All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:58:23
The Raw Deal (30 May 2025) with co-host Paul from CA
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal, right here on Revolution Radio Studio B, this 30th day of May, 2025.
I have a special show for you today, not going to be about the traditional news.
We've had major developments related to Sandy Hook, and I'm going to share them with you here today.
We begin Deep State in Turmoil.
Texas Court eyes overturn of Jones trial.
Deep State legal crisis.
Texas Court overturns controversial trial.
Alex Jones Sandy Hook appeal.
Check it out.
Here we go with our...
It's Paul in California, Jim.
Paul in California here.
Here we go.
This is a special report.
This is a special report.
Deep State in Turmoil.
Texas Court's bold move against Sandy Hook Trial Shakes Deep State Foundation.
Alex Jones Trial Appeal.
Sandy Hook Legal Battle Update.
Texas Court Decision 2025.
The Texas Court Decision on Alex Jones.
A turning point in legal battles.
In a recent development that has set social media ablaze, The Texas Third Court of Appeals has indicated its intention to overturn the highly publicized trial against Alex Jones concerning his statements about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
This announcement has elicited a wave of reaction from various courts, particularly from those aligned with Jones and critics of legal proceedings against him.
Background.
Alex Jones, a controversial media personality and conspiracy theorist, has faced significant legal challenges due to his claims surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting, where 26 people lost their lives, including 20 children.
His repeated assertion that the event was a hoax led to numerous lawsuits from affected families who argue that his rhetoric Cause them emotional distress and harassment from their supporters, by the way, from his supporters, by the way.
Emotional distress is not a function of First Amendment.
You don't have the First Amendment obligation when you express your opinion to not hurt other people's feelings.
This seems to me to have been a major aspect of the woke agenda, political correctness, and all that.
It has compromised the most important principle we have here in the United States, namely the right to freely express your opinion without fear of punishment or penalty from the government.
Outrageous.
He was right in the beginning.
He was wrong to reverse.
The trial was a sham.
We're going to go through it today and find where I have incurred similar circumstances here in Wisconsin, which I am seeking to expose myself.
The trials have been characterized by intense emotions and have garnered national attention, and they touch on critical themes such as free speech accountability and the impact of misinformation.
Critics argue that Jones' claims have perpetuated harm, while supporters see his legal battle as an attack on free speech, without any doubt.
Right or wrong, you see, I mean, he's got the right to express his opinion that it was wrong, and I was seriously serious troubled when he reversed himself.
And claimed that now he'd been misled, get this, by two professors and a school safety expert.
Well, the professors were James Tracy from Florida International and myself, Florida Atlantic, and myself, of course, right here in Wisconsin, and Wolfgang Halbeck as a nationally recognized school safety expert.
The Texas Third Court of Appeals decision.
The recent announcement from the Texas Third Court of Appeals has sparked discussions about a potential for a significant shift in this ongoing saga.
John's legal team appears optimistic about the possibility of overturning the previous rulings, suggesting that the court's signaling indicates a reconsideration of the legal principles that play in the case.
The implications of the development are profound.
If the court indeed overturns the decision, it could set a precedent that affects not only Jones's but other figures in the media landscape who face similar legal challenges regarding their speech, which I would presume would include both myself and Wolfgang.
Public reaction to the announcement.
Jones's tweet about the court's decision has gone viral.
Reflecting the polarized opinions surrounding him, supporters have expressed release and celebration viewing the potential of returning of the trial as a victory for free speech and a rebuke of the so-called deep state in what they perceive as politically motivated legal actions.
On the other hand, Craig has voiced their concern about the ramifications of such a decision, fearing it might embolden individuals to continue spreading false narratives without accountability.
Except, of course, the narrative that Sandy Hook was a false flag of staged event were not false narratives.
They were true.
The split in public sentiment underscores a broader cultural and political divide in the U.S. regarding issues of misinformation, accountability, and the boundaries of free speech, legal implications, and future considerations.
The legal landscape concerning defamation, particularly in cases involving public figures and statements made about tragic events, is complex.
This case could potentially redefine the threshold for what constitutes defamation in the context of free speech and public discourse.
Legal experts will be closely monitoring the court's final decision, and it may influence further cases that involve similar themes.
The role of social media in shaping public discourse.
The role of social media platform, particularly Twitter, cannot be understated in this scenario.
Jones' ability to disseminate his views and rally support through social media has been pivotal in shaping public perception of the trials.
His followers often engage vigorously on platforms, amplifies messages, and can contribute to an ecosystem where misinformation can thrive.
But remember, any time there's a difference of opinion, both cannot be True.
At least one, and even both, could be false.
I mean, it happens all the time.
So the idea of claiming, you know, since misinformation is understood properly as simply false information, that doesn't mean it's being deliberately disseminated knowingly as false information.
and maybe a function of sincere belief should be And, most importantly, who's determined?
What is the truth?
What is the only narrative that's going to be acceptable?
George Orwell got it right, talking about, you know, a ministry of truth, In America, it has been profoundly troubling to me as an advocate for freedom of speech,
which Sir Karl Popper recognizes where rational debate is the most reliable method for discovering the truth, but rational debate involves a conflict between opposing parties where they cannot all be true.
Just understand, anytime there's a difference of opinion.
