff you'd expect to see on Saturday Night Live.
It's been a long time since I watched Saturday Night Live, but why do I have the feeling that they're muffling, that they're censoring, that they're suppressing themselves from doing full blown on Biden?
The man's an idiot!
He's that cognitively Dispossessed, he's not in control of his faculty.
The United States has been so massively embarrassed by the administration by having these morons, let me use as a collective term, without having to make greater refinements about how each of them is so massively incompetent.
Having two morons occupy the highest position in the United States where everyone in the world can see that they are morons, and this is supposed to be the greatest country in the world?
We're not the greatest country in the world.
We're a rogue nation.
We're the most aggressor nation in the world.
We're committing more atrocities worldwide.
This thing with the Nord Stream Pipeline was simply the capper.
Russia's taken to the UN.
I don't have the latest report, but by God, they've got a case.
This is outrageous.
Tucker actually showed an interview with a guy for the State Department saying the U.S.
had nothing to do with it.
I mean, they find these liars just lying boldface, but then that's what we get.
That's what we get with Trump, in my opinion, was such a refreshing fresh breeze.
I mean, I tell you, unbelievable.
Trump, for all his flaws, and I wrestle most with promoting the Vax, he should be reversing course.
He should be taking it all back.
But Trump brought us to a robust economy.
He sealed down the borders, the lowest Earning wage earners, we're seeing their wages rise at the highest rate.
In part, precisely because he clamped down the border, we got Nancy Pelosi declaring that we need those migrants in the South to pick crops.
Nancy Pelosi actually said that!
She'll add a moment yet.
Pick crops and vote Democrat.
That's what they want from the migrants.
Pick crops and vote Democrat.
No doubt, therefore, the open borders are at least in part to pacify the constituency of mega agriculture, agribusiness.
We'll get you your cheap laborers.
Trump dried it up.
You had to pay more.
Oh, my God, we can't let your profits shrink.
Give me a break.
And they want to treat everyone equitably.
They want to use this.
Kamala Harris even came out and said that when we do the reconstruction in Florida, we got to take equity considerations or your race into account.
This was flabbergasting.
Flabbergasting.
Set off all kinds of complaints and fears.
They're practicing anti-white discrimination.
It's coming from the highest offices in the United States.
The highest offices in the United States.
All this equity, total bullshit.
The only people responsible for slavery 100 years ago, more, 150 years ago, they had nothing to do with.
My God, they're even changing the names of schools.
They're even going after Thomas Jefferson, who may be the greatest political thinker and the most significant figure in our entire history because he owned slaves.
Well, that was the practice of the time.
The United States struggled with it to overcome it.
We had the Civil Rights Act.
We had the Civil War.
We had all kinds of anti-discrimination, affirmative action.
These guys are going mega-affirmative action.
They're putting blacks ahead of everyone, regardless of qualification.
See, what was seemingly appropriate about affirmative action programs is you only gave race a preference if they were equally qualified in other respects.
Qualifications no longer matter.
If you're black and a woman, and maybe even a lesbian to boot, because the Democrats think that's a great plus, we'll even make you the press secretary for the President of the United States.
And you can do your little song and dance, and the fact that you're incompetent, that you don't know the answers, You have the IQ slightly above that of a turnip.
I'm saying I'm just embarrassed by what's going on here.
The United States has fallen so far.
When are we going to regain a sense of self?
When are we going to start putting responsible people?
Pete Buttigieg, Department of Transportation?
Give me a break.
Again, you got a gay.
See, now that's a man, but he's gay, so that's OK with him.
If you're gay or black or Whatever, if you're somehow very, very strange, they're gonna love you.
Who's this Rachel Levin, this man who dresses up like a woman who's in the DOD as Secretary of State?
Even Lloyd Austin Franklin doesn't look competent to me to be qualified to head the Department of Defense.
And here's Pushin' the Vax.
I've heard a report, by the way, that has horrified me to wit, That Vladimir Putin is calling up more forces, and I was going to spend originally more time on that.
What's going on with Putin?
Because I've just published a new piece about it on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
Remember, I mean, they took the jamesfetzer.org, jameshfetzer.org.
You want to check it out.
