All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:25:07
National Intel Report with Michael Herzog (18 October 2022) Feat. Jim Fetzer
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly, a girl with kaleidoscope.
Alright folks, we're back with the National Intel Report podcast.
Michael Herzog, your host.
Now, I chose that particular lead-in for two reasons, folks.
First, because Jim Fetzer and I both love the Beatles, but also because it fits, to a degree, the next topic of discussion.
Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerines, trees, and marmalade skies.
Now, that could be describing dreamland, right?
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly, a girl with kaleidoscope eyes.
The girl?
Barbara Bellis, the judge in the latest Alex Jones case.
And those kaleidoscope eyes?
The look of a judicial automaton carrying out her pre-programmed mission to financially destroy Jones.
Now, Alex did answer quite slowly and had to feel like he was in Dreamland, folks, after being repeatedly admonished throughout his nightmare by Lucy in the Sky, or in this scenario, On the bench, Lucy, a.k.a.
Judge Barbara Bellis.
Only this wasn't a dream.
It was for real.
Now, did John Lennon voice a pretty accurate and prophetic picture of the Alex Jones nightmare on Court Street in Connecticut?
Well, let's just ask my next guest, Professor James Fetzer.
James, how you doing, buddy?
Michael, that's very, very nice.
And of course, that's such a wonderful song.
I mean, it's the genius of the Beatles just shines through.
And Barbara Bellis, a complete disgrace to the judiciary, you would not know, but I sought to intervene in all three of the Alex Jones trials to make the point that there's been no judicial determination that anybody ever died at Sandy Hook.
I mean, it's a simple matter.
You think that if this is predicated on the assumption that Sandy Hook was real, that we'd have a judicial determination to support it?
But we do not.
We do not have any judicial determination.
On the contrary, all the cases have been decided on procedural grounds or by stipulation or by agreement, or in the case of Alex, one of his trials by default.
I mean, it was not surprising, Michael, that the fake Sandy Hook parents would oppose my intervention because I was going to expose, present up just a mountain of evidence that it had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
But what did surprise me is that the defendants didn't want me there either.
And this was also true, Michael, in the Remington trial.
I also filed a motion to intervene.
Now, I'm talking about the trial phase, not this trial for damages.
That's a whole separate matter.
That's what we're seeing televised.
And it's got so many weird aspects.
And Robert Barnes was actually in the courtroom in Austin during the first trial, and he said it was unlike any courtroom he'd ever entered before, that there were three cameras set up.
One of them was directed to the jury and it felt to him like a made-for-TV movie.
- No movie.
Michael, are you there?
- Visibly sitting there, obvious.
- You had to have been muted there because we missed up till now.
No, I wasn't muted.
I got cut off, but I wanted to get your take on, you know, you said they had a camera on the jury and we had Robbie Parker in there along with a number of the other families, which, by the way, from what I understand, Alex Jones on the air never mentioned anybody's name with the exception of, I believe, Robbie Parker.
Is that true?
That I believe is correct.
Yeah, Alex has said such a thing.
And you know, he only talked about Sandy Hook as being a fake a relatively brief period of time.
I mean, he didn't make any money out of it.
It was a money loser for him.
He wasn't allowed to tell the jury because of Bellas, just as you're calling her out.
Gagged him from only answering questions with yes or no or I don't know, not elaborating, but especially not talking about all the ways in which he'd lost money, all the way in which he's had to go into bankruptcy, that he really, for the most part, was defending that it was actually real.
Which, of course, in my opinion, I mean, he made himself vulnerable since he was on both sides of the issue.
No matter where you stood, you could be antagonized by Alex's position.
But where I propose to give a massive defense for his expressing doubts about it by delivering a lot of evidence, including the FEMA manual for the exercise, which I published in my book in 2015,
I brought together 13 experts including 6 PhDs and we established that school had been closed at least by 2008, that there were no students or teachers there, and that it had been a FEMA exercise, technically a mass casualty drill involving children.
Well, we not only have the manual, but where events on the ground corresponded to what the manual and FEMA exercise require Michael to sign.
Everyone must check in.
It says right in the manual.
Everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival in order to be paid.
They had bottled water and pizza at the firehouse.
They had poured up bodies already set up.
I once asked.
Some police, law enforcement, if they've ever heard of a port-a-potty in a crime scene and they thought it was ridiculous.
Then you have all of these players wearing name tags on lanyards.
That's how FEMA identifies the players.
Color-coded name tags on lanyards.
Then you have parents bringing children to the scene.
Michael, no parent is going to bring a child to the scene of a child shooting massacre.
But it was a rehearsal, Michael, and they were treating it as a festive occasion.
Right.
Right.
Well, back to my question, though, you said that there was three cameras in the room.
One was pointed at the jury.
I mean, I mean, it's only speculation here, Jim.
But but, you know, do you think that that these people, these families, you know, I by the way, I read your book.
prior to having you on here today, I went in, pulled it up, downloaded it, and I read it.
And I have to say that I had never read it before, Jim, because they pulled it off Amazon within a month, and I was never able to buy it.
So I just went by the wayside and vanished through the annals of time.
But my point is that the evidence that you outline in that book, I have to say, is very compelling, very compelling.
And I can see why that they wouldn't want you in there in any capacity, either for the defense or the plaintiff.
But my question is, as far as the jury, I mean, do you think it's possible, Jim, that they paid all of those families handsomely just to sit there?
Because they know, all of them know, the plaintiff, the judge, the plaintiff's attorney, everybody knows that they're not going to get a billion dollars out of Jones.
What's your thoughts on the fact that they possibly paid those people off, Jim?
Look how ridiculous it is, Michael.
A million dollars, a billion dollars for having an opinion?
I mean, what's become of the United States?
You can't have an opinion.
But because in this case, the government has gone all in on Sandy Hook.
I think they are petrified at the prospect that it might be exposed because then who in the world is ever going to believe the government again?
I'll say this, Michael.
I think that there is a theatrical aspect to this.
I have grave doubts that Alex is ever going to have to shell out a penny for this.
I'm not at all sure any of the plaintiffs are ever going to collect any rewards, but it's all for Political purposes.
This is a Kabuki theater to promote a political agenda, and they're not only going after Alex, but he is the exemplar.
You know, those are demonizing as conspiracy theorists, which are really anyone who's doing any research on any of these serious, complex, controversial issues, whether JFK 9-11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing.
They want to demonize anyone who's doing research that might expose a governmental complicity in these events, and they're doing it with vengeance.
Well, also you had mentioned, uh, what, what is, uh, what was Alex Jones' lawyer's name?
Was it Pattis?
Is that right?
Pattis.
Norm Pattis.
Norm Pattis.
Okay.
Now, you had offered your services to him, uh, and he declined.
I know.
Go ahead.
Okay.
What I was going to say is that, that, uh, I didn't watch the whole trial, but I watched some snippets of it, and I listened to a few objections he had that Barbara immediately overruled.
His argument was based more upon the politicians not stepping up to the plate and doing the corrections to the school and it was a danger.
And according to them, the school was open, but he tried to blame the politicians for not allotting the funding or not spending the funding on the school, which basically is a straw man argument because, you know, they had to continue with this, you know, this idea they had to continue with this, you know, this idea that the school was open.
And in reading your book and looking at some of the pictures that you depicted throughout in a couple of those chapters, there would be no way that I could see that they would allow, what was it, 390 children or whatever it was to attend what was it, 390 children or whatever it was to attend that school based upon the necessary repairs that it needed even to get it up to I Another thing that I'll mention to you,
is I noticed that one of those pictures depicted the handicapped spot.
One handicapped spot in that school.
And it looked like, along with the crosswalk, that it was freshly painted.
But with a handicapped spot, according to regulations, it has to have a blue paint and then a white handicap, you know, signature or what do you call it?
Sign inside of it, right?
It didn't have that.