At least one of the parties has it wrong, possibly both.
The situation raises question about responsibility of social media companies moderating content.
In my opinion, they should virtually never, and potentially impact their policies on public discourse as legal battles unfold.
The interplay between traditional media, social media, and the courts will continue to evolve.
Conclusion.
A pivotal moment in a fight against misinformation?
I don't think so.
The Texas Third Court of Appeal intentioned to overthrow the San Diego trial against Alex Jones marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle against misinformation and its consequences.
That's all wrong.
What they should be talking about is disinformation, which is the deliberate dissemination of false information with the intention to mislead.
Alex Jones, in his initial reporting, was sincerely reporting what he believed to be a hoax.
She actually had it right because it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
But later...
He had not been wrong.
But, of course, to say he'd change his mind, well, that could be true as a statement about Alex Jones, but not its implication about the Sandy Hook event.
As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome will undoubtedly influence not only Alex Jones and the affected families, But also the broader discourse surrounding free speech misinformation and the justice system's ability to manage these complex issues.
All eyes will be on Texas as this pivotal case unfolds with a potential to set significant legal precedent for years to come.
In summary, the evolving situation calls for a nuanced understanding of the implication of free speech, the responsibility of media figures, and the legal framework that govern such discourse.
The intersection of these elements will continue to shape public dialogue and legal landscape in the United States.
Here we have an Alex Jones tweet.
Breaking.
Deep state.
Democrat party law firms are in total panic mode after state of Texas.
Third court of appeals has signaled...
It's intention to overturn the Austin, Texas show trial against Alex Jones.
Here is his tweet.
You want to go read this Bloomberg article and others?
Because they know now that it's going to get overturned in Texas, but not in Connecticut.
They don't care.
It's even worse up there.
Same crap, exact same blueprint run with the Democrats.
And they're still going to try to come in here and show everything now.
And then it's guaranteed people get indicted.
And they just can't help themselves.
Because they've been ordered, they've been paid, they've raised hundreds of millions off my name, and they just march forward with their arrogance.
Just like with Trump.
They thought having a mug shot of him would end him, all of it.
I mean, it's just, they just can't help themselves.
But right here in the article, the judges kept asking, how do you find him civilly liable for something that wasn't even put before the jury two weeks after the verdict?
And, of course, they couldn't answer that.
They go, it's Alex Jones.
He's a bad man.
Look at him.
He deserves it.
I mean, we told you he pees on graves.
But I didn't.
We are winning because of you and because of your will and because of your support.
This standard against evil still flies stronger than ever.
And the flag that this standard is is more beautiful with smoke and burns and bullet holes in it.
It's battle-hardened.
It's historic.
It's real.
It's good.
And that flag standing above the fortress in the battle enrages the enemy.
And this operation is a critical flag historically and in the present and the future and will go forward forever because you are the Infowar.
The government?
I'll go right ahead.
Give us your thoughts about this.
Oh, God.
Alex Jones is such a showman, huh?
Well, you know, it brings forward so many different thoughts.
So, first of all, was it a show trial?
I mean, you read, you know, the word show trial.
I mean, if it wasn't a show trial, why put the word show in front of the word trial?
And so, therefore, was it a real trial?
Is this Texas court now overturning theater trials?
You know, makes one wonder.
And what are the issues at play here?
It's like the psychological operation that keeps on giving, right?
A whole cottage industry of sub-psychological operations.
Is it free speech?
Is it First Amendment?
You know, is it fake death certificates?
You know, billion-dollar judgments?
You know, the waters become so muddied after a while, we tend to forget.
What was it all about originally?
Oh, yeah.
They fake everything all the time.
I mean, this is the problem that, you know, I think the average person has trouble grasping, is that so much is fake.
So what is real?
I mean, the purpose of these operations is many fold.
I don't know if you have seen Jim, but Sophia posted a article on her site.
It's a Celia Farber keeps a blog spot, I guess, and wrote a post about what the purpose of these ops are.
I can't really do it justice.
But essentially, the purpose of these ops isn't necessarily for you to believe them, if that makes any sense.
There's so many more things going on, including the emotional impact.
And in many cases, it's almost meant for you to question the reality of these ops and the reality of the world in which we live.
So, yeah, I mean, Alex Jones is bombastic.
He's a showman.
And you have to wonder, if that trial was fake, and I certainly believe it was a fake trial, then he must know.
He must have known that it was a fake trial.
But is he pretending now that it's real?
I don't know.
Paul, there's an ambiguity in the word show trial here, or fake trial.
It's called a show trial because it's, while it may be a real trial taking place in a real courtroom with real jurors, it has a predetermined conclusion.
That's what makes it a show trial.
Okay.
We're purely theatrical and didn't even take place in which case.
The Court of Appeals in Texas would have nothing to reverse because there would have been no decision.
Now, Robert Barnes, who's a very sophisticated attorney, was in the courtroom in Texas, in Austin, and he said it was unlike any courtroom he'd ever been in before.
There were three cameras.
One was focused right on the drawers, and it looked to him as though it were a made-for-TV movie.
I agree with all of that.
But, on the other hand, it appears to have been a show trial in the previous sense, maybe actually, in some sense, both.
But the fact is, it was a real but predetermined verdict.