Well, the CIA miscalculated how effortlessly Russia would be able to take over Ukraine.
But as I point out in my editor's note there, they've had all these years in 2014 when when Victoria Nuland used five billion taxpayer dollar to fund the overthrow of the Ukrainian government because the president was a friend of Putin.
He was friendly toward Russia.
Well, we couldn't have that.
So we replace him with a Western stooge of whom Zelensky is simply the latest incarnation.
Do you know Zelensky is calling on NATO to make a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia?
This is a guy Biden's sending all these billions, billions and billions of dollars to Zelensky and he's calling for NATO to make a preemptive strike on Russia.
How do you think that's going to play in Moscow?
And here I'm hearing this massive interference again.
I'm hoping it's not obliterating every word I have to say.
But I'm telling you, the United States has not only committed this atrocity of blowing up the pipeline, which leaves Europe high and dry.
This means there's going to be much freezing deaths in Europe as a consequence of being unable to heat their homes.
I mean, the European leaders were so stupid.
To not accede to the Russian demand that they pay for gas in rubles.
There are many who speculate, and I think accurately, that the whole war, the whole provocation with Ukraine was to keep Germany and Russia from getting into closer relations economically and politically on the basis that they had close commercial relationships.
I'm going to be inviting the lines to open, by the way, the number 540-352-4452.
Please call.
If you've tried to call, try calling again.
540-352-4452.
540-352-4452.
Please do try calling again.
again, 335, 54035244525403524452, please do try calling again.
But now we're not only doing that, we've not a cause, Europe is gonna suffer severely for this, Blinken says this is a wonderful opportunity.
To sell them more American liquefied natural gas.
You know, to go through the process of liquefying gas is very expensive.
Transporting it across the Atlantic is very expensive.
Then reconverting it into gas is really very expensive.
So the liquefied natural gas that the United States is now benefiting from runs four times as much as the gas that Russia was providing.
And any suggestion Russia was responsible for its own pipeline when all it had to do was turn off the spigot, when it created this to, you know, have good economic and commercial relations with Europe that were mutually beneficial.
But it would have meant, it would have shown NATO was antiquated and unnecessary, that all those expenses associated with NATO were needless expenditures.
Now the situation has more or less been reversed.
Except there's good reason to believe that NATO is coming apart, Europe falling apart, the European Union.
But now, let me add, we have not only committed this international atrocity in violation of—this was an act of war, by the way, leave yourself no doubt about it.
This was not only a A crime against humanity because of the suffering it's going to generate.
It was a war crime.
It was an act of war against Russia.
And in partial response, they have this world's largest submarine that is capable of launching these little drones called the mini subs, if you want, that have nuclear warheads that have set off
Beneath the oceans create a tsunami that can wipe out, for example, the east coast of the United States from Boston to Washington, including New York City, with radioactive water that leaves the area uninhabitable for 250 or more years.
And now, and I'm convinced this is the case, in Florida, We have a geoengineered hurricane that's just devastating Florida.
Why would they do that?
And I guarantee you, it has been done.
Well, they're going to destroy, you know, so much of Florida, make it almost impossible to vote in the midterms.
They're going to make Florida more dependent on FEMA and federal money.
That they may feel less critical of the government.
They're punishing DeSantis, and Paul has told me not to say that they're punishing DeSantis, but I guarantee 100%.
They're punishing DeSantis.
This was an area that was very pro-Trump, very conservative and pro-Trump.
Pauli Seliger, whom we got on for a few minutes there on Wednesday, confirmed as much to me separately and independently.
But I believe we have at least one caller here who wants to address this issue.
The caller from the 816 area.
816 area caller.
Give us your first name and your state and join the conversation.
816.
Yeah, Brian from Kansas City.
Go ahead, Brian.
Yeah.
You know, you talked about Kamala Harris.
One thing I've learned that I didn't know before is that when you've had a mattress tied to your back for most of your life, it affects your mental acuity.
That's something I learned there.
We all know that Kamala's rise to political influence was because of an affair she had with Willie Brown, who is a Powerful head of the state legislature, Willie, by the way, was warned by Condoleezza Rice not to fly on 9-11.
But that's because Bush and Cheney were deep involved.
