All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
56:39
RONALD F. AVERY - LAWFARE: The Judicial Plundering of Dr. James H. Fetzer
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, everyone, to False Flags and Conspiracies Conference 2024, Day 2. And now our next speaker is Ron Avery, and he's going to be discussing lawfare, the judicial plundering of Dr. James H. Fretzer.
Ron will illustrate how Dr. Fetzer was found liable for defaming by being deprived of his right to trial by jury guaranteed under the Wisconsin Constitution in the 7th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
So this is a very interesting case, you guys.
I've been following it since it started.
And they have basically stripped Dr. Fetzer of his ability to sell his book Free speech.
I mean, it goes on and on.
And it all started with Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
And I believe they're on to another book that he's got out there.
So to discuss this whole thing is a case study in this whole event that happened to Dr. Fetzer and his trial in the whole nine yards is Ron Avery.
And Ron, we're so happy to have you here.
Take it away.
All right.
Thank you.
And do you say that, Lorien?
How do you pronounce your first name?
It's Lorien, like a DeLorean without the D. Lorien.
Okay.
Lorien Fenton.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Yeah.
The title of this is Lawfare, and it's a case study of judicial plundering of Dr. James H. Fetzer.
He's a co-editor and co-author of the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
And he was found liable for defamation by a non-jury trial cloaked as summary judgments in place of a constitutional right to a trial by jury.
OK, this is based upon the only book to cover the Posner versus Spetzer judicial proceedings.
There are some other books out there that kind of talk about it on the very surface, the winnings and losings and each kind of thing, but nothing that gets into the actual process.
Okay, you can order this book here.
You can go back if you want to and look at this.
This sells for $17.62.
You can buy it with a credit card at postwtc.com or just send me a check to Ronald F. Avery, 1933 Montclair, Seguin, Texas 78155. Now this presentation, as well as the book, are the informed opinions of myself.
The scope of the presentation covers the cause of action and mass media cartel, the summary judgment on liability, jury trial on damages, Wisconsin Fourth Court of Appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
the Supreme Court of the United States, direct transfer of copyright interest in books, non-earnings garnishment of donations, gifts, and defense funds, and The judge's inadvertent admission of a state of war against Fetzer.
If liability went to a jury, would Fetzer lose?
And the final item is protest in front of television and newspaper outlets rather than government buildings.
And you'll see why that is what I'm recommending for any kind of protest anymore.
Okay.
But I've kind of reshuffled these things into the main parts of the presentation, and there's eight of these.
First is the cause of action and mass media cartel.
Two is a summary judgment.
Three is the jury trial on damages that covers admission of irrelevant evidence, allowance of vicarious liability, allowance of presidential evidence.
Prejudicial, yeah.
And four, the appeals, the Wisconsin Fourth Court of Appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The fifth part is post-judgment execution, which is going on at this time still, which covers the direct transfer of copyright interest in books.
And non-earnings garnishments.
All right, the sixth is circuit judge admits state of war.
Seven is the liability went to, if the liability went to a jury instead of the summary judgment, would Fetzer still lose?
That's the question I answer.
And where and how to protest these types of events.
All right, the cause of action and mass media cartel.
Posner versus Fetzer.
That's where it starts.
Dr. James H. Fetzer published a book entitled Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
We call that Nobody Died.
Posner then sues Fetzer for defamation, libel.
There's two forms of defamation, libel and slander.
Slander is verbal.
Libel is written.
They didn't accuse him of doing any slander.
It was all written.
And this lawsuit was filed in November the 27th, 2018. So it's been going on for six years.
And this is for publishing Nobody Died.
These four, well, in the Nobody Died book, he published these three statements that you're looking at them right here.
Quote, death certificate of Posner's son is a fake, which we have proven on a dozen or more grounds.
At page 183. And next quote is, as many Sandy Hook researchers are aware, the very document, death certificate of Posner's son, was circulated, Posner himself circulated in 2014 with its inconsistent tones,
fonts, and clear digital manipulation was clearly a forgery at page 242. Third quote is Posner sent Kelly Watt a death certificate, which turned out to be a fabrication at page 232. Now I have inserted these names.
The names weren't there.
They had been talked about, but they weren't in these exact quotes.
Okay, now he made one other publication.
This was on someone else's blog.