You must understand, none of these Sandia cases have ever actually gone to trial.
None of them have ever been decided on their merits.
All of them have been decided, including Alex Jones, on procedural grounds, in his case, allegedly, for a failure to satisfy discovery, which led the judge to a finding of guilty without ever addressing the merits.
The only case in which they came close to addressing the merits is mine, but where the judge...
As I'm going to explain, set aside all of my evidence as irrelevant for the sake of my proceeding.
Go ahead, Paul.
Well, so I'm familiar with all this, and so it makes my point for me, right?
We're off into the weeds.
I mean, that's what's going on here, right?
What you just said, right, and everything that's gone before, now we're off into the weeds and all these details that the average person has no interest in following.
Not that they can't follow it.
Probably some of them couldn't.
Many could, but the average person has no interest.
So, again, would it help in replacing the word show with the word CIA, a CIA trial?
Because that's what I really believe it was.
I think that the intelligence community and all these people, they stage these things all the time, and of course they have the capacity to rent a courtroom or to use a courtroom for a theater or show trial.
So I don't believe it was any real trial and any real sense.
That's my, you know, and of course I'm not alone.
And yes, I was influenced by the paper I read on it by Miles Mathis.
But of course, you know, he's just making the observations that are there to be made.
Well, it's interesting what happened in this exchange because there would then be no verdict for the Court of Appeals to overturn.
I know!
I know!
Look, let me just tell you, you've gone a bridge too far.
I know you're wildly enthusiastic about Miles Mathis, who also thinks the JFK shooting was fabricated when it was manifesting not.
He has been taken in, played for a sap, by fabricated evidence to conceal the true causes of death in the case of JFK.
We have exposed that.
I have spent over 30 years now with the best expert to ever study the case, sorting out the difference between the fake evidence and the real evidence in the assassination of JFK.
Similar has to be applied here.
Miles has committed a blunder in JFK, and you, perhaps he as well, are committing a similar blunder that was a real...
It was not renting a courtroom, Paul.
It was not on that level.
How would we know the difference?
You have to look at the totality of the evidence, including the fact that you've got a Court of Appeals that is rendering a reversal of a verdict that had to have been rendered for it to reverse, Paul.
Look, it's logically possible to accept any position, no matter how manifestly absurd, if you're willing to make submissionally drastic changes about everything else going on in the world.
If you're traveling on a train, for example, you can assume you're the stationary center of the universe, and everything else is just wildly passing by you.
Given the relativity of motion that Einstein explained, we know that's not the only conclusion to draw, but it's logically possible to hold that position if you're willing to make sufficiently drastic alterations in what ordinarily would take to be the truth.
And that's what you are doing here.
I encourage you not to go so far.
I mean, it's enough.
That's good.
Okay.
You encourage your co-host not to go so far.
All right.
Just give me my parameters and my guidelines.
So, Jim, listen.
I got you on here.
I like having you in my co-host.
I think you're super smart.
I'm just explaining why.
I disagree with your thought that the whole thing could have been bad.
Your trial in Wisconsin, your supposed trial, and your appeal, and everything else that you went through, that was real, right?
But it depends on how we define real.
Was it a real trial and a real court?
Did you get a real due process there?
Paul, those are two different questions.
Was it a real trial and real courtroom?
Of course it was.
I've been in the courtroom.
Others were in the courtroom.
It was well covered publicly.
But it had a predetermined conclusion, and no, I did not get due process.
That was part of the way it was rigged.
It was rigged to deny my right to have a trial by jury, and the judge was complicit by setting aside all my evidence as though it were irrelevant.
I know.
All my evidence that nobody had died at Sandy Hook.
As irrelevant to a death certificate purporting to be for a decedent who died at Sandy Hook of multiple gunshot wounds, perhaps the most absurd legal ruling in history and even a logical absurdity.
Okay.
Okay, so, I mean, again, this all kind of really makes my point.
To understand where I'm coming from, you just, you sort of have to realize, all right, this is how I compare and how I look at things.
In other words, you know, I, in my entire career, lived in the real world, okay?
I put nut A on bolt B, and the threads had to match.
And if they didn't, I had to go get the right part.
So when you walk into this pretend world, right, with a pretend victim like Lenny Posner, Ruben Vabner, whoever the hell he was, and a pretend event, right, with, you know, a pretend death certificate, and it's a pretend world, what the hell are we talking about?
I mean, this is where I'm coming from, if you can understand that.
In other words, we're mixing here in this deliberate confusion on intent on their part to mix the real with the unreal, the pretend with the...
Do you see what I'm saying?
It's just like it's enough to drive the average person crazy.
And I think that's one of their intents of the operation, really.
Well, this is a fascinating development.
Turns out, I have four appeals before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 4 in this case.
It was two in Texas for Alex.
It's four in Wisconsin for me.
And where the judge in my case, Frank Remington by name, Retired prematurely on the 3rd of May, 2025, when his term of office extended until 1 August, 2030.
That's five and a half years early, Paul.
And I don't believe you'll find a similar case anywhere in the United States.
My suspicion is he saw the writing on the wall.
He had read all my briefs.
The appeals, of course, were to his rejection of my motions.