I mean, Cheney was the executive director on the ground from an underground bunker beneath the White House.
Michael Rupert established as much from public sources in his book, Crossing the Rubicon, Yeah, Kamala is totally unqualified, and I think that Soros picked her because she's unqualified.
Because, I mean, if you're wanting to destroy the United States, what are some of the most effective ways to do it?
Well, open borders right off the bat.
All economists know you can't combine open borders with a welfare state.
It's not sustainable.
It's causing massive, massive problems, changing the demographics.
And for the Democrats, today's migrants are tomorrow's Democrat voters.
I mean, they want that massively.
We also have, you know, all the other problems.
Oh, yeah.
Destroy the legal system.
Defund the police, for example.
Now, there's a great idea.
Defund the police and get a lot of district attorneys into office who are going to let criminals out on the street.
Let criminals out on the street.
There's another great idea.
Allow the homeless population to grow.
Make your major cities uninhabitable.
Let crime run rampant.
Then destroy, of course if you're looking at the bigger picture, destroy the food supply, bring about massive famine, which is the objective of the New World Order, which by the way, as I've observed several times, so it should sink in, The head of the Rothschild family has declared Vladimir Putin to be an enemy of the New World Order and that the New World Order cannot proceed absent Ukraine.
And now you have the president of Ukraine calling for NATO to do a preemptory nuclear strike on Russia.
I guarantee you, if we get into a nuclear war with Russia, it's not going to work out well for the American people.
Brian, did you want to add something further?
Well, one thing that I'm getting off the subject a little bit concerning energy and all this pipeline and everything, I found the most amazing thing on the internet and I'd like to share it with you because Joe Olson would just find it absolutely amazing.
Four or five minute little video on YouTube.
If you go to Keshe Generators, K-E-S-H-E, they have a plasma generator that's an over-unity generator that puts out more power than you put into it, so you have unlimited energy.
And they give a demonstration of how it works, and it was just mind-boggling because what they did is they took a plastic Coke bottle, And they drilled four holes in the side of it and put electrodes in it.
And then they poured in lemon soda and...
and potassium hydrocate or whatever it was, halfway in this Coke bottle.
Then they poured that out and put the cap on it so there was nothing in it.
And the guy says, okay, now it's creating plasma.
And then he took a voltmeter and put the voltmeter to these electrodes, and you could see the voltage jump up, okay?
Brian, thanks for that.
Thanks for that.
We got it.
We'll let Brian finish, and then we'll bring in Paul.
Stand by.
We'll be right back.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back.
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 on the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio.
Radio. 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 suggests the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuke on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener supported radio.
and now we return you to your host.
Brian, why don't you go ahead and finish off and then we'll bring in Paul.
Okay, well, real quick, these Keshe, K-E-S-H-E, over-unity plasma generators, if we had them, we wouldn't need gas pipelines, we wouldn't need lithium batteries for our cars, we'd have free energy and we'd have free energy source for our cars, and they're not that cheap.
You can look at them online, but they're always out of stock.
So, anyway, that's the point I wanted to make.
Okay, very, very good.
Paul, go ahead and have at it.
We got four other colors though, Paul.
So, you know, be concise.
Well, I woke up, I woke up today and my dog seemed to be in a better mood.
You know, the sun seemed to just a little bit brighter and my coffee tasted just a little bit better.
And I was wondering why is that?
And then I thought, Oh, today's the day when I get to hear Jim say, The three words in sequence that are one of the sweetest sounds in the English language.
Go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead, Paul.
You were right, Paul.
That's all I wanted to hear.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Thanks.
That's good.
So listen, you know, even though everybody was on your side, you know, to bring up the issue before the Supreme Court about the summary judgment was a non-starter from the beginning because they're not going to give that up.
It's a weapon or a tool that they use.
When you understand what you're up against here, this beast system, they're not going to give up anything that they can use against you.
OK?
And the summary judgment is one of those things.
There's just no way they're going to let that happen.
Yeah.
the right or the wrong of it.
As you've heard me say many times, there is no law.
You know, once you grasp that, and it's not easy to accept, but I accepted it years ago based upon my own experience and then reading and hearing about the experience of others.