So it looked like it was just haphazardly painted on there at the last minute to make it look like a handicap and even with only one in the entire parking lot.
That doesn't make any sense, Jim.
No, no, you're 100% correct.
It was not compliant with American Disability requirements.
I checked the law both in Connecticut and federal at the time.
That meant, because it didn't have those familiar blue and white parking spaces with a blue and white signage, it didn't have All of the entrances and exits handicap accessible.
There's a wooden stairway, for example, where there's an extension of a steel piping and out where a little kid, if he ran into it, could pop his eye out of the socket.
There was mold and damage.
There were cracks in the wall.
There were all kinds of leakage inside.
They were using it for storage.
All the furniture was shoved up against the walls.
This was very clearly not an operation.
And in fact, because the point you're making at the moment, it could not have been legally operating as a public school in Connecticut in 2012.
It would not have been legal.
But you're also right.
We have so many photographs and Wolfgang Helbig was particularly good about this in documenting the deplorable state of the school.
And it's very interesting, Michael, we get unexpected confirmations.
For example, I had a A comment on a blog from a guy who was a contractor who was visiting a friend in nearby Monroe.
This was in 2010, and he had not anticipated, but his friend was going over to Sandy Hook to pick up a couple of student desks on the cheap for his kids to use at home.
And he went along with him, and he couldn't believe the deplorable condition.
He said the caretaker there said he thought it was going to be torn down.
But he was just commenting at great length about how decrepit it was, and it was clearly not in use.
And this was in 2010.
So, you know, the event's supposed to be taking place in 2012, but in 2010, it was already decrepit.
We established it had no longer been in use, at least since 2008, I think.
It may eventually turn out, actually, it was shut down in 2006.
They did a study about this school.
They found it was loaded with asbestos and other biohazards damaged by hurricane.
There even turned out to be a big flood in the area in 2007.
That region is surprisingly in a flood plain, and it did a lot of damage.
This is the sort of thing the contractor was observing, all these high water marks where the flood had damaged the school.
Well, Jim, I've done a bit of research on this before I brought you on today, and I know you had made a quote, and this is from Henry Mackow, October 15th.
According to this, you had put together 13 experts, including six PhDs, that concurred that the school had been closed, there was a FEMA drill, and this was all I mean, that's just like one pin drop of the evidence, and I have a whole litany of it here, but the point is this.
In your case, they actually transferred, from what I understand, did they transfer the venue of your case from Connecticut to Wisconsin?
Am I right in that?
No, no.
They selected Wisconsin, and I only...
Realize the reason why after I'd been through it all because Wisconsin has a very peculiar summary judgment procedure, Michael, that really allows a judge to resolve disputes about the facts that are supposed to be left to a jury.
So that if, for example, I'd follow this case in Texas and the way it would have if I'd been a defendant in Texas and the way they proceed.
To determine if there were no disputed facts is to assume hypothetically the truth of all of my position.
That was a FEMA drill.
Nobody died.
It was, you know, no kids were there.
There were no medevac helicopter called, no EMPs rushed into the building, no string of ambulances, no evacuation.
And then you'd ask the plaintiff, the party bringing the suit, whether he agreed with all those assumptions.
And only if he agreed with all those assumptions would the trial go forward as a summary judgment, because then there's no dispute about the facts for a jury to resolve.
As many will tell you, juries decide facts, the judge decides the law.
In Wisconsin, it has a peculiar aspect that instead of following that very reasonable procedure in Texas,
It just goes back and forth as to whether the plaintiff has made a prima facie case and, you know, does the defendant have any obvious objection, but it allows the judge to exercise his subjective opinion as to whether the defense or the propositions are being asserted, in this case by me, are or are not reasonable based on his own subjective personal opinion.
And if he thinks what I'm saying or arguing, I mean, this is true of summary judgment throughout Wisconsin.
And it turns out there are other states.
For example, I have a correspondence who is very familiar with my case who explained that in Massachusetts, it's the same.
The judge can decide on the facts.
So there could not have been a greater contrast in the positions between me and the plaintiff because the plaintiff was arguing That he had a son who died at Sandy Hook of multiple gunshot wounds on 14 December 2012 and asserted he had a death certificate for it which was complete in very many respects and the judge was able to just set all my evidence aside because he regarded it as unreasonable, Mike.
Okay, we gotta take a break, Jim.
We'll be back in three.
We'll continue with this.
Stick around, folks.
It's gonna get better because we're gonna dance around this and Hopefully find out what the real story is here.
Uh, back in three.
One shot at a time.
American Freedom News is your gaming website.
Turn the music down, let me talk to Jim.
Hey, Jim?
Yeah?
Yeah, I had mentioned to you when we talked that we decided we'd take callers at the bottom of the next hour.
We've already got a caller on the line.
Do you want to take him or do you want to put him off for half an hour?
Your call, Michael.
I defer to you as host.
I'm good either way, any way you want to go.
Okay, well, let's take him and then we'll spend another half an hour diving into this, and then I'll mention when we get back from the break that I'm going to take calls at the bottom of the next hour.
Sure.
All right.
That's good.
All right.
Very good.
All right.
Destroy America can and will be defeated.
Be fully informed by reading American Freedom News, the best news and information site on the Internet.
Go to AmericanFreedomNews.us and find out for yourself.
That's AmericanFreedomNews.us.
Thank you.
My name is John, I'm the founder of Black Owl Coffee and I started Black Owl because I really love coffee.
I've always loved coffee and after traveling so much to Europe, South America and trying so many different coffees that were so good and every time I came back To the U.S.
I was so disappointed with the coffee so I figured that I had to do something about it.
The biggest difference is really is on the beans and the roasting process, how we roast it, and how fresh it is.
The fresher the roast, the better the quality.
Here I have like all of the coffee that's roasted within one to two days prior to being shipped.
So it literally gets to consumer's house within three to five days after being roasted.
If you like coffee, you have to try ours.
It's fresh roasted, it's one of the best beans that we can get, and you will definitely see the difference.
Visit blackoutcoffee.com and use the coupon code REPUB10.
That's R-E-P-U-B-1-0.
Hi, Tom Bolton for Ease Off.
I know so many of you are finding our EZ-4 Carcass Drop and Lift an essential tool for your meat processing operation, but today I want to spotlight four of our new products.
First, our Right Height Hog Cradles with Steel or Aluminum Frames.
Our customers love this back-saving innovation that enhances sanitation and speeds production.
Next, our beef cradles with stainless steel or aluminum frames eliminate rust and corrosion.
We hope you'll compare our quality and prices for this essential part of your processing line.
Our cradles are especially effective when used with our Power Skinner.
And finally, our hook tumbler will keep your hooks clean and polished.
Easeoff.com.
We make pigs fly.
Cows too.
Ease off, LLC, 417-932-6419. - All right, folks, 417-932-6419. - All right, folks, folks, we're back with the National Intel Report.
Michael Herzog, your Tuesday host.
I got my special guest, Professor James Fetzer, talking about the Alex Jones trial.
And, folks, I'm not going to open up the phone lines until... I've got a caller on the line, and I'm going to take him.
But I want to let everybody know I'm not going to open up the phone lines until the bottom of the next hour at 512-248-8252.
But I don't want to leave John in Michigan holding.
So, John, I'm going to bring you up.
You're on with Professor James Fetzer.
What's on your mind, partner?
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate the consideration.
A couple of things I know.
I've been talking and following Mr. Fetzer for about eight years, maybe longer.
But a couple of things people have to know about Connecticut is that they don't have any sheriffs.
All they have is the state police.
And from what I understand, the state police are federal police.
And what's his name?
The attorney general went down there, I think, a week before, Holder.
And, uh, did a thing on gun control.
And, uh, that gentleman you brought up, Wolfgang, who is a very, uh, sharp person, he, uh, does safety things for schools, uh, safety analysis, uh, and he was, uh, on Christmas Day, I think, in that area, holiday season, he had state troopers come from Connecticut and tell him to, like, stop, you know, looking into this.