To reopen the case and for him to recuse himself, he refused to do those things and did so in a way that violated procedural due process standard protocols, giving me additional reason for the appeal, where the court now of appeals has four of them to decide, and where it appears to me he got out of dodge before the court would rule in either.
Recuse him from the case, which would be embarrassing enough, or more seriously, remove him from the bench.
So it's a fascinating development that he retires early, and then we have this Alex Jones.
I think both of these auger very favorably in my direction.
Paul, we weren't able to hear the breaks because of the use of the media here, but we're going to come back in a few minutes.
And I'm going to elaborate on what happened in my case.
You can squeeze in maybe a minute worth, Paul.
Go ahead, say.
Well, I mean, sure, this is all good news in what I call this life's play that we're all engaged actors upon the stage.
And I've always admired your stance.
I'm fond of saying there's two types of people.
Of course, there's more than two types, but those that will...
And those who will fold and capitulate and compromise.
And I know that you're the former.
Much appreciated, Paul.
We're going to take a break now while the studio plays, which we cannot hear here.
will be right back.
Yes, Michael.
Oh, I thought it was I thought it was 28. I thought it was 28. It's actually 27. Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Five minute break.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Okay.
Welcome back.
Because we can't hear the brakes.
I'm sorry we lost a minute there at the beginning of Overlap.
I'm so glad to have Paul here.
His opinion is sufficiently contrasting to make this an extremely important conversation we're having.
Now, in terms of my case, It turns out that the scam has been so successful that a group within the Sandy Hook community known as Sandy Hook Promise is still raking in a million bucks a month, a million bucks a month in donations from gullible Americans who think the whole thing was real.
And it appears that because of the threat, my case, and now, of course, Alex, too.
But perhaps my case more significantly, since the amount of evidence I have that was impressive is far more telling and devastating, where Alex even claims to have never actually read my book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook,
where I brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs, and we discovered that the school had been closed by 2008, There weren't any teachers or students there, and it had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
They seem to have brought in a professional character assassin by the name of Victor Hugo Vaca Jr.
Now, I've been compelled to deal with this.
Complaining to the platforms that have been supporting him, Richute and Rompol, that this is all wrong.
They're violating their terms of service.
There's all kinds of defamation, you know, harassment.
I mean, the sadistic character of these attacks is unbelievable.
I've even sent them a formal cease and desist demand for violating their own terms of service, to which they have not responded.
I'm now in the process of submitting a criminal complaint against Victor Hugo Vaca.
Now, I put together, actually, Real Deal Media, put together a video about it.
Which lays out the background with regard to Sandy Hook, which I want to share now.
It's going to require, of course, an interruption at the time of the break.
You won't be able to see it, but it is now up on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer.
So, here we go.
We'll watch it until three minutes of the hour and a minute after, and then we'll continue.
Here we go The imaginators who are attacking me For my reach On San Diego Here we go Music
Welcome to a Real Deal Special Report.
I'm Jim Fetzer, responding to attacks by heretics and saboteurs who wanted to support the facts about not just the Sandy Hook event, but more importantly, my legal case, to have it reopened and reversed based upon new evidence.
I'll turn to the participants shortly, but let me introduce myself.
I'm a former Marine Corps officer and retired professor of philosophy.
Who offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years.
My early research was devoted to the nature of scientific reasoning, the foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.
Beginning in 1992, however, I began doing collaborative research on JFK, producing three books that shattered the cover up.
In relation to 9 /11, I founded Scholars for 9 /11 Truth, brought together hundreds of experts from around the world, engineers of every kind, civil, mechanical, electrical, aeronautical, pilots, physicists, to saw what really happened.
Since, I've devoted myself to exposing the false flag events taking place here across America, which have been fostered by Barack Obama.
Nullifying the Smith-Munn Act of 1948, which precluded the use of the same techniques of disinformation, phony events, paid riots, stage shootings, and the like within the United States that were being broadcast abroad by the Smith Modernization Act of 2012.
Just in time to bring us Sandy Hook.
I brought 13 experts, including six PhDs.
Where we established that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students or teachers there, and that had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, where we even had the FEMA manual for the exercise, and where the FBI's consolidated crime report for 2012 shows under the category of murders or non-negligent manslaughter for Newtown, the number zero.
Meaning even the FBI, in a report that remains available on the Internet to this day on their website, declares nobody died in Newtown in 2012.
Further confirmation of our conclusion that, in fact, it was a FEMA drill.
One of our contributors, Paul Preston, who's a school administrator in California, supervised active shooter drills.
Even was so disturbed by what he saw broadcast from Newtown that he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, all of whom confirmed to him it had been a drill, no students had been harmed, and it was done to promote gun control.
How much better can you do than that?
How much better can you do than that?
State Senator Roland Gutierrez introduced 21 new bills in response to that shooting, one for each life lost.
The latest bills would ban expanding bullets, ensure safe gun storage, and prevent juvenile assailants from becoming eligible for parole.
President Biden is expected to sign a new executive order he hopes will reduce gun violence in the U.S. In essence, making sure that background checks are conducted, private-level gun sales.
He's doing it at a time when, as you said, there were people across the country clamoring for more.
The students that gathered here say they want tougher gun laws, not just here in Massachusetts, but across the country.
If one community is not safe, none of our communities are safe.
Dozens of Emerson College students held signs in solidarity demanding war from lawmakers.