And, you know, I could go on much longer on this line of thought, but since we have other callers, I'll let you go to them, and if you've got time, come back to me. - You got it.
We do have four other callers.
Look, it wasn't giving up summary judgment.
It was giving up the subjective summary judgment protocol practice in Wisconsin, not summary judgment.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, but you know, that's the that's the key word that you use, though, is subjective.
OK, they're not going to give that up.
Well, but but it's not the practice in any in in any of the other or at least only a few other states in Wisconsin where I give them the perfect opportunity to straighten it out.
Paul, I appreciate it.
I know we have differences on so many of these issues, but I respect your opinion.
Stand by.
Eric Code 504, give us your first name, your state, and join the conversation.
Yes, Gary King from New Orleans.
Gary, speak to me.
Tell me what's going on, my friend.
I just I've been hearing all this weather stuff in Florida and things and I happen to be a veteran of hurricanes being the main weapon they when they really decided to pull the plug was Katrina and I just wanted to tell about my experience and what happens to your area once you have a natural disaster strike it.
Okay, so what happens there's all this federal money that comes in and then there's Actually, when we were here, it was Walter Isaacson, who's a total globalist, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and all that.
But he was in charge of all the money, so he got in line with the Rockefeller corporations, and then they distributed the money in an Agenda 21, climate-change-friendly manner, okay?
And all these places that were torn up, you never really get them back.
So, what you want to be afraid or worried about See, when you're in an area, which I'm pretty sure this was, it, it probably, they had people that had built it up from the forties and fifties.
All right.
And all those mortgages are paid for now.
And everyone's trying to retire and just kick back.
Those are the areas that there's going to displace all those people because it probably brought the property at very, very bargain prices compared to now.
So in comes the hurricane, then the military comes in.
And though they don't show it as much on TV, everyone has a machine gun and they're guarding the food and they're all out in military operations.
There's lots of military activity that goes by.
Lots of things like that.
So what happened with me, I displaced to Dallas Tech.
Okay.
And once I got there, I got a free hotel, just like Biden has given everyone a free hotel.
If you just check in, it's paid.
So I went there and I was able to stay at this hotel.
They gave me a breakfast.
They gave me, um, you know, food tickets and things like that.
And, but later on, there was a note on the door where you had to go to Simmons Freeway.
And at that point they gave you an apartment voucher where you can go to any apartment in probably 80 different complexes around Dallas.
And they would give you free, um, furniture, your electricity, your water, all bills will be paid.
As long as you stay there.
Okay.
So they're really bringing the rich people in and running the poor people out is what it really amounts to.
Now, when I decided to come back to New Orleans, all of my federal assistance or local, any type of assistance was just cut off because they really wanted to get as many people to displace.
So a lot of people like the renters and things like that, they're, they pretty much just move somewhere else.
You know?
I mean, what else can you do?
And they'll find places and a lot of times you can actually receive benefits for five, six, seven years.
So if I would have stayed in Dallas, they continue to renew that program up until probably 2013 or 2015 where I could have still been receiving the benefits if I would have just stayed away.
So that's my story on how it goes.
What's the ultimate objective as you see it?
I mean, they're spending vast sums of taxpayer money for no good reason, it seems to me.
Tell me.
Well, the federal people come down with their money and then all the strings are attached to it.
And it's basically a, you know, build back better type agenda.
All the corporations get their tentacles all the way down to the blue roof into this money.
But these are all global corporations.
There's no mom and pop really making out at all.
In fact, they're running out of town.
But one of the things, if you want to get it on the very understandable level, is that if you live in an area that, let me just use my example, Lakeview, New Orleans, that was built up in the 40s and 50s.
All right.
Now, only before Hurricane Katrina, all of those people were retired.
Because they built their house in the 40s and 50s.
They paid off their mortgages.
And so that's what's known as a dead area where they're really not paying taxes.
They're kind of retired and the real estate, even though it's super valuable, they're not selling it because they paid for it.
So they come in and wipe out the entire area.
And now in Lakeview, the average age of a citizen there are 28 to 32.
They have an average of three kids.
fully mortgaged and every single house had to be you know completely rebuilt you know you can go into the materials and all that but the main thing is that they're running the local people out and they give too many restrictions for them to come back in and they come back like they are so you're run out of the whole area and then along the coastline you can't even do anything there once once there's been a disaster
So there's a protocol of what happens to your area when there's a natural disaster, and it's basically handing it over to all the globalists.