I can't remember whose.
It says it was presuming the death certificate of Posner's son.
Turned out to be a fabrication with the bottom half of a real death certificate and the top half of a fake with no file number and the wrong estimated time of death at 11 a.m.
when officially the shooting took place between 9.35 and 9.40, unquote.
So there you have the four thing, the four publications that he was sued for, and then nothing else.
Okay.
Nothing else in the book and nothing else on this block.
All right.
The power of the mass media cartel narrative.
All institutions will succumb to it.
Lawfare would be less likely without the fear of the mass media cartel.
Lawyers and judges cheat rather than face the wrath of the mass media cartel.
Lawfare is a product of the mass media cartel.
We hear about it even from the mass media cartel.
We hear that President Trump has claimed lawfare was used against him.
President Biden claimed lawfare was used against his son, Hunter.
And we all see how lawfare is used against the January 6th protesters.
But behind it all is the mass media cartel.
A cartel is a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices.
A mass media cartel is a combination of independent mass media networks That fix content with a common narrative and interest which limits their competition.
The cartel profits indirectly from control of the narrative.
That means they can operate almost endlessly without making any money because they benefit from other means by keeping this narrative in place.
All right, 1.3, narrative forces conformity.
People and institutions feel compelled to conform to the mass media cartel narrative and to reject or isolate those with other views, mainly because they lack the internal fortitude to resist it alone.
Dr. Fetzer is an exception.
Courts, juries, and judges tend to do the same.
Judicial procedures need to protect the rights of a litigant from such prejudicial behavior.
Caused by the narrative fixing by the mass media cartel.
I believe we all could agree if we didn't have this mass media cartel fixing the narrative, that you wouldn't be able to be forced out of the community as easy because there would be multiple narratives, not just one.
Okay.
Two.
Liability determined by summary judgment.
The judge granted a summary judgment in favor of Mr. Posner finding Dr. Fetzer liable for defamation as a matter of law, regardless of the facts.
That's just generally what a summary judgment means.
It means regardless of the facts, this is the law.
Okay.
Essence of a summary judgment.
Number one, a motion for summary judgment is a judicial tool to bypass an unnecessary jury trial when both parties agree to the facts while protecting the non-movement's right to a trial by jury.
There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, for a summary judgment.
But there is for a trial by jury, both in the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitution.
Well, you see, there'd be no purpose in having a trial by jury if both parties agreed to the facts, because that's all juries do is find out what the facts are.
They determine the facts.
They weigh the evidence, determine the facts.
Okay, logical basis of a summary judgment.
Juries find the facts by weighing evidence.
Judges apply the law to the facts found by the jury.
In summary judgments, the weight of evidence is irrelevant.
To protect the non-movement's right to a trial by jury in a motion for summary judgment, the judge must accept as true all alleged facts supported by evidence favorable to the non-movement.
In this case, the non-movement is Dr. Fetzer.
Now, the movement is not at risk of losing their right to a trial by jury.
If they lose their motion, they may proceed to a trial by jury.
If a non-movement loses a summary judgment, they lose their right to a trial by jury.
Hypothetically, because they would lose even if a jury was held, is there would be no facts to be found by a jury favorable to the non-movement.
Now, the movement's allegations of facts supported by evidence must agree with that of the non-movement resulting in no facts in dispute.
In this case, Posner must agree with Fetzer's facts.
If the judge finds that the movement's allegations of facts, supported by evidence, disagrees with the non-movements, He must deny the movement's motion for summary judgment.
If the movement's facts agree with the facts of the non-movement, the judge may grant a summary judgment if the movement...
I gotta wait for something to clear down here.
Okay, movement provided evidence of all required elements of their claim.
Posner fails here as well.
He simply didn't have all the elements of his claim, and we'll see that later too.
Okay, 2.2, sample of Fetzer's rejected evidence.
Now remember that the weight of evidence cannot be determined or compared by a judge in a motion for summary judgment.
Okay, all they can do is look for disputes of facts or total agreement, but they cannot weigh the facts.
They can't figure out what the facts are.
They can only look for agreement or disagreement.
Okay.
Number one, the sign, here's the evidence that Dr. Fetzer submitted, the sign at Sandy Hook saying everyone must check in.
Boxes of bottled water and pizza cartons at the fire station.