If every state had the same gun death rate in Massachusetts, the state with the strongest gun laws in this country.
We could cut gun death by 70%.
From the Parkman van stand, David Hawk rallied the crowd.
The now 22-year-old was a high school student in Parkland, Florida, when a former student shot and killed 17 people at their school.
We need more people to show up with us when we're doing an act, you know, March 4th.
We need more funding for research.
need to find more programs and address the lack of resources that communities have that results in gun violence something I think about every single day CJ Hokanga was nine years old when a gunman shot and killed 26 people at his Sandy Hook Elementary School the now 20 year old Emerson students has We're going to continue to still fight.
We're not going to back down until we have common sense gun regulation.
We are unique among nations in tolerating the proliferation of guns on our streets and allowing civilians to routinely purchase high-powered weapons of war.
Nobody else doesn't understand that something fundamental needs to change.
When violence explodes once again.
I've also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message.
Every day, every school, at every level.
One thing that I think is clear with young people and with adults as well is that we just have to be repetitive about this.
It's not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday.
We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.
Guns can be made more safe by making them either through fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in Possession of the weapon.
So it's those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights while at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis, you know, where people, kids, and kids especially kids.
Kids especially are stuck down.
When the book was issued in 2015, Amazon banned it less than a month after it went on sale.
Even though it had sold nearly 500 copies, I'm convinced they were acting as an agent of the state, since the government couldn't do it directly being inhibited by the First Amendment.
So I released that for free as a PDF.
A friend who follows this says it's been downloaded millions of times.
When the book was banned, Mike Adams, for example, interviewed me, published about it, even titled his interview with me, The Most Dangerous Mind in America.
Mike Adams, dinner, dinner, TV, public office.
The book, pulled from shelves, claimed his son's death certificate was faked.
A trial to determine damages is now set for October.
October.
So to staunch the flow, they launched a lawsuit against me in 2018, which turned out to be completely contrived, based on three sentences in a 440-page book and one sentence in another that I co-edited with Robert David Steele, a Sandy Hook memorandum for then-President Donald J. Trump.
I went into court feeling confident because I had the evidence, and by my understanding of the procedure I would encounter, A summary judgment.
The plaintiff had to be asked whether all of the evidence and positions I asserted were ones with which he agreed, which of course couldn't be the case since he was insisting he had a child who died there, was suing me over a scan of a death certificate that was incomplete, had no file number, no town certification that it was accurate, no state certification that it was an authentic copy.
Which, under Connecticut law, not even parents are allowed to possess, which had been provided by the plaintiff, who called himself Lenny Posner, to a research colleague of mine, Kelly Watt.
So they contrived the lawsuit.
They published and attached a complete death certificate with a file number, town and state certification, and claimed there were no material differences between them, which was absurd.
So I had a mess of evidence going in.
But the court, during a pre-trial conference, scheduling conference, ruled that my views about Sandy Hook, whether or not there had been a real shooting or not, were irrelevant to the truth or accuracy of the death certificate.
When the death certificate itself states it's for a decedent who died at Sandy Hook on 12 December, 14 December 2012.
From multiple gunshot rooms.
In other words, it was an absurd ruling from the beginning.
In other words, it was an absurd ruling from the beginning.
Now, I went through a long, tedious process.
I sought to appeal the finding that I was liable, which was in violation of the procedures for
He ruled out not only Kelly Watts' affidavit claiming the published death certificate was the same as the one she'd been given by Leonard Posner in contradiction to the complaint to forensic document experts who confirmed that the death certificate Not only the one published, but the one attached to the complaint and two others, one obtained from the town, one obtained from the state, were all fake.
All fake.
The judges set their evidence aside, even though their credentials were impeccable as irrelevant, not helpful, found me guilty.
There was a trial for damages, which was ludicrous.
Let me just say, there have been some observers on the scene who've done Very good work.
Kevin Barrett, who was there for the trial for damages, published about it.
The legal lynching of a truth seeker.
Jim Fetzer's Stalinist-style show trial.
They both got it exactly right.
And because since my trial and abuse under the law, I've been contacted by participants in the event.
Who liked the book.
In fact, they told me everyone in the Sandy Hook community who participated in the event liked the book because it's honest.
They felt I was being abused.
They provided additional information such as that the school actually was closed in 2006.
That wasn't even an elementary school.
It was a special needs school.
Eric Holder, who had become Attorney General under Barack Obama, came to Newtown in 2006 and offered the community $114 million to participate in this scam, which was supposed to illustrate for the American people what could happen if we don't take away their guns.
They had auditions for the rolls.
They have benefits such as paying no taxes, free college that endure to this day, and believe it or not, it turns out the scam being perpetrated through Sandy Hook Promise is still bringing in a million bucks a month.
Well, I have new evidence now.
Brian Davidson, a private attorney from Texas, has done sensational work uncovered by doing an investigation of the Connecticut State Police files.
That they have photographs there from which the metadata has been removed that show no bodies, no blood in locations where there were supposed to be both bodies and blood, and that all the furniture is shoved up against the wall.
You're in classrooms with no teachers' desks, no student desks, no chairs.
Turns out, not only did he find proof that there was no mass murder, but that it wasn't even an operating school.