See, like the Blue Roof contracts alone, that was Halliburton.
That was the chain that made money off of that back in 2000.
Gary, this is great stuff, and I'd love to keep you on longer, but we've got several other callers here, so I think you're making wonderful points.
Is it what you're telling me is the hurricane?
It's also going to be a redevelopment.
The big guys like Blackwater and Vanguard are going to pick up extremely valuable property for pennies on the dollar.
They're going to redevelop it as condos, for example, and make fabulous sums out of it.
While the poor retired folk who put their whole lives into this to live in peace and quiet in Florida are going to have their lives shattered forever.
Jim, I want to make a quick point of what the caller says, and then take the rest of the call.
Sure, Paul.
Okay, so that was one of the better, the more important calls, and the points are, many of them were so implicit, and there are some explicit points as well, but here's an example of what they did at World War II, okay?
The Great Depression was caused by nothing more than a shortage of money, okay?
They stopped making loans, among other things.
And then, of course, when the war got going, There was plenty of money, right, for bombs and bullets and soldiers and military campaigns, and it was for an agenda.
So this whole thing comes down to the ability to create money out of nothing and then spend it into circulation for the way that you want for your agenda.
So he's exactly correct.
This is disaster capitalism based upon the ability to make all this money available.
Yeah.
It's really insidious.
Yeah, that's very good.
It's paralleled, you know, internationally by Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, saying that this destruction of the North Stream is a tremendous opportunity to wean Europe off of Russian gas, but actually to get them connected to American gas, which is overwhelmingly more expensive, and other screw Europe to benefit America.
There's some who believe the whole idea was to take advantage of the situation by destroying the relations between Russia and Europe in order to benefit the United States economically at the expense of Europe.
Good comments, Paul.
We got Hijacker here.
Hijacker, please join the conversation.
Always a great show, Professor Fetzer.
And so, if you give me 72 seconds, Sure.
It's my namesake.
So, I'm going to hijack if I can do off topic and all I need is 72 seconds.
So, you'll have a period.
Take it.
Take it.
Do it.
Okay.
Um the the Twin Towers uh each floor.
Uh somebody's got feedback.
Hi, Jack.
Alright.
No.
Uh Gary, you may have to mute Gary.
If you're still there, please mute.
Okay.
Okay.
Right, so each floor of the Twin Towers is four feet thick, reinforced, so that's 440 feet of concrete.
The bathtub is only 25 feet thick, so what we have to believe, one, is that 440 feet of concrete is going to be dissolved.
Meanwhile, the bathtub, which is only 25 feet thick, is not.
Second, we have to believe And I do believe there was nukes used.
We have to believe that the nukes concentrated their energy from the top and slowly cooked and de-dustified, or whatever you call it, from the top down, when closest to the explosion would be the final floor, the first floor.
That would take the mass of it, so it should have melted downward, so to speak.
And finally, I watched the South Tower.
There was a hundred foot, a little over a hundred foot steel pole that stuck up for it.
And I watched it and you can actually see it online.
You'll see the tower starting to melt, come down, all the smoke coming out.
And as it slowly comes down, you'll see the tower and then the tower starts to bend.
And then when it hits about 45 degrees, Jim, it turns to dust.
Wow!
So, with three points.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Yeah, no, I'm just saying, I'm in Judy Wood's camp, although I do believe there's nukes, probably thermite.
I don't believe planes anymore, but I believe it was a trifecta.
But there's just no way 440 feet of concrete is going to dissolve, and it's not going to blow the bathtub out.
And then also, the bedrock, the granite that it was on was hot.
So, I don't know how you, and then it would dissolve from the top to the bottom instead of from the bottom up.
Hi, Jack.
Listen, listen.
We're going to do more on 9-11.
I've invited Mike Raviro and Richard Gage to debate, Joe Olson and me, about how it was done.
Now, they may or may not accept, but you don't have the theory quite right.
The idea is that And this is a fourth or fifth generation nuke.
It was directed upward through the building.
The construction was a tube within a tube.