Port-a-potties were brought in.
Many were wearing name tags and lanyards.
Parents bringing their children to the scene.
No surge of EMTs into the parking lot or school building.
No medevac helicopters were called.
No string of ambulances at the school.
No evacuation of 469 other students.
No bodies placed on the triage tarps.
Two affidavits from two document authenticity experts finding all five death certificates of Posner's son to be fake.
Twelve.
His 400-plus page book with 13 contributors, five with PhDs, concluding that Sandy Hook Elementary, really a special needs school, had been closed at least four years before the alleged shooting.
13. Connecticut's Attorney General's investigation never connected the weapons to the shooter or the shooting.
Amazing, isn't it?
That's just, that should blow your hat in the creek.
Okay, 2.3, a sample of Posner's evidence accepted is true.
Number one, five different versions of a death certificate for his son.
Two, that ought to cause you a little bit of a question.
Now, why would you have five different versions of a death certificate for one person?
Okay, two, a social security card for his son.
Number three, an affidavit from Dr. Alan L. Friedman stating the following, quote, In my expert opinion, Leonard Posner is, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, The biological father of his alleged son.
Four, an affidavit from Samuel Green, a funeral director, stating the following, among other things, quote, my funeral home prepared The body for burial inhaled his funeral service.
I was personally involved in that process.
My funeral home obtained the remains from the medical examiner.
My funeral home obtained the death certificate form, at that point only partially completed, from the office of the chief medical examiner.
Well, actually, this is pretty much the, even though I've said this is a sample, this is pretty much all the evidence that Posner submitted.
Okay, whereas Fetzer presented a lot more evidence showing that it didn't happen.
2.4.
Judge grants Posner's motion for summary judgment.
Judge finds all the facts and evidence submitted by Posner plausible and reasonable.
The judge finds that all the facts and evidence submitted by Fetzer to be unreasonable and therefore inadmissible.
Well, see, just right there, and we're going to get into that, such statements by the judge revealed that he weighed the evidence as a jury would and determined the facts, rather than finding agreement to facts or not, making this a non-jury trial, not a summary judgment.
You see, they could have had a non-jury trial just by waiving their right to a trial by jury.
But that's what they got.
But they didn't waive their right to trial by jury, but that's what they got.
But the judge called it a summary judgment.
2.5.
Comparison of the summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin and Texas.
This is really revealing.
When you see the comparison of these two, you're going to know that something is definitely wrong in Wisconsin and a lot of other states and even the federal government when it comes to summary judgment.
Number one in Wisconsin.
A court must review the complaint to determine on its face it states a claim for relief.
Well, I got to tell you, you got to do that with any kind of case or any kind of proceeding.
If the guy hadn't made a statement for relief, he'd just dismiss the case.
Okay, number two, if a claim for relief has been stated The inquiry then shifts to whether any factual issues exist.
Three, if the complaint states a claim and the pleadings show the existence of factual issues, the court examines the moving party's affidavits or other proof to determine whether the moving party has made a prima facie case for summary judgment.
Four, if the movement establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment, the court then must review the non-movement's affidavits or other proof to determine whether there are any material facts in dispute or inferences from undisputed material facts that would entitle the opposing party to a trial.
Well, I'm going to tell you that is just confusing.
And as Texas will point this out, here's the methodology in Texas for some region.
Number one, look for disputed material facts.
Wouldn't you want to do that right out of the chute?
I mean, if you've got disputed material facts over here, Why get into the guy's lawsuit and what he claims and has he completed all the elements and has he have enough?
I mean, no need to go there.
If there's a dispute of the material facts, you just dismiss it right there.
Okay, but here's what you got to do to figure out what the problem is.
Okay, number one, look for disputed material facts issues.
In deciding whether a disputed material fact issue exists, precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movement will be taken as true.
So that's the first thing out of the chute.
In a summary judgment where the non-movement is at risk of losing his right to a trial by jury, you must take his facts as true.
Okay, that way you guarantee that if there's no problem with facts, that you could grant a summary judgment without depriving him of the right to trial by jury.
Now, I think I shouldn't be getting off the track here.
I'm trying to be spontaneous, but there's a lot of material to cover.
I think I'm ruining it, so let me get back to reading it.
Two, every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-moving.