Uh, is that true, Jim, from what I've heard before?
You're talking about Wolfgang Halberg.
Yeah, I mean, Wolfgang, for the purest of motives, began making inquiries about what happened at Sandy Hook, and he found his FOIA requests weren't being answered, his phone calls weren't being returned, and before he knew it, there were a couple of homicide detectives from a local precinct on the porch of his home in a gated community in Florida.
Telling him they were there on behalf of the Connecticut State Police, and if he didn't stop asking questions about Sandy Hook, he would be prosecuted.
Now, get this.
Wolfgang is not only a former Florida State Trooper, he's not only a former US Customs agent, he's not only a former school administrator, but he's a nationally recognized school safety expert.
He was inquiring What had happened to Sandy Hook so he could advise other school systems how to take steps to make sure it didn't happen to them?
Now, what's crucial?
The point he made about the sheriffs is quite telling, but get this.
I mean, my research, since I published a book, has continued, and I brought in and dealt with really good people, including a fellow by the name of Brian Davidson, who's a private investigator in Texas.
Now, Brian and I did a show where he was talking to me about all the techniques for doing research that are available on the Internet, including even regarding photographs.
So I thought, well, what the hell?
I'm just going to test him.
I just threw him a photograph without any identification where it came from.
And he recognized what I was doing and giving him the photograph.
And he immediately located where it had been taken in the parking lot at Sandy Hook.
It was a crime scene vehicle that was there, even though it was present in the parking lot, although it would seem the shooting hadn't even taken place, because there was a string of windows in Classroom 10 that were undamaged, that after the event would be shown to be shot out.
And you had crime scene tape up, and you had Linkar Berlin against the wall with his arms folded.
So this was just really good because he traced it back not only to a magazine where it had been published, but to the original archives where it had originated, which were the Connecticut State Police Archives, Michael.
Much more to come.
All right, John, I appreciate the call.
I'm going to have to let you go, partner.
You can call back in at the bottom of the hour.
But second hour coming up, folks, we're going to dive into this even further.
Uh, stick around.
Second hour coming up.
Be right back with my special guest, Professor James Fetzer.
Professor Emeritus.
We must take America back.
We need fairness, rules, and more things made in USA.
It's the least we can do for the red, white, and blue.
We must take America back.
We must take America back.
Corporate media dominates the American opinion.
Finding independent voices that counter this avalanche is becoming increasingly difficult.
With the endless corruption running rampant throughout our government, independent voices are needed more than ever to battle the offensive against our freedoms and liberties.
As a listener of RBN, no one understands this concept better than you.
Now it's up to you to do your part.
The time has come for you to take action and begin broadcasting the truth to hundreds or thousands of people every month.
Sound impossible?
Quite the contrary.
With pointed slogans from LibertyStickers.com, you can reach countless sleeping Americans unaware that they live in a real-life wonderland.
LibertyStickers.com has a huge inventory of political bumper stickers and messages that reflect the truth about our government, our politicians, You're listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network.
So many in stock.
There's one perfect for you.
Visit us today at libertystickers.com.
Again, that's libertystickers.com.
Do your part.
Your voice is important.
Let it be heard.
You're listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network.
Because you can handle the truth.
The American Dream has become a nightmare.
Oh.
All right, folks, we're back, second hour of the National Intel Report.
Yes, the American Dream has become a nightmare.
My special guest, Professor Emeritus Dr. James Fetzer.
Jim, I have to ask you, and I don't know the precise timing of these trials, you know, with Alex in Texas.
I know about the one that just concluded in Connecticut.
But was your trial possibly a precursor to Jones's trial, or was your trial going on amidst maybe the one in Texas?
Yeah.
Were you first in line with this?
Well, I think Wolfgang probably was early, and James Tracy got sacked from Florida Atlantic just for having a blog where he talked about the press conference Wayne Carver had given, where he talked about how the parents weren't allowed to come into contact with their children.
The first of the trials against Alex by these different combinations of parents, and it's clear.
This is an arbitrary dragging it out.
They want to bring it right up to the midterm, Michael.
I mean, this is all political theater, right?
They could have all been combined into a single trial, but that wouldn't give them, you know, coverage week after week after week that they could broadcast and demonize anyone who's done serious research.
So it's actually Wolfgang who seemingly prevailed when a fellow who called himself Leonard Posner would not appear for a video deposition down in Florida and that George ruled in favor of Wolfgang.
Well, he was coming back to court to pursue his counterclaims when they replaced the judge who just dismissed it outright.
In other words, if they don't get the right verdict, they'll even switch the judge around.
Now, somewhere in there, Well, Alex, they were, they were dilly dallying about the Remington thing and the Alex things.
They'd all got all dragged out.
Alex was even doing a video depo in Connecticut where he claimed he'd never even read my collaborative book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which sounds to me on its face, just absurd because as you've just read it, I mean, how can this guy taking this very public stand on this very controversial issue, not read the one objective What is a scientific study here?
I mean, because I specialize in bringing together groups of experts, Michael, it dramatically reduces the chance we're going to make any mistakes.
I mean, we're in the position to critique one another's work and gain a consensus and, you know, reduce the probability of making a mistake to very, very small.
For example, one of the only errors I know we made in the In the first edition was regarding the specific photograph I began this addressing where Brian Davidson did this additional research saying that I believed it had been.
Well, we had two dates about when it was taken.
We initially thought it had been the author of the chapter, who also, unbeknownst to me, had got into the Connecticut State Police files, but was suggesting it had been taken the morning of the 14th.
I think that was in the first edition and the second, I believe, changed it to the evening of the 13th or the day before.
But Brian Davidson was able to do very specific shadow analysis and discover it.
And this is rather surprising.
It was actually taken on the evening of the 14th.
In other words, it was taken after the shooting had officially already taken place and before they'd finished.
Manufacturing the evidence that it had been real because they hadn't damaged the windows yet.
Now get this.
Brian was able to go into the Connecticut police files and he found hundreds of photographs.
It appears that Connecticut police were running the whole thing behind the scene.
They were photographing every aspect of it.
And what they had done, including inside the school, they had photographs at a hallway where there was supposed to be two dead school administrators, but the hallway was perfectly clean and pristine.
There wasn't even any drops of blood.
He got photographs inside classroom 10.
There's supposed to be a pile of bodies in Classroom 10.
Well, not only was there no pile of bodies, there wasn't even a speck of blood.
There weren't any marks on the wall.
It didn't turn out they had manufactured holes.
They'd actually drilled holes in the aluminum frames of those four windows to simulate bullet holes, but it was obviously phony and fake.
And what Brian also discovered is they'd removed the metadata, Michael.
This is consciousness of guilt.
They'd removed the metadata so you couldn't tell exactly when the photographs had been taken because it would have blown the whole thing apart.
But I'll tell you, the Connecticut State Police were running this behind the scene.
Now, he mentioned Eric Holder.
Yes, Eric Holder came on the 27th of November, met with Governor Malloy.
And to talk about the Obama agenda for gun control, and I am very much of the opinion, Eric Holder was a major orchestrator of this event, that the governor was also complicit, that it was a community event.
Sophia Smallstorm was the first to finger that this was what they call a capstone event.
Or they pay the community big bucks to do these.
And they're very thoroughly rehearsed, orchestrated.
They even do auditions for the parts.
I mean, Michael, it's that bad.
And then they get big bucks.
I have reason to believe Connecticut, Newtown, got over $100 million taxpayer dollars for doing this.
Well, okay.
My next question to you, because believe me, I could spend a week with you on this.
But my next question to you is, in reading this book, which I just read Sunday afternoon to Monday, was all of this evidence that you had pointed out, and it's very compelling, I have to give you.
Was this presented to the judge in the Wisconsin case where he made the determination that it was basically not relevant?
How wonderful!
You're very astute, Michael.