I have, in the meanwhile, gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protest that the summary judgment procedures in Wisconsin differ from those in Texas in violation of the 14th Amendment, guarantee of equal protection, because in Wisconsin it's shabby, gives all the control to the plaintiff and the judge, who in essence conducted a non-jury trial, where there's even a book about it now, Ron Avery.
It was a blog of most of the documents in my case.
It published a book, Judicial Plundering of Dr. James Fetzer, which I believe is only the first, more to come, and where I've now, on the basis of new evidence, including an additional affidavit from Bryan Davidson, where I had claimed from the beginning that a party had called himself Leonard Posner.
Noah was a six-year-old boy.
He had just turned six, really just weeks before the shooting, so it still felt like he was five years old.
He had just lost his first tooth, and he was, you know, full of energy, a six-year-old boy that was really enjoying his life.
Lenny Posner's son Noah was murdered in the 2012 Sandy Hook School shooting.
The youngest child killed that day.
But the massacre was just the start of his family's terrible experience with misinformation, disinformation and so-called hoaxers.
Posner has to keep his present appearance and location secret, and you'll soon see why.
It's become a thing, you know, a real theory that people seriously believe that the shooting never happened.
That it was faked by government, the community, the victims, the families, and that's continued to other tragedies since then.
Those erroneous theories started to appear the day of the shooting.
That was very upsetting to me, but I didn't understand what it was becoming right away.
So I thought that if I could only show them evidence, be transparent, that it would be able to Posner says when he spoke out to correct the conspiracy theories about the shooting, he became a target.
There was a lot of hate directed at me, harassment, death threats.
A woman was sentenced to prison for making death threats against me.
Posner and his family, including Noah's twin sister and older sister, had to move multiple times to escape harassment.
Their experience with online hate and harassment led him to start a group called the Honor Network.
We have hundreds of volunteers that help in locating this content and helping report the content.
Posner says the work is non-stop and he has a word of advice for people posting things online.
If you're involved in something that could be labeled as a conspiracy theory and it could be harming other people.
You may want to stop and consider, are you the good guy or are you the monster?
Leonard Posner was a fiction.
His real name was Reuben Vabner.
That the child who died, Noah Posner, was also a fiction.
Made out of photographs of his younger son, Michael Vabner, when he was a child.
And that the party who'd come into court to testify under the name of Leonard Posner was not Leonard Posner.
Well, I've now ascertained that, in fact, it's his older son, Benjamin, and I now have documentation, photograph, proof of all of the above.
So I've sought to reopen the case on the basis of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the court because the whole event external to the courtroom was a FEMA drill.
They also, by the way, my San Diego friend provided me with a
down to Dickinson Drive where their school is, where they put the word elementary on the school and then allowed years for it to weather so it could look as though it had always been, but it never was.
And now we have the bizarre situation where a fellow named Victor Hugo A fellow who,
It came to my attention, I don't know, mid-2024, and I was kind of captivated by his theatrical style that he was focusing on a major issue of concern to us all, namely the influence of the Israeli lobby on the American government.
Government is shown to Israel.
Well, I always thought he was a bit over the top because he constantly reiterated, "It's the Jews!
It's the Jews!
It's the Jews!" as though we're a mantra.
It's the Jews.
Alex Jones, who never names the Jew, there's Black Jews, there's Asian Jews, there's Hispanic Jews.
It wasn't six million Jews.
Because of the importance of the topic, and it had so...
And he seemed like a pretty knowledgeable guy.
He had a distinctive style, without any doubt.
But I thought it was all within the boundaries of civilized discourse, shall we say.
And I plugged him into a show I do called Truth vs.
News, typically recorded on Tuesdays, where I present stories and then And in the beginning, it was a matter of having comments from Joaquin Agobian, who's among the world's leading experts on politics, and Bryan Davidson, who's a sensational private investigator from Houston.
And at a certain point in time, Victor was going on about, "It's the Jews, it's the Jews," and Bryan believing.
Totally legitimately that was an oversimplification because there are other contributors such as the Pilgrim Society, the Vatican, we even have Jews against genocide who occupied Grand Central Station.
He felt that was too much and at the end of the first hour on 17 December 2024, Brian excused himself from continuing on with Victor Hugo.
So you're saying that Jews are a race.
Did I say that or did I ask that question?
Yes, you did at the moment that I said cover your ears, Brian.
Well, wait a minute.
Let me speak.
I didn't interrupt you.
Okay, so you think that Jews are a race.
I can introduce you to some Asian Jews.
Jewish is a religion, Brian.
Do you understand that?
Do I understand that?
Well, apparently you don't, Brian, and I'm being respectful.
I love them all.
Like I said, I even love you, Brian.
I'm trying to educate you because, like I said, I'm shocked that you're a private investigator and you believe that Jews are a race.
It's not.
It's a religion.
It's a cult.
It's a death cult.
By your definition, Brian, you're more racist than I am, but you're racist against Christians, and I seem to think that you're probably a Christian.
So you're a self-hating Christian now.
I have met Victor.
We're going to continue after the break.
I'll pull it back a minute or so for the context.
This is pretty fascinating stuff.
And after the break, we will continue.
This development with Alex Jones is sensational.
If the courts had been doing their job, I mean, it was predictable.
The problem has been that in the past, the courts haven't been doing their job.