Not just of undisputed material facts, every inference, no matter whether it's disputed or not.
Okay, that means Fetzer's inference that the death certificates must be fake if the shooting at Sandy Hook did not happen.
You can entertain that.
A judge should have entertained that and embraced it.
Okay, three.
All doubt shall be resolved in the non-movement's favor.
Any doubts about the authenticity of the death certificates shall be resolved in favor of Fetzer finding them fake.
You see, in Texas, there's no way that that judge could have found Dr. Fetzer liable for defamation because their facts simply are the most contradictory I've ever seen in a lawsuit.
All right.
2.6.
Result of Posner's summary judgment should have been the judge accepting the evidence of Fetzer that the Sandy Hook school mass shooting did not happen, but was rather a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
The judge, too, the judge inferring from Fetzer's facts and evidence that the death certificates of Posner's son showing he died from multiple gunshot wounds at Sandy Hook School on the date of the FEMA drill at a closed school must be fake.
Since Posner cannot agree with Fetzer's facts and evidence, The summary judgment must be denied and a jury called to weigh and determine the facts.
That never happened.
2.7.
Non-jury trial is cloaked as summary judgment.
The summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin is flawed as it does not protect the non-movement's right to a trial by jury.
Guaranteed, guaranteed by the Constitution of Wisconsin and the United States.
All right, here's the two guarantees right over here.
Wisconsin, it's, quote, the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy, unquote.
Now for the U.S. Constitution.
This is the 7th Amendment.
Quote,"...in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law." Unquote.
Okay.
2.8.
Summary judgments versus trial by jury.
The history of summary judgments are much shorter than that of a trial by jury.
I'm going to spend just a little time on this because most people don't know this.
Even I didn't know this until recently.
Summary judgments are very new.
Trial by jury 100 years ago, whereas trial by jury is very old, at least 100 years before the Magna Carta.
That was in 1215, and it was included in the Magna Carta.
And Virginia was the first North American jurisdiction to implement a procedure similar to a summary judgment in 1732. Virginia passed its first statute permitting summary proceedings against sheriffs and other officers who failed to deliver public monies entrusted to citizens.
OK. And next, motions for summary judgment are not guaranteed by federal or state constitution.
But they act like it in Wisconsin.
You have to win a right to a trial by jury in a summary judgment proceeding, whereas you already have the right.
You should be winning the right for a summary judgment, not winning the right to a trial by jury.
Okay, 2.9.
Summary judgment extent and purpose grows, and it's abusive.
Number one, the original purpose of the remedy of summary judgment was to clear the federal court dockets and assist poor plaintiffs in bringing actions against the vast resources of corporate defendants.
Two, the Michigan expanded its summary judgment provision in 1931, transforming the rule from a remedy weighted toward plaintiffs into one that treated the plaintiff and defendant equally.
Well, I was under the opinion, and I believe Experts would agree with me now that motions for summary judgment are mainly filed by defendants these days, and most all summary judgments granted are to defendants rather than plaintiffs.
It's very rare for plaintiffs to win a motion for summary judgment these days, especially in a defamation case.
Anyway, In 1928, Connecticut adopted a summary judgment provision.
Connecticut's rule was designed to serve two purposes, to expedite procedures for recovery of debt and to decrease the load of litigation on the court.
I don't think either one, at least the last one, is not so admirable.
Okay, 2.10, summary judgment grows.
By 1930s, some experts favored expanding summary judgments to all causes of action.
Although summary judgment's initial purpose was to strike out sham defenses and expedite cases in which only questions of law remained, it was poised to become a useful tool in all types of cases.
Two, the Wisconsin summary judgment methodology and those like it do not protect the right of trial by jury of the non-movement and therefore is not a lawful judicial procedure.
All right.
Three, the jury trial on damages.
Okay, so in Dr. Fetzer's real trial proceedings, there was first you find liability, then you find out what the damages are.
Well, they found out liability with this fallacious summary judgment.
Then they move to a jury trial on the damages, and that's going to cover admission of irrelevant evidence, allowance of vicarious liability, and the allowance of prejudicial evidence.
Okay, 3.1, admission of irrelevant evidence.
Posner elicited testimony and argument about the court's prior contempt ruling against Fetzer to persuade the jury that Fetzer is a person of bad character.