The lawsuit begins with a complaint where the charge against you is listed.
Now, I was being sued over a death certificate that had no file number.
It had no town or state certifications.
It was an incomplete death certificate.
You might liken it to a driver's license that had no driver's license number and no state seal.
Uh, and now I'm not allowed to assert the sentences that I was sued for, but I was to understand the nature of the case.
I was sued for declaring this was inauthentic.
And of course, if nobody died in Sandy Hook, how could you have an authentic death certificate for anyone?
There were specific features of the death certificate that reinforced my opinion.
But attached to the complaint was a complete death certificate that had a file number, town and state, and in the complaint it asserted these were not materially different, which meant the whole case was legally absurd from the beginning.
Material differences are differences that make a difference to the law or legal status.
In this case of the document, obviously the file number, present or not, town and state certification, present or not, are material differences.
But it would turn out that would be the strategy they would adopt during the whole proceeding of trying to argue that this was just one stage in the development of an authentic death certificate, that it was just as authentic as a complete, which I'm telling you is the absurdity on which my case was founded.
Now, I thought, from what I looked up about summary judgments, I didn't realize at the time Wisconsin was deviant in this regard.
That they had to take everything I had to say to be true, and then only if the plaintiff bringing this suit agreed would it proceed where the judge would apply the law.
Otherwise, it would go to a jury.
I saw this as an opportunity to introduce this massive evidence that you've just reviewed, accumulated in the book.
So I wrote an answer.
And because I was skeptical about the party, Who was bringing the lawsuit.
His name is Leonard Posner, but whom I regard as a legal fiction that I believe actually there is no Leonard Posner.
That is, there really is a Ruben Vabner.
There is no Noah Posner about whose death certificate this was all about.
But there is a real Michael Vabner.
And I have long since concluded that they created the fictional Noah Posner for whom they had this death certificate.
Out of photographs of Michael Vabner when he was a child, okay?
And I've been able to test this hypothesis, and I got a GIF where you can see Noah Posner turn into Michael Vabner, or conversely, Michael Vabner reverting to being a child, where Michael Vabner is doing stand-up comedy in Cambridge, Massachusetts to this day.
So I began my answer by saying, assuming that the plaintiff to me is a real person, okay?
And I went on and explained at the end.
I started laying out the evidence I had.
You know, I've got the FEMA manual, there's an FBI report, Consolidated Crime Report for 2012 showing no deaths in Newtown for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, that the official report on Sandy Hook by the Danbury State's attorney Steven Sidinsky fails to create a causal nexus Connecting the purported shooter with his victims and weapons.
He's supposed to have used that the events on the ground were corresponding that you had this sign.
Everyone must check in.
You had porta potties and bottled water and pizza available that you had everyone wearing these names.
I just enumerated a dozen or more of the facts I wanted to introduce.
Well, After you get the answer and the complaint, the first event that takes place is a judge conducts a conference about scheduling the trial.
It's a scheduling conference.
And at the scheduling conference—and this was done by the internet, as I recall.
We were all parties and weren't all present, but we could hear one another and so forth.
He said that he understood that I didn't think it had happened really strictly.
I didn't think it had happened as advertised.
But that we were not going to go down that rabbit hole, and that whether or not I were right had nothing to do with the truth or the accuracy of the death certificate.
Now, just stop and think about it.
How can whether I'm right or wrong as to whether anything happened, whether it was a drill not be relevant to the truth or falsity of the death certificate?
I mean, it was ridiculous!
It began with an absurd, a legally absurd complaint claiming there's no material difference between a complete and an incomplete death certificate.
Then it was compounded by the judge ruling that I couldn't introduce a massive evidence I had published in the book that you've reviewed, that we were only going to focus on the death certificate.
Well, now, normally in a case like this, there are two aspects to it, because you as a defendant can bring what are known as counterclaims against the plaintiff.
And I had three counterclaims.
I had a counterclaim for abuse of process.
It was obvious to me this was not brought in good faith.
He wasn't bringing it because he felt he had been defamed.
It was being brought to punish me.
This falls into the category what's known as a strategic lawsuit against public participational slap suit.
Which is illegal in some 32 states.
You can't even bring a lawsuit like this to punish me, drag me into court.
In fact, on his own blog, he was questioned by someone about the Wolfgang lawsuit.
He said, well, you lost that one, didn't you?
He, Lenny Posner, the fictional, wrote back, well, not really, because he got Wolfgang to take down his blog, which had a whole lot of evidence showing Sandy Hook was a fraud, and dragged him into court where he had to pay legal bills to set the example of what will happen if you're challenged.
Well, that's what they were doing with me.
So here you had him admitting this.
In one of the documents I gave to the court before we had the oral hearing, I even quoted that, where I enumerated all my background and credentials as an investigative journalist.
You know, I've done thousands of blog posts.
I have all these books.
I've even been paid as a journalist for reports.
I've done international news, all this stuff, one radio show after another.
The judge in the whole case never even ruled on my status as a journalist and yet would have meant If I were a journalist, then I had to have been malicious.
I had to have been deliberately known that what I was saying was false and gone ahead and asserted it anyway.
And by not ruling, he lowered the bar for the defense.
But get this, that was my first.
That was an abusive process.
My second was theft, fraud and theft by deception, because all these Sandy Hook parents were getting.
What, by my estimate, between 27 and 130 million bucks in donations from sympathetic but gullible Americans.
Which pans out if you divide between the 26 alleged surviving families between one and five million for faking having lost a kid at Sandy Hook, and then third for fraud on the court because a party who had bring in the lawsuit was not the same party as he claimed to be, being in fact Reuben Fabner, not Leonard Pott, the judge.
Bifurcated the case.
See, now normally I'd be allowed to do discovery on all these issues.
I can subpoena witnesses and go after documents and all that to support my case, which no doubt would have led to, you know, amassing a whole lot more evidence on my side.
And that's part of the benefit.
You know, your research on your counterclaim can also function as a defense.
In the original lawsuit, he bifurcated.
So I couldn't do that.
He reserved it until after the original case was brought against me, which meant, in essence, I was never able to do it.
They even claimed they were going to have a blood test, a DNA test, between Leonard Posner and Noah Posner.
And, of course, I'd already explained to the court, I believe that Leonard Posner was a fiction.
There was a real guy named Ruben Vabner that Noah Posner was a fiction, who was a real son of Ruben Vabner.
And, therefore, if you did a blood test between Leonard Posner and Michael Posner, you'd get a match.
Between Leonard Posner and Noah Posner, you'd get a match because the blood would be that, actually, of Michael Vabner in relation to Ruben Vabner.
So I said, let's expand the DNA testing to include not only Leonard Posner and Noah Posner, but Reuben Vavner and Michael Vavner.
But the judge refused.
In fact, Michael, I would say During the whole course of this, and then I've had to go back into court because they did a taking of my blog and even of the book to satisfy the monetary judgment brought by this jury of 12 in my separate trial for damages, $450,000.
They took my blog and my book.
I'd say in all of the rulings, maybe I brought 80, maybe as many as 80 different motions before the court.
I'd say the judge ruled against me in every single case.
I mean, this is, you know, such obvious evidence of bias.
And yet in the Wisconsin system, the judge can exercise his subjective judgment and just set all my facts and evidence aside as though it did not exist.
And he did that even though, and get this, Michael, there were a total of four different death certificates introduced before the oral hearing because my at the time co-defendant Dave Gehry is a publisher of Moonrock Books, of which this was a volume where I'm the editor for Moonrock Books, and it also edited the book, obtained an additional death certificate from the town, and I did obtain an additional death certificate from the state.
So there were already four different versions, each of which was different.
And during the oral hearing, I went through all four of the death certificates and noted all their differences, some of which were quite striking.
But over and beyond that, I had two, not one, two forensic document experts who agreed all four of the death certificates were fake.
All four of them were fake.
You'd think that'd be decisive, Michael.