So what you had was the inner tube that surrounded the 47 massive core columns was destroyed from the bottom up.
That was from the bottom up.
But then the effects brought down the remaining structure from the top down.
All the floors remained stationary.
They had to preserve the bathtub from destruction, and that's why they had to find a unique way to destroy the buildings to convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which by the way is a signature of the use of nuclear weapons, so that there was basically no massive fracture of the bathtub.
Which was the moat surrounding.
But, Hijacker, I'd be glad for you to call back in when we get back to this again, because we will get back to this again, and I certainly respect your opinion for Judy Wood and all that.
Not a problem here.
I'm glad you called.
Always a pleasure, Jim.
Yeah, thanks for taking my call.
Yeah, glad to hear from you, Hijacker.
Bruce is back.
Did you want to add some further thoughts, Bruce?
Yeah, well, I had to go, so that's why I didn't even say anything.
You don't have to explain it.
Just answer.
Just use the time.
Yeah, I'm really feel for you.
What transpired there in the Supreme Court, you know, we all could have predicted it.
And just make it a confirmation that our entire government has been corrupted.
And justice denied, you know.
Yeah, well, my explanation and Paul's may be different.
I want to get Paul back in.
Paul, come on in, since Bruce is bringing us back to the court.
Why don't you reaffirm what you were suggesting, Paul?
Well, like I said before, my experience has been fairly straightforward and it's mostly been, you know, involved in traffic cases.
Now, for those of the people that would dismiss, oh, OK, it's only traffic or it's just traffic.
And there's plenty that would do so.
I'd like to point out that that is the majority revenue raiser for all these court systems, OK?
It's traffic and parking tickets.
They don't make a bunch of money from people filing civil cases.
All they get is a filing fee.
They don't get a cut of whatever settlement or judgment comes out of it.
And if you know what you're doing, you don't have to pay a filing fee.
So, you know, the bottom line is this is the interface that most people have with the courts and the justice system and the government is traffic tickets.
And in some municipalities, it's tens of millions of dollars a year.
And out here in California, there was a guy a long time ago that, you know, traced a lot of this money to these slush funds that many of these judges were tapping into on a regular basis.
And they covered that up in a hurry.
But again, going back to this experience that I had, there is already laws in place, court decisions and statutory law, that offers people so many protections and so many ways that they can win or prevail.
And they get ignored time after time after time.
Judges will not follow case law.
And what I found out from direct experience and also from others is that they can and do ignore the law when it suits them.
They ignore actually law on the books and case law.
I've seen it in person, in my face.
And it took me a while because, you know, being what I call Jew-aware or Jew-awake takes a while.
It's a process.
But it dawned on me after several years of going to these various cases and seeing what I and other people experienced, that how many Jewish judges kept coming up time and time again.
It was absolutely amazing.
And then there's just a day when the lightbulb goes on, and you can make no other conclusion, but the whole thing is like so many other things in our society, okay?
They have completely corrupted and debauched our society, and it's now just a Jewish clown world.
That's all it is.
I'm sorry to say there's a lot of merit in your observations, Paul.
Let me see.
Who else?
Do we have anyone else still on that would like to add a few more words or we can continue here?
I have a latest report.
Get this rather stunning.
Nord Stream not allowed to check its own pipeline.
Norway, Denmark and Sweden are refusing the owners of the pipeline to carry out checks.
I mean this is incredible.
Nord Stream, the company which owns and operates the gas pipeline, hit by suspected sabotage last month, has said it cannot examine the pipeline because it has not been given permission by the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian authorities.
This is just astounding!
I used to think that these Scandinavian countries were Exemplars of intelligence, rationality, and civility, and now they're participating in blocking and covering up the sabotage of the pipeline.
That is disgusting.
Paul, your thoughts?
Well, I mean, what you're looking at is an act of war.
I mean, that's really, you know, that's the only way you can look at it.
You know, similar to what I said the other day about what took place in Florida.
It's an act of war.
If indeed they are generating these storms, you know, if they're amplifying them and they're directing them, how could it be any more clear that this is an act of warfare upon us?
And this is the bridge that a lot of people cannot cross in their minds, okay, that we have an enemy and the government is in itself, okay, either the enemy or acting for the enemy, one of the two.