None of the cases have ever been decided on the merits.
They've all been decided on procedural grounds, as I may have already observed, including, of course, Alex Jones.
Meanwhile, we're here at the break.
We'll be right back.
Thank you.
Gene, I guess as you're done trying to get your driver's license, a new driver's license, we'll talk later.
I'm on the air for another hour, and then I have a one-hour break before my RBN show from 3 to 5 Eastern, and then I'm free after Friday.
And then I'm free after 5 Eastern.
So, we'll catch up.
I'll try you on during the break, but then we can talk after 5 Eastern if I don't catch it.
Thanks.
Well, by my best guess, the break's over, so we're going to return.
To the presentation, exposing Victor Hugo.
That was an oversimplification because there are other contributors, such as the Pilgrim Society, the Vatican.
We even have Jews against genocide who occupied Grand Central Station.
He felt that was too much.
And at the end of the first hour, on 17 December 2024, Brian excused himself.
I'm continuing on with Victor Hugo.
So you're saying that Jews are a race?
Did I say that or did I ask that question?
Yes, you did at the moment that I said cover your ears, Brian.
Well, wait a minute.
Let me speak.
I didn't interrupt you.
Okay, so you think that Jews are a race.
I can introduce you to some Asian Jews.
Jewish is a religion, Brian.
Do you understand that?
Do I understand that?
Well, apparently you don't, Brian, and I'm being respectful.
I love them all.
Like I said, I even love you, Brian.
I'm trying to educate you because, like I said, I'm shocked that you're a private investigator and you believe that Jews are a race.
It's not.
It's a religion.
It's a cult.
It's a death cult.
By your definition, Brian, you're more racist than I am, but you're racist against Christians, and I seem to think that you're probably a Christian.
So you're a self-hating Christian now.
I had met Victor because of the death of Scott Bennett.
And Bennett had come back from spending some time over in Russia where he went on Russian television and then he came back after a long trip and he confessed to me that he thought he had been poisoned at the airport and three weeks later he was dead.
So we needed to find a new host for that particular two-hour show which we filmed I think on a Sunday night called Truth Versus News.
Rather casual current event analysis show and I left that up to Jim since I'm a guest and you know co-host and bring on whoever you want so he brought on Victor Hugo I had no reason to protest I said fine I did three shows of him so about total of six hours and he was beginning to press my buttons because You know,
when I prep for a show, I have to spend about an hour prepping all the articles, reading the articles, reading the comments, trying to figure out what's really cross-referencing stuff.
So if I'm going to do a show, I want to sound intelligent and I'm going to do the prep work.
Well, it was obvious to me that Victor didn't do any prep work whatsoever because every time, you know, the ball moved into his court to talk, the answer was a very radically simple.
Answer, it's the Jew.
It's the Jew.
Every problem in the world, every current event, everything that happened, it's the Jew.
It's the Jew.
And what I had realized is that when it was Bennett and I, we had a lighthearted show, but we were able to look at things in a very balanced perspective, and we had what I consider to be a very well-educated audience.
Well, after Victor came on the show, the comments were absolutely toxic with the anti-Semite.
I'm an equal opportunity pisser-offer.
I'll go after the Jesuits.
I'll go after the Jews.
I'll go after the deep state.
I'll go after the banksters.
Everybody gets a shot.
But not Hugo.
He just kept going after the Jews.
That's all he would do.
And I began to realize he was sort of a one-trick pony.
And I took offense at being insulted by him, which is exactly But are you Jewish?
Because some of the people in the comments section say you're a Jew.
So I bowed out, and he took it very personally and decided to go on the offense.
And then what happened was that since I bowed out, Jim – Left him on, but he didn't make any adjustments.
Well, I respected Brian's right to his opinions and what he had to say about it, and continued with Victor Hugo for several more shows until I discovered that Victor Hugo is now attacking Brian, calling him to be a coward.
I knew Brian was anything but a coward.
He'd already done brilliant work on Sandy Hook, on Uvalde, on the— Buffalo tops, grocery store shooting.
I mean, the guy is among the very best.
He's thorough.
He's systematic.
He's scientific.
I hold him in the highest regard.
So I told Victor this was unacceptable, and if he'd cease attacking Brian, we could have a reconciliation, and I could bring him back on the show, where I had subsequently created a program called the Fearsome Foursome, including Joaquin, Russ Winter.
Victor Hugo and myself for Wednesdays on Revolution Radio.
And the show was really quite sensational, got tremendous feedback, until we reached a point where Victor was claiming he had the right to attack Brian, that he was not going to stop, and I took him off.
In addition, because I had been so favorably impressed early on, I'd encourage Revolution Radio to give him a show, which they had done.
But after this continued, and the matter began to get worse and worse and worse, because now he was attacking me, he was attacking Joachim, he was attacking Ross, he was attacking Brian.
I told Revolution Radio I could no longer support him, and they conducted their own independent review and decided they agreed and let him go.
I was on Revolution Radio, which is supposed to be listener-supported free speech radio.
I'll tell you what, I found out firsthand live on the radio with my guest, Stephen Kelly, who came on to expose the Getty tunnels during the L.A. fires, which just happened to be across from, of course, you guessed it, a Jewish center.