But no, the judge just said they weren't helpful and set them aside and went ahead and ruled there were no disputed facts that I'd committed defamation!
Well, it sounds to me like the judge was either bought off or compromised, or he had to have been on Jeffrey Epstein's jet at one point or another.
But let me ask you this, and I'm scraping the cobwebs of my brain here, Jim, when I ask you this, but it seems to me like when I originally looked at this many, many years ago, it seems to me like Lenny Posner at the time was playing two roles, one of the father of Noah Posner and also of an FBI agent.
Am I wrong there?
Yeah, you're wrong about the party.
There was someone doing that, but it wasn't Leonard Posner.
In fact, I don't think you'll find any photographs of Lenny Posner anywhere in all the photographs coming from Sandy Hook and the event.
This was David Wheeler.
David Wheeler.
OK.
He played the role of a grieving father and also of a SWAT team member.
And that's interesting.
It ties into this latest Alex Jones, the second Alex Jones trial.
He not only played a grieving father, he and his wife, by the way, whose name is Francine, both have acting credits.
They both have professional acting credits.
Among Francine's is doing the voice of a figure in an animated pornographic feature, if you can believe.
But Maureen was a personal assistant to...
She was a personal assistant to a woman by the name of Francine Wheeler, who was the assistant to Maureen White, who was the biggest money ranger for the Democratic Party at the time.
This whole thing, you got to understand, was a Democrat agenda to promote gun control.
So you got Francine, who you track down her ties, and she's with the Democrat Party in fundraising.
Then you got David, who also played the role of a SWAT member walking up Dickinson Drive in a SWAT outfit, but carrying a weapon upside down by the magazine.
I gotta tell you, Michael, this is absurd.
No one with the least familiarity with weapons would carry one upside down by the magazine.
Magazines are designed to be rapidly replaced, and you can drop the weapon, damage the sights.
It's going to require repair.
I supervise recruit training with 15 DIs and 300 recruits, and the lowest-ranking recruit would not have carried a weapon upside down by the magazine.
So it's safe to conclude he wasn't an FBI agent or a SWAT team member.
That's right, but here's the thing, Michael.
They claimed that it had been this FBI agent by the name of Aldenburg who bore a certain resemblance to David Wheeler, and so he was a beneficiary of, I think, $19 million in this million-dollar settlement.
Unbelievable.
Okay, we've got to take a break, Jim.
We'll be back in three.
We'll continue the discussion.
Folks, I'll open the phone lines up at the bottom of the hour.
Stick around.
Did I hear the music, Mike?
I think I did.
You did.
I did.
- All right, we'll be right back. - Next to fresh from a farmer's market.
Our line of resealable fruits, vegetables, and meats are suitable for everyday use, and you won't have to worry about throwing away valuable groceries ever again.
Our food is completely GMO free, and our stringent quality controls, plus testing for heavy metals, makes us unique in the storable foods market.
Simply Clean Food's primary focus is to bring clean food to people all around the world and change the way we look at freeze-dried food in our daily cooking.
When you purchase from Simply Clean Foods, not only will you be receiving high-quality food, but you will also be supporting veterans in need across the country and those who are affected by natural disasters.
Go to republicbroadcasting.org and click on Long-Term Food Storage in the Rotating Sponsors Banners to support RBN.
Simply clean foods.
Let's do it today.
Do you truly want to stay out of the system?
Are you prepared to buy into the biggest scam since the Iraqi dinar?
If not, then put your money where it belongs, in your possession, not in the hands of an international MLM cartel.
At Kettle Moraine Limited, we will provide you with the finest Swiss minted detachable gram sheets of pure 24 karat gold for hundreds of dollars less than the so-called privately issued credit cards with elusive gold backing.
Gold backing?
The only gold that I want is in my back pocket.
Not backed by promises of an operation even the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce is suspect of, giving a rating of C-.
To get the full story, visit SierraMadrePreciousMetals.com and go to the Valcombee Bullion Vault.
Once you have read the whole story about the scam being perpetrated on an unsuspecting public and how you can avoid being a victim by purchasing these beautiful, barterable, tradable sheets of gold at tremendous savings and in the strictest of privacy, be prepared to take the steps to protect your wealth with the purchase of the real deal.
Detachable 50-gram gold bars from Kettle Moraine Limited by calling 602-799-8214.
Ask about our 1-ounce Valcombi Detachable Bars, which break into 1-10th ounce bars.
And don't forget, for all of your precious metal needs, whether buying or having the need to sell, call Kettle Moraine Limited.
Remember, no dinar, no celery, and no carrots.
If you buy from someone else, tell them you want AU, not BS.
Call Kettle Moraine Ltd.
today at 602-799-8214.
Kettle Moraine Ltd.
- All right, folks, we're back with the National Intel Report with my special guest, Professor James Fetzer.
Now, I'm going to talk to you about the National Intel Report with the National Intel Report.
I'm going to talk to you about the National Intel Report with the National Intel Report.
I'm going to talk to you about the National Intel Report.
I'm going to talk to you about the National Intel Report. - Thanks, we're back with the National Intel Report with my special guest, Professor James Fetzer.
Now, James, I want to take a minute here because we may not have enough time to do this.
You have or some of your producers, I guess, or somebody has set up a new type of broadcasting called All Things Reconsidered.
And this is for your own membership audience where you can, you know, do your investigative research and report on various things.
Oh, that's very good Michael.
Thank you for mentioning.
Yeah, this is a new endeavor.
This is for me, it's kind of up close and personal where I'm talking about things in greater detail than I might or which might be inappropriate for an audience that isn't subscribing to the venue.
It's at allthingsreconsidered.tv.
And you have multiple benefits as a member, where you are going to get a couple of broadcasts.
I've done four weeks of this so far, and each time I had two, I call them blog fest, Sunday blog fest, because they go up on Sundays, where I'm spending an hour on each of two different subjects.
And most recently, it was about The Alex Jones trial, which we're discussing ourselves here, but also about the nature of thought.
In other words, I discussed so many different topics that I'm giving you a mix.
Some is more philosophical, some highly analytical, going into aspects of these false flags, really seeking to deepen and broaden everyone's understanding of what's going on here through this more direct personal interaction.
Well, I congratulate you there.
AllThingsReconsidered.tv.
Go ahead and check it out, folks.
Now, before the break, I want to ask you, I know, I'm assuming you probably followed or watched most of Jones' trial.
Is that correct?
Before I ask this next question.
I watched parts.
I didn't watch all.
You know, to me, it was rather tedious because it was so obvious this was not a bona fide or legitimate trial.
Robert Barnes, I may have already mentioned, with all the cameras, said it looked to him like it was a made-for-TV movie.
I think it was really a propaganda effort to attack anyone who wants to do serious research on any of these allegations made by the government.
I mean, look, is it going to be Are you a conspiracy theorist if you think Lee Oswald maybe didn't shoot JFK?
It turns out Lee Oswald was actually standing in the doorway when the JFK motorcade passed by, so he not only cannot have been the lone demented shooter, he can't have been one of the... we've identified eight different assassins.
All right, well, let me jump in here just a second.
Before the break, I want to get this in here.
In the limited amount of time that you spent watching that, did you notice whether or not Lenny Posner was in the family's, uh, sitting.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
He wasn't there.
Okay, but he was one of the family members.
Why wouldn't he be there?
Was he identified as one of the family members?
He's actually, he's a, he's a legal fiction.
Well, no, no, I understand that.
I'm saying that he sued you for the false birth certificate thing, claiming that Noah Posner, his alleged son, died, yet he wasn't seen.
He actually came to my trial.
Right, but he didn't go to Jones' trial.
If he were a family member and actually lost a son, why wouldn't he be there with the rest of the family seeking the damages by Jones?
That's my question.
That goes, I mean, it's a great question.
Let me just tell you.
Every single person who's there is a fraud.
None of these lost any children.