This testimony and argument had nothing to do with the proving defamation damages, which was the issue before the jury.
The sole purpose of the evidence and argument was to prejudice the jury against Fetzer.
The jury trial deemed such evidence relevant to punitive damages.
But Posner had withdrawn his claim for punitive damages before the jury trial on damages.
But regardless, the judge ruled that Posner could present evidence of the prior contempt as part of Posner's case for compensatory damages.
And that's really what the jury was to find, not punitive damages.
Okay, 3.2.
Allowance of vicarious liability.
Posner was allowed to present evidence of threats and harassment from third parties unknown to Fetzer.
There is no evidence that Fetzer spoke or wrote with the intent to incite or produce lawless action.
There is no evidence of eminence, meaning not only threats impending or ready to take place, but also expected or likely to occur.
Becoming liable for the threats and harassment Perpetrated by third parties resulting from non-threatening statements violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Well, I guess so.
Yeah.
You're just talking and not making threatening statements and becoming liable for those as threats, especially for other people.
That would violate the First Amendment.
3.3 Allowance of prejudicial evidence.
Posner was allowed to hang a large poster of his child allegedly shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary in front of the jury all during the jury trial on damages.
The jury found that Posner had been damaged in the amount of $450,000 by Dr. James H. Fetzer's four published comments quoted earlier in this presentation.
All right.
Four, the appeals.
Now we look at what was appealed and what the response was for each of these.
By the way, I think I have about 37 slides, so we're getting through them pretty good.
All right.
Wisconsin Fourth Court of Appeals, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
4.1, Wisconsin Fourth Court of Appeals.
The Fourth Court of Appeals in Wisconsin affirmed the circuit or trial court finding that, quote, there is no reasonable dispute regarding the following facts.
On December 14, 2012, a mass shooting occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
Tragically, 26 people were killed, including six staff members and 20 children who were aged six and seven, C. Jones versus Hessling.
Hessling's son was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012 and rejecting the substantial truth doctrine as a basis to dismiss Hessling's defamation claim related to statements disputing Hessling's assertion that he held his deceased son in his arms.
Now, Soto versus Bushmaster Firearms International LLC. Quote, on December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,
and during the course of 264 seconds, Fatally shot 20 first-grade children and six staff members and wounded two other staff members, unquote.
Posner's six-year-old son, Ian, was one of the children killed during the Sandy Hook shooting, unquote.
Okay, that was what essentially the Fourth Court of Appeals found.
And now the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Fetzer appealed these issues, six of them.
One, the circuit court foreclosed Fetzer's theory of defense.
Two, there has been no adjudication of the challenge to the Sandy Hook narrative.
That's what we just got through reading.
That was really the official narrative.
But those two things were not really found by a jury in those two cases.
Those cases were based on just trial proceedings, procedural grounds, not on evidence heard by a jury.
Now, number three, the First Amendment precludes liability without fault.
All right, number four, negligence is an essential element of a speech case involving a media defendant, proof of which circuit courts should liberally require when considering summary judgment.
Okay, the First Amendment, and that's number five, the First Amendment requires proof of incitement Number six, public policy compels a heightened standard of liability for speech that allegedly causes third-party lawlessness.
Okay, here's the response of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to those challenges.
It is ordered that the petition for review is denied.
They just, no, everything that happened down there in that trial court is A-OK with us.
Okay, 4.3, Supreme Court of the United States.
Fetzer asked the U.S. Supreme Court this question.
Quote, May rules of summary judgment vary throughout the state, 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 Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments, and further allowing a Wisconsin judge to determine the validity of major national events through unsound summary judgment methodology.
All right, here's the response from the United States Supreme Court.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
So much for the guaranteed Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury.
So much for however you want to do business, however you want to conduct trials, whether or not you have a 14th Amendment right to due process, all that's just trash talk.
Number five, post-judgment execution.
This is the stuff that's now going on.
It's been going on for a couple of years.
Posner takes Fetzer's intellectual property directly.
All of Dr. Fetzer's interest in his common law copyright to four versions of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
All of Dr. Fetzer's interest in four domain names of websites.
Next part of it is the post-judgment execution is non-earnings garnishment.