And it's just, it's hard for most people to grasp that.
Yes, I agree.
That's right.
Cognitive dissonance.
You can't believe the government of the United States would attack the people of the United States, but we did it on 9-11.
Surprise, surprise.
That they would massively deceive the American people, but they did it with Sandy Hook and a host of these other Fake shootings or that they are actually willing to destroy the property and lives of the American people, which they have demonstrated most recently right now with Hurricane Ian in Florida.
What a disgusting mess.
Right.
And I've got to say quickly, the previous caller, I believe it was Gary, made so many good points in his story.
is a show or two in and of itself, just the story that he told of what's going on, right?
The way this operation takes place.
That illustrates exactly the situation they've been setting up for a long time and that they implement whenever they want.
It's like there's plenty of money for thee, but not for me.
They make it extremely difficult for people to get, in many cases, benefits, unemployment, etc.
But they hand out billions upon billions to these corporations that they can go ahead and run their schemes.
And then you got Kamala saying that we're going to give relief to black people first.
I mean, this is just incredible.
Well, when you understand the agenda, it's not that incredible, you know, let's face it.
No, no, I agree.
When you understand, yeah, yeah.
I mean, on its face, it's so ridiculous until you appreciate the agenda.
I agree, Paul, 100%.
Yes.
Yes.
It's an anti-white, racist agenda against us.
It couldn't be more clear.
And it's becoming more and more obvious to more and more people, which in the end is a good thing, in my opinion.
You know, the worse they make it, the better it's going to be for us, in my opinion, because then
Well, it'll be just so obvious that there won't be any other course of action except for... By getting more and more suggestions that in order to prevent the mid-term wipeout, that they're going to want some attack to be made on the United States, probably if Russia won't do it, they'll fake it themselves, so they can declare martial law and suspend the Well, I'll leave it at this.
We're running out of time.
You can jump back to somebody else if you like, but I'll close with this.
There was a booklet that I encountered back in the 80s.
It was great.
I'll leave it at this.
We're running out of time.
You can jump back to somebody else if you like, but I'll close with this.
There was a booklet that I encountered back in the 80s.
It was great.
It was called Billions for the Bankers and Debts for the People by Sheldon Emery.
Billions for the Bankers and Debts for the People.
And it made a perfect point about the Depression and World War Two where it said that there wasn't any money for farms and factories and people.
OK, there was times were tough.
Right.
But then all of a sudden, once the war got going, there was plenty of money for factories to go on double shifts and plenty of money for defense contractors and plenty of money for the military.
How could that be?
Yes, yes.
Great points, Paul.
Thank you so much.
Bruce, I know you got a few more words.
Let me see if Gary's still hanging in there.
Gary, are you still here?
Apparently not.
Bruce, one short thought or two, we're wrapping up.
Sure, what Paul said, remember FDR made illegal the America First movement.
at the Pearl Harbor, that war enabled them to just crack down on all the things. - Well, I wanna thank, yeah.
I wanna thank all the callers, Bruce and Paul and Gary and the hijacker.
Excellent, excellent comments.
We're in the dire straits, my friends.
And I got to say, at this point, I'm even myself losing faith in the Supreme Court.
That's a bad situation for us to be in, given what it means for what this country is supposed to stand for.
Count me disillusioned in the extreme.
Do spend as much time as you can with your family, your friends, your loved ones.
I can't emphasize this enough.
Between the threat of a world war and who knows what destruction the Biden administration is going to unleash on the American people, we literally do not know how much time we have left.
Take full advantage of what time you do have left to spend it with your family, your friends.
I'm making that a priority in my own life.
I have for at least the last six months.
When it became so obvious that the end of the world is actually a risk here i mean life on earth there's a major effort to destroy human life on this planet.
With the exception of a handful who want to have the globe to themselves.
I mean, it's absurd because we outnumber them by a million to one.
And yet somehow they're able to work their will on the world.
And it's a very disturbing development, including the VAX, including, you know, wiping up food processing plants and including taking out fertilizer plants, even Even Ukraine has been a major production center for food and they're going after the farmers in the Netherlands as well.
We're in dire straits.
▲
Export Selection