I started to explain, you know, Neil Hesselin, who was involved in the very first trial, claimed that he'd held his son Jesse in his arms as he died.
Right.
Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, said that they didn't allow the parents to come into contact with the children.
So how is it possible, if Wayne Carver is right and the parents weren't allowed to come into contact with their children, that Wayne Hesselin could have held his son in his arms?
All the way around.
How, if it were true, Neil Heslin had his son, Jesse, in his arms as he died.
Could what Wayne Carver said possibly be true?
They can't both be true, but they can both be false.
And they are both false.
I mean, this is very elaborate.
Sophia had it so right, Michael.
They pick the community and they actually spend years planning this event.
Years.
Wayne Carver to me, and I remember watching him on TV, he would have done a better job of playing Claribel the Clown.
I'll tell you something, Wayne Carver was supposed to have died.
This is interesting.
There was a video deposition of Wayne Carver in relation of mine by the plaintiff, but I was able to participate.
And when I showed him the death certificate that David Harriot got from the town, Which instead of the absence of any file number in the original or the handwritten file number in the one attached to the complaint and in the one I obtained from the state, there was a printed, a partially printed file number.
Wayne Carver reacted to that exhibit when it was shown to him like a vampire to a cross.
It was amazing.
I have no idea what that is.
No idea.
Now, that's pretty damn telling all by itself, but here's something else.
They recycle these crisis actors.
You may or may not have noticed Yuvaldi was modeled after Sandy Hook, except instead of Adam Lanza shooting his mother and then going to shoot 20 first graders, this kid shot his grandmother and then went and shot 19 second, third, and fourth graders.
I mean, it's all ridiculous, Mike.
All right, we gotta take a break.
We're gonna open up the phone lines here, folks, in the last half hour.
512-248-8252.
Phone lines are starting to load up already.
Anyway, we'll be back in three with my special guest, Professor James Fetzer.
Be right back.
Visit our website by going to republicbroadcasting.org.
Did you know that essential oils have had a multitude of natural health and skin uses in history, but have been somewhat forgotten by recent civilization?
Susanna's Secret offers 100% pure natural oils at prices you can actually afford.
Do you have a house or office with a musty smell or mold?
Studies have shown that essential oils like the one in our Thief and Robbers blend will kill or inhibit mold, viruses, bacteria, and fungus.
Just diffuse with it and you will see the long-lasting effects that even synthetic chemicals don't achieve.
Purifica, another one of our products used to clean and freshen your house, Or give a natural scent when drying laundry.
For that special lady, we offer a ginger argan oil in a beautiful cosmetic bottle.
Or a pure argan oil, a natural acne-fighting product.
Check us out at SusannaSecret.com.
That's S-U-S-A-N-A-S-Secret.com.
S-U-S-A-N-A-S-Secret.com.
Extendivite really works.
Here's just a few testimonials from Amazon.
RL.
Five stars.
Been taking this for two months now.
I feel better.
Have more energy.
April.
My husband started taking Xenovite and he said he feels much better and has more energy.
EW.
Need to try.
Everyone needs this for their health.
Great product.
Great people.
Josie.
It works great.
This product has made my blood pressure and cholesterol stable.
I highly recommend it.
Great product.
Has worked well these last few years.
To get your ExtendoVite today, go to ExtendoVite.com.
That's X-T-E-N-D-O-V-I-T-E dot com.
Or call us at 1-877-928-8822.
at 1-877-928-8822.
Extend your life with ExtendoVite.
Are you one of the millions of people who feel like there is a dark cloud hanging over their heads whenever they're using pharmaceutical drugs?
For some, the short-term relief can turn into an opioid addiction nightmare.
Have you ever wondered why CBD oil is a billion-dollar industry?
It's because it works better than opioids and is actually healthy for you.
However, CBD oil is stripped of all other helpful compounds found in the hemp plant.
According to neuroscientists, the whole hemp plant, otherwise known as hemp paste, is even more effective than the chemically processed CBD oil.
Are you ready to take back your health?
You can try Hempaste for the price of a cup of coffee by going to rbnhempaste.com and ordering a trial pack of Happy Packets for $5 with free shipping.
That's rbnhemppace.com.
All right, folks, we're back with the National Intel Report.
Michael Herzog, your Tuesday host, with my special guest, Professor Emeritus James Fetzer.
Now, the phone lines are loaded, as I suspected, Jim.
I'm going to give each one, I'm going to try to hold it to two, possibly three minutes apiece, because they are loaded.
So let's first go to James in Vancouver.
James, you're on with Professor Fetzer and myself.
If you've got a question for Jim, go ahead, James.
Yes, good afternoon, Dr. Fetzer.
I believe one of the reasons why they're targeting you is because, as I understand it, you are a professor of the philosophy of science, am I correct?
Yes.
And you do have a track record for investigating things for many years, and you've come up with a lot of very good facts, ideas, and such.
It seems to me that in the last 60 years I've seen an atrification of scientific inquiry, or that is the method of scientific inquiry in the United States go downhill.
I wondered if you could comment on that.
Oh, no question about it whatsoever.
When I was on the Duluth campus at the University of Minnesota and when political correctness became prevalent and There were a fair number of women who were promoting it on the campus.
I could see the dearth of critical thinking that it was going to be used as a club to prevent people from actually thinking things through.
And that's that's proven to be exactly what's happening here.
I mean, it's very, very bad.
But you're right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, look, I have all kinds of publications.
I have all kinds of books.
I have all kinds of professional.
scholarly credentials, and that makes me highly unusual because most academicians run away from controversial issues, whereas I embrace them.
I want to sort these things out, and I began cutting my teeth on JFK and serious research, bringing together the best experts I ever studied the case back in 1992, and I've been going ever since, bringing new groups of experts on these different issues.
Would I be right by saying that we're talking about special interests, politics, and big money?
Thank you for taking my call.
You're welcome.
Yeah, good call.
Okay, listen, I'm going to limit them to about two minutes apiece, and if you've got a question for Professor Fetzer, please state it.
And I don't mean to cut you off, folks, but we're limited for time here, and I know the lines are loaded.
Let's go to Frank in New York.
Frank, you're on with Professor Fetzer.
If you've got a question for him, go ahead.
Well, first, I've got a statement to make.
You know, there's so many holes in that whole story.
You know, there was a TV station with a helicopter flying around that morning, and they saw those two guys that were caught up in the hills.
They were probably from the FEMA thing, okay?
There's so many holes in there.
But I want to ask Jim, Veterans Today had a great article years ago.
I think it was by Niall Ferguson or something like that.
And they had these tapes of the stuff in the morning, the TV, you know what I mean?
The helicopter, I should say.
And he put it all together, basically.
But that article is gone.
And you know what I mean?
When I had it in my own computer, all of a sudden the pictures, the YouTubes disappeared, too.
But I wonder, I'll just ask Jim if he could, you know, check on that.
And maybe, you know, he could get in touch with his old buddies there at Veterans Today and maybe we could get that article out there again.
And thanks for taking my call, Michael.
You're welcome.
You want to respond to that, Frank?
Well, I'm not sure I ever saw that article, but it's very interesting.
And yeah, if we could recover it, that would be a good thing.
I'm all for it.
Well, you know how things are censored and just mysteriously vanish?
Yeah.
Okay, let's go to Charlie in Los Angeles.
Charlie, you're on with Professor Fetzer.
How you doing, buddy?
Charlie in Los Angeles over there.
All right.
How am I coming in now?
You're good.
Yeah, have you got a question for Tim?
Yeah, I got a question.
I want to know where all these jury trials went.
You know, you have a right to a jury trial.
Why would Alex Jones forgo his right to a jury trial and why did you?
They didn't.
Well, that was the whole point of a summary judgment, is that you don't have to have a jury trial if there are no disputed facts.
Now, my facts were massively disputed, and I should have had a jury trial.