That involves Mrs. Fetzer's half of state and federal income tax returns, gifts to Mrs. Fetzer, paybacks of small, no-interest, short-term loans to Fetzer family members, returned overpayment of insurance charges, donations to Dr. Fetzer's legal defense fund.
That's amazing.
All right, 5.1.
Posner takes Fetzer's intellectual property directly.
Posner filed a motion to turn over property for a partial satisfaction of the $450,000 judgment debt.
The motion asks for three things.
One, that the common law copyright interest of Dr. Fetzer in four versions of the Nobody Died book be transferred directly to Mr. Posner.
Two, that Dr. Fetzer's interest in four domain names for websites be transferred directly to Mr. Posner.
Three, that $100,000 be deducted from the $450,000 for the turnover of said property.
Okay.
The judge granted the motion, saying Posner now, quote, stands in the shoes of Fetzer regarding those intellectual properties.
Problem.
Here's the problem with that.
Only money can satisfy a money judgment, and that's what was obtained.
The ruling verified the purpose of the lawsuit, which was to remove the book from the public.
Under that, tangible property of the judgment debtor must be auctioned And the proceeds given to the judgment creditor.
You see that?
It has to be whatever is taken must be converted to money, not transferred directly to the judgment creditor.
Intangible property interest of a judgment debtor, which would be Dr. Fetzer in this case, must be turned over to a receiver who will manage the interest Until the proceeds are paid off, or paid the judgment debt, at which time the intellectual property interest will be returned to the judgment debtor.
So this didn't happen, and Mr. Posner is sitting on the book and won't publish it.
He can't publish it because he's already admitted that it was defamatory.
But he shouldn't be holding it either.
He shouldn't have it.
5.2.
Non-earnings garnishment.
The judge held an examination of financial assets of Dr. Fetzer and his wife, conducted by Posner's attorney.
Mrs. Fetzer told the attorneys the following about bank accounts.
Okay, a bunch of items about it.
What amounts were her half of state and federal income tax returns?
What amounts were gifts given to her from their children?
What amounts were paybacks of small no interest loans to their children?
What amounts were retirement and social security funds?
What amounts were Fetzer's legal defense funds?
I'm waiting for something to clear down here.
Okay, the attorneys wanted more information and the court ordered Mrs. Fetzer to give them bank statements and deposit information on account.
The judge gave Posner's attorneys two options.
Number one, continue the examination after receiving Mrs. Fetzer's accounting.
Number two, dismiss this proceeding and start another garnishment process based on new information from Mrs. Fetzer.
So instead, the attorneys filed a motion to take everything except one statutory deduction of five thousand dollars.
The judge grants motion anyway four days later without holding a hearing.
5.2.1.
Fetzer appeals and the Fourth Court of Appeals reverses and remains the finding and finding that the judge, number one, they find that the judge abused his discretion.
And violated Wisconsin statutes requiring a hearing on all written motions and five days notice.
Number two, Posner should not have taken Mrs. Fetzer's half of tax returns in gifts to her.
Number three, Posner files new identical motion for non-earnings garnishment taking Mrs. Fetzer's half of tax return.
Okay, now this is not part of the findings.
This is just another part of this taking.
After the Court, the Fourth Court of Appeals, reversed and remands for further proceedings to straighten this out, Posner files a brand new motion, which is identical to the one that they just had overturned on appeal.
Judge grants the new identical motion in defiance of the Fourth Court of Appeals ruling.
Fetzer is on appeal again.
All right, six.
Judge admits state of war in his courtroom against Fetzer.
All right, this is the judgment statement to Fetzer in open court without objection from Posner or his attorney.
And I just want to say we're zooming.
We're going through.
We're almost finished.
This is six.
We're going to only go up to eight.
There's just a few parts here.
Quote, you have demonstrated to me, I think, quite convincingly that these assets honestly don't have any value in the market.
It's a personal between the parties, and that's what litigation often is.
A personal and opportunity to use litigation to obtain the personal advantage and result of shutting down the book, seeing that it's not published, and redirecting the traffic from these websites now to a website owned and operated and controlled by Mr. Posner for his personal view.
I mean, I can't believe this judge said that in open court.
I can't believe that everybody didn't drop their tea right there.
6.1.
Purpose of the Courts.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of nature.
Force without right upon a man's person makes a state of war, both where there is and is not a common judge.