Then I was denied a jury trial, and I not only appealed it to the Court of Appeals in Wisconsin and to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I appealed it to the United States Supreme Court on precisely that ground.
All right.
Let me just say one more thing, and I'll get off the air.
I don't know if I believe that, but Alex Jones said he wants a woman to determine if he's guilty of defamation.
All this stuff sticks to high heaven.
That's all I can say.
Thanks for taking the call.
Sure, sure.
Well, Alex has already been found guilty.
I mean, you know, these are all trials for damages.
Well, Alex was found guilty, Jim, because they claimed that he didn't, in Discovery, he didn't provide them all of the information they asked for, which was a blatant lie.
He did.
I agree with that.
Robert Barnes made the same point.
He said he was asking around and no one knew what Discovery Alex had provided.
Thousands of pages, all his video, they had all the tape.
Not even This stringer from the New York Times, Elizabeth Williamson, whom he observes is the one who's really gifting making money off of this, and she's written some very bad stuff about Alex Jones and me.
She didn't know what it was that had led to the default.
So I'm with you, Michael.
It all appears to be completely contrived.
And, you know, I mean, I made it a point before the U.S.
Supreme Court that I was this methodology that was being used for summary judgment in Wisconsin was grossly defective and denied me as a defendant my right to a trial by jury.
And I'm rather floored that they declined to take it because there were many reasons it was the right thing to do.
And now I may or may not have new evidence that would justify requesting the court to reconsider.
Okay, well, with that, let's go to John in Michigan.
I believe John called in earlier, before the top of the hour, so let's see what he's got on his mind.
John in Michigan, you're on with Michael.
Yeah, go ahead.
Yes, yes.
Well, Clinton has weaponized the DOJ and all the courts, so we're dealing with administrative tribunals that don't have much to do with real constitutional rights, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with that, and I wish Ralph Winterwild was around to help us with a solution of how to work with the courts.
Oh yeah, sure.
Sure.
I have books.
and people to take a look at Professor Fetzer's sites and see that he's also involved with other mass shootings.
You were involved with Parkland too, weren't you?
Oh yeah, sure.
I have books.
I bring together groups of experts and then publish our proceedings.
I have three books on JFK that actually shattered the cover.
I've discovered the autopsy x-rays have been altered to conceal a blowout at the back of the head.
Someone else's brain was substituted for that in JFK.
The home movies were extensively altered.
We got more frames missing than remain in the extant version.
I've done a lot on 9-11.
I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
Alex, interestingly, when he had his American Scholars Conference in June in LA, 2006, invited me to give the keynote lecture.
That's where I met you, Jim.
Yes, but I don't understand why he was so reticent.
He didn't want me to have anything to do.
I mean, I offered to be an expert witness.
Michael, you notice that?
I offered to be an expert witness for Alex to Norm Pattis, and he didn't pick up on it.
I think I could have done him a lot of good, but they didn't want it.
Go ahead, John.
God bless you both.
Go ahead, Jim.
Well, let me interject something here.
I mean, it is becoming evidently more clear to me.
And thank you.
I want to tell the audience for those new listeners out there, Jim was cordial enough because that's where I met Jim is at that conference in 2006.
And I was this is just before I just secured a radio spot and it was going I hadn't even done my inaugural show.
Jim and I sat at the bar and had a drink and I was telling him about it.
And Jim says, well, I invited Jim.
I said, would you kind of babysit me?
He said, sure.
And that's the first time we met, so that's the kind of guy Jim is.
He's just a great guy.
But I wanted to interject here, Jim.
It looks to me like I hear all these people coming on all these shows talking about, well, it's your taxpayer dollars going to pay for this and that.
No, I've looked at the budget and I've looked at the deficit and I've looked at the, you know, the Inflation Reduction Act and the COVID Act and all of these trillions of dollars that they're printing off the printing press that has nothing to back it up because it's fiat currency.
And to me, That this is all orchestrated, all staged, all of these people are paid off, the judges are selected because they're bought off, compromised, or they've been on Epstein's jet, and it is indeed a capstone event.
This isn't coming from taxpayer dollars, Jim.
This is coming from the very top of the pyramid.
Would you agree with that?
the money?
Well, you know, FEMA is a part of DHS, and DHS has access to all the taxpayer money.
I mean, there's a whole lot of events going on that come out of the Rothschilds, you know, in the World Economic Forum.
I've not found reason to believe that was true of these specific events, which all appear to be administered by FEMA, and they're paying off these communities who hold these events.
A lot of money, they're having individual contracts, they're having auditions, they're having them sign specific, you know, gag orders, non-disclosure agreements.
They're even being threatened that if they reveal what actually happened, they could get 30 years in the slammer.
I mean, think about it.
That's a pretty powerful inducement.
But But the communities, I mean, all the key players in the communities, the head of the bank, the head of the police force, the head of the fire department, the town clerk, the head of the school board, they're all involved in these things.
I mean, this is what boggles the mind.
No American could think that a community like Newtown would deliberately engage in a messy fraud on the American people, but they did.
This happens again and again and again.
And I have brought together groups of experts on a whole host of these, not only on Sandy Hook, but the Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, even the moon landing.
And Amazon has banned all six of those books.
Amazon has banned all six of those books.
But you can get five of the six at moonrockbooks.com.
The Sandy Hook is still in limbo.
They took it.
Now officially it's owned by the legal fiction Leonard Posner.
That was something else I was hoping to have reversed.
And in fact, I'm back into court in Wisconsin.
I've already filed my notice of appeal at this taking, which Michael was done.
On the 28th of July, they took my blog.
On the 27th, I was publishing about Alex Jones and that this was a sham trial and evidence supporting it.
On the 28th, they took it just as they began to trash me and Sylvia Smallstrom and Wolfgang Helbig and James Tracy, where they had a producer on the stand reading.
a part of a message from Paul Joseph Watson to Alex Jones saying, we got to stay as far away as possible from that batshit crazy fat sir.
So that at that point, if anyone wanted to know what this batshit crazy guy had to say, they couldn't get to it because they took the blog and just turned it to documents about the taking.
It was just ridiculous.
Well, the bottom line is, Ki Bono, who benefits, follow the money.
In your book, you depict that the construction industry itself, they got 50 million in Connecticut state funds that were allocated for the destruction of the Sandy Hook School.
And if this were a crime scene, and it's just like 9/11, they leveled that.
They leveled this.
quickly dispose of the crime scene and they get all this money.
The Sandy Hook School Support Fund raised approximately, according to your book, approximately $12 million and distributed it to the Newtown Sandy Hook Community Foundation.
I mean, the amount of money that's being made on this and the organization of the entire, well, drama, the play that is playing out, it seems like it takes them, it seems like it takes them, and you mentioned this earlier in the program, it takes them years in planning to conduct this.
It does.
And that's another reason they get away with it because, you know, it seems Let's go back to the phones.
Time's getting short.
We've got a couple more on the line here.
Let's first go to Murr in Wisconsin.
Murr, you're on with Michael and Professor Fetzer.
would have to talk, but not if it's planned years in advance and they have contracts that are being paid for it.
By the way, a fringe benefit appears to be you don't have to pay your taxes.
Okay, well, I'll tell you what, let's go back to the phones.
Time's getting short.
We've got a couple more on the line here.
Let's first go to Murrah in Wisconsin.
Murrah, you're on with Michael and Professor Fetzer.
What's on your mind, honey?
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Yes.
Oh, okay.
I was waiting for the Sonic Gate.
Hey, just got to remember, too, when you brought up about the money, Michael, it made me remember that I just need to remind everyone that this wasn't a standalone event.
And yeah, it was planned a long time before because it involved the Liver scandal.
You had Robert Holmes from the Aurora Theater in Colorado on 720.
Okay, it was 1st July 20 that no one talked about the moon landing.
You know, but that was all fictitious too.
But he and Peter Lanza, of course Adam Lanza never even existed, were to testify in the LIBOR scandal trial.
The London Interbank Offered Rate trial.
And of course it got cancelled, the trial, but I mean there were bits in the Dark Knight movie, there were all kinds of things that related the two together.
And so the whole fiasco, are the bankers flaunting their power?
You know, and since March 9, 1933, we've been bankrupt, so we're in holding by the IMF, the World Bank, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements in Basel.
So it always gets back to that money.
Yeah.
Well, let's keep on moving.
Go ahead, Jim.
Good comments, good comments.
All right.
Thank you, Mara.
I appreciate the call.
Let's go to Dave in the Thumb, Michigan.
Dave in the Thumb, you're on with Professor James Fetzer and Michael Herzog.
What's on your mind, partner?
Hey, Michael.
Great show.
Thanks for having the professor on.
Hey, Professor Fetzer, I've spoken with you a couple of times.
I'm dear friends with Ron Avery.
I gotta tell you, I'm legally blind, and I was recovering from a fall down my basement stairs.
in a wheelchair, my neighbor was feeding my, you know, letting my dog out, and he brought a dozen donuts over, and we were drinking coffee, watching the news, and this event unfolded before our very eyes.
Now, back then, I still had more vision than I have now, but I was still legally blind.
But I'll tell you what, even a blind man could see that the HVAC ventilation tubes were hanging from the ceiling.
They weren't connected to anything.
The insulation was hanging.
You could tell that that building had been through something, and I found out later was a hurricane had been closed for five years at school.
And they kept showing that little loop of a string of children being led down the sidewalk, and it just kept looping and looping.
I explained to my neighbor what a false flag was, and he saw it before his very eyes.
So a blind man showed another guy who never even heard of a false flag what the hell was going on, and Jim, you, man, you nailed it!
These guys, this is what I tell people, if you got questions, ask your favorite relatives.
Uncle Sam, an anti-Semite.
Uncle Ben, an anti-Fa.
They'll tell you it's not real.
It is real, and it's all by design.
They have a plan, and you, my friend, were a pawn in that plan, but keep exposing the truth.
I love you, and Michael, I give it up to you, brother.
You're awesome.
Great show, as usual.
Thanks for being on, Professor.
What a wonderful call.
Ron Avery has had a lot of experience in Texas with summary judgment, so he and I actually through conversation, you know, he helped me to define the issues.
I was, not having been into a courtroom before, was at a bit of a loss as to what had happened to me.
Ron actually maintains a website for the Posner v. Fetzer case.
Here's the link.
P-O-S-T-W-T-C, postwtc.com slash P-V-F, for Posner vs. Fetzer, P-V-F dot H-T-M-L.
And what's great about this website is not only got most of the documents from the whole case, he's got a whole lot of commentaries on the case as well.
So I encourage everyone to check that out.
Here's something else.
I mentioned Brian Davidson having done this brilliant work getting into the Connecticut State Police files and confirming that, you know, they were running the shop, that they removed the metadata out of consciousness of guilt.
He and I did a law enforcement false flag.
Fantastic.
event checklist that you can download from the internet.
Go for law enforcement, false flag, stage event checklist, three pages.
You got lots of links and criteria as to how you can tell the difference between whether it's real or fake.
Fantastic.
Well, you know, summarizing this entire thing, Jim, in your case, in Alex Jones' case, which they got a billion-dollar judgment, and they wanted to get the amount as big as they could, obviously.
But the bottom line to all of this is the message that's being sent to all of us that are doing nothing more, and I include you, I include all of the alternative media, I include the listening audience, that the message to be sent here, let's see if you concur with this, is be afraid.
Be very afraid of talking about this or Challenging.
How dare you, Jim Fetzer, disbelieve our lie, right?
Yeah, let's try to discourage skepticism about official narratives, and yet some of them are absolutely ridiculous.
In fact, I think, Michael, they overplayed it here.
I mean, a billion dollars for having an opinion?
And it wasn't even an opinion he expressed very often.
I mean, it was a sham.
This is a monster sham.
Everyone now can see what a show trial looks like.
This was a show trial as Robert Barnes, a very astute attorney who was in the courtroom himself, said this appeared to him to be a made-for-TV movie.
I guarantee it's going to be coming.
Well, I don't know about you.
television, the Alex Jones trials, where they're going to continue to demonize anyone who's doing serious research on these ridiculous stories the government tries to sell us about really important events?
Well, I don't know about you.
Well, I do know about you because you're a critical thinker, Jim, and I can't count how many times I have gone on the air and just been appalled and let the audience know of how badly they gaslight us or try to and insult our intelligence.
And the scary thing about this, Jim, is there's only a small few.
I don't know what percentage it is of the overall population, but there's only a small few of us that can see through this charade.
Most people just accept it and move on.
And that's part of the problem in this country.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
And I have to tell you, Jim, you are definitely not part of the problem.
If anybody's up there on the top of the list, you are part of the solution, my friend.
I I appreciate that, Michael, and I just love how you've succeeded with your radio show since we had that drink in the bar in Los Angeles back in 2006.
You're doing a great job, and I so appreciate your mentioning, too, the All Things Reconsidered because there may be a number of members of your audience who'd like to get involved in that.
As I say, there are already eight episodes there and there's a money back guarantee you can try it out.
If it's not to your liking, there's no problem getting a refund, but I would welcome anyone who wants to get involved. - Well, I'll tell you what, and let me ask you one question about that.
This is, I'm certain, you know, reporting you have guests on.
Is there any roundtable discussion, or do you have callers, or is it just the broadcast itself?
No, you will have the opportunity to submit questions that I can then address on subsequent, you know, as I call them, blogfests, subsequent blogfests.
Okay, all right.
So, well, listen, I want to wish you the best of luck, and hopefully you'll come up with some more evidence and have the Supreme Court take another look at this.
But the bottom line, as far as I can see, is all they're doing is they're trying to maximize the amount of money to scare the bejesus out of anybody who wants to, you know, have the audacity to not believe their continuous lies.
And on the flip side of that coin, with a billion-dollar judge against Jones for telling the truth, what about all the guys that are lying their hind ends off about masks and social distancing and vaccines and all this stuff?
It's terrible.
It's absolutely horrible.
It's humongous.
And we got this Reinhardt Filich doing an international criminal case here There's going to be many more.
But the problem is that CDC wants to get Pfizer and Moderna onto their mandatory vax list for children, which is going to exonerate them from any liability.
There's a Congress made a colossal blunder way back when.
They're giving liability to those who are administering vaccines on the ground.
They were inherently unsafe.
But the fact is that these are not forms of medicine.
They're genetic therapy, gene therapy.
They don't properly qualify as vaccines.
So in order to conceal that, the CDC changed the definition of vaccines.
I don't think that's going to work because it would be a question was what was the definition of vaccines at the time they were originally authorized.
They don't qualify There should be massive lawsuits against Pfizer-Moderna.
They knew what the hell they were doing, and it's part of the big agenda to decimate most of the world's population.
That's their ambition.
We hope it won't happen.
By the way, Joaquin Agopian has wonderful articles about all this on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
They took jamesfetzer.org.
Go to jameshfetzer.org and check it out.
All right, and let me add in Tommy Rins, another attorney that's suing Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak.
We also have to mention Daniel Watkins and Michael Hamilton are suing three Fresno hospitals over this.
So, you know, the lawsuits are flying, Fauci's resigning, and Rochelle Walensky's backtracking.
I mean, you know, the house of cards is collapsing, Jim, so that's all I can say at the moment.
But hey, listen, it's been an absolute pleasure having you.
Have you back in the not-too-distant future if you're up to it.
Absolutely, Michael.
Anytime.
All right.
Thanks, Jim.
I appreciate it.
We're out of time.
I hope you enjoyed the show, folks.
Thank you so much for the intelligent callers that called in.
We'll see you same time, same station next week.
And in the meantime, stay out of trouble and watch your back.
▲
Export Selection