But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society and are equally on both sides subjected to the fair determination of the law.
Because then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the past injury and to prevent future harm.
Therefore, the purpose of the courts is to repair and prevent harm, not use litigation to obtain a personal advantage.
That's one-sided and it's not balanced justice.
All right, 6.2.
Definition of judicial state of war.
This is John Locke again, 1689. Quote, where an appeal to the law unconstituted judges lies open, but the remedy is denied by a manifest perverting of justice and barefaced resting of the laws to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men or party of men There it is hard to imagine anything but a state of war.
For wherever violence is used and injury done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however colored with the name, pretenses, or forms of law.
The end whereof being to protect and redress the innocent by an unbiased application of it To all who are under it, wherever that is not bona fide done, war is made upon the sufferers, who having no appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases, an appeal to heaven.
And if anybody knew what that was, they'd know you don't want that.
That leads to serious trouble.
Seven, if liability went to a jury, would Fetzer lose?
Fetzer would have been found innocent of libel as the element of fault cannot be established because Fetzer made his statements about the incomplete quote death certificate unquote only after having researched the Sandy Hook event more than any other non-governmental citizen in the United States and after compiling many articles by other researchers for the book he co-edited Indicating that no one died at Sandy Hook Elementary
on December 14, 2012. Therefore, negligence on Fetzer's part cannot be shown, depriving Posner of one of the essential elements of fault required to prove libel or defamation.
That means Fetzer would have been exonerated had he gone to a trial on liability.
And another reason that a motion for summary judgment could not be granted to Posner because he was missing one of the elements of his claim of defamation.
All right.
Eight, where and how to protest.
Because the corruption of society and its institutions, including the judicial system, can be attributed to the mass media cartel, protests should be held in front of physical properties belonging to said cartel.
Protests in front of government facilities is futile because the mass media cartel will not cover such an event unless it benefits their narrative.
but it is hard for the cartel to ignore a protest on its own property.
All right, conclusion.
It's my opinion that one, Dr. Petzer's case has strong evidence that the Sandy Hook mass shooting did not occur as we were told by the mass media cartel.
This level of judicial perversion being explained only by the need to prevent the further publication of the book.
Two, a good judge would have dismissed this case on his own the first day upon learning the death certificate commented upon by Fetzer was not the one he was sued for.
Number three, Wisconsin has a flawed summary judgment methodology that does not protect the right to trial by jury.
of any citizen thereof, and that's why the erroneous summary judgment was affirmed all the way through the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Number four, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to guarantee as required the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in all common law matters over $20.
Said court claims prerogative in all appeal matters, but has none on this kind of issue because the Constitution guarantees it.
That means all the judiciary must guarantee it.
There's no way to get at it.
Number five, the mass media cartel strikes fear and awe, including courts, who would find Dr. Fetzer innocent of defamation regarding their Sandy Hook narrative.
Okay, that concludes my presentation.
Thank you, Ron.
Yeah, needless to say, Ron, you did a superb job, and I think you made it very clear that lots of chat comments showing they actually understood the case, because you're explaining it so lucidly.
And of course, I'm enormously grateful to you for publishing the book.
Yes, yes, yeah.
Well, I'm honored to do it.
I'm glad I did it.
It's, yeah, I just, I want everybody in the country to read it.
I think that would be fabulous if we get everybody to read it.
Then they'd understand how bad the lawfare started out and that Jim is being persecuted and that many other people are now too.
So this is just...
Remember, it's not so much going after me.
They're denying the public the right to read the book that exposes the fraud perpetrated by the government.
What they're doing is defending themselves against exposure by going after me.
So it's not that they're vindictive toward me.
It's just I'm a means toward their end of suppressing the truth, being exposed and published to the American people.
That's very blatant.
Yes, I agree.
Totally agree.
So, Ron, thank you for that.
I don't know if there's any questions.
Let me look.
Anybody have any questions for Ron?
They're saying, thanks, Ron.
Good job, Ron.
Wow.
Yes.
Read and share the book.
Let's see.
I don't see any questions.
They'll learn more about the case.
I was just going to say, you're going to explain a lot of this, so there we go.
So that's it.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much, Ron.
And we're going to just close out here for a minute, and then Jim Fetzer will be right back with us.
▲
Export Selection