And as I had him live on the show with me, the radio manager got on and said, hey, listen, this guy is banned from this state.
You can get them off or your show's off.
This was live.
It turns out that there's allegations that both Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones threw the Sandy Hook trials on purpose so that journalists would be afraid of covering the false flag event.
And with that $2.4 trillion settlement.
Yeah, but apparently there's evidence to back it up.
So that's what today's discussion is about.
It's with Wynn.
A young friend of mine, lawyer.
I think she's one of the sharpest lawyers I've met.
So with that said, Wynn, welcome to Truth Be Told.
I'm anxious to hear what it is you've got to say.
I am an artist.
A musician and a 29-year civil litigation attorney from Ohio.
I've lived and worked all over the state, and I'm back in my hometown now, Mansfield.
The gurus.
There are two gurus with respect to the Sandy Hook truth community, and these guys have been around for years, okay?
And I just came into it, huh, what?
Fall of '23, but I noticed some very interesting things, okay?
These guys are the gurus, and they suck up a lot of oxygen and grab a lot of attention and direct the narrative.
With respect to all the efforts to get the truth out on Sandy Hook, because there's a community of people that have been trying to do this for years.
Wolfgang Halbig and James Fetzer.
I don't have much regard for these two gentlemen, and I'll tell you why, because of what we just discussed, Todd.
The plaintiffs never would have sued anyone on this Sandy Hook hoax unless they knew that individual would take a dive on the defense, and that is exactly what both of these men did.
Well, I didn't realize these guys were involved in the case.
I knew that there was a fact pattern.
Dr. Fetzer actually was sued in Wisconsin separately.
And that's why the whole bankruptcy case right now has been stuck.
It was supposed to go into the state courts because of this.
And I had the attorney who was filing this case for the American people, Winn-Young, and I interviewed him, I vetted him, and he's got the goods, man.
It turns out this is the real deal.
Victor, it appears, craves attention, and he'll do anything to get it.
I'm an artist because I had to survive.
Yeah, I was actually almost put in jail for knowing what I know and for speaking the truth.
Film nearly killed me.
It's an exercise in patience.
A simple question that a five-year-old could ask is, am I going to get my Social Security?
You know?
And he's gone on a binge.
Of attacking me and Brian and Joaquin.
And so again and again, we now have over 200 videos where Victor is attacking us all over this incident where Brian withdrew because he had good reason to disagree with Victor.
It's the Jews, it's the Jews, it's the Jews.
So I find all this grossly disproportional.
One, two, three.
One, two, three.
One, two, three.
His conduct has become utterly reprehensible.
Now it turns out this has been his style.
You can go all the way back to 2008 when he was in Miami.
And by the way, I suspect he still resides there.
And this whole idea of him being, you know, the Maverick artist from the Republic of Georgia is nonsense.
Turns out he's been pulling these stunts since 2008, or even hung some kind of painting of a three-foot-long penis out his window.
It would attract attention, and the court and the attorneys have found him over the top already then, just as he's over the top now.
I regard Victor as an extreme narcissist.
He appears to be You know, some kind of con man.
I don't believe you can trust anything he says.
What's most interesting now, by the way, and this has given it a new twist, is he claims that I and Alex Jones threw our cases over Sandy Hook.
Now, I won't address Alex.
I sought to be an expert witness for him in both his case in Connecticut and other cases in Austin, and I was not welcomed.
I could have, you know, explained.
How much we know that it was indeed a fabrication, a FEMA drill.
During one of his interviews, a video deposition in Connecticut, even denied he'd read the book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," which raises serious questions.
How can a guy who is taking a stand on this very complex matter not have read the only serious objective scholarly work ever published on the subject?
And now he claims to have two attorneys, one of Arwen Young from Ohio.
And another, Todd Collender, who has offices in Boulder, Colorado, Golden, Colorado, and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, they support the idea that I threw the case.
And yet it's bizarre, because how can I have thrown the case when I'm still in court, when I'm still fighting the case, when I'm producing evidence, unbelievable evidence, when you have four appeals still standing before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals?
Wynn Young has known this for quite some time, because Bill Bonitaghi, when he discovered these allegations were being made informed Wynn, where he had assisted me with my motion to open pursuant to extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the court, which means that as they continue to this day, we have a situation where they know better or should have known better.
Ironically, Wynn actually claimed it was a virtue for him not to have read my book.
Reviewed any of my briefs, watched any of my videos, and there are tons.
I mean, there's 600 documents in this case at this point in time plus.
So he's trying to make it a virtue to be ignorant, and yet he's going on in spite of the fact that others have made repeated efforts to bring him aboard with the truth.
And we're now, just recently this past week, Kevin Barrett interviewed Victor Hugo, and when Victor Hugo Sought to promote his proposition that I and Alex Jones had thrown our cases.
Kevin explained he'd been there for the trial for damages, and that it wasn't the case at all, that I'd been denied my rights under the law, and that he documented in that spectacular article of his, which you can still find online, the legal lynching of a truth seeker.
So they know better.
They're acting in reckless disregard of the truth.
They are attempting to smear me, and I believe, and the others.
But no doubt I'm the principal because I've done all this classic research on JFK, four books, 9 /11, two, made all the presentations.
For example, when Alex Jones organized his American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles in 2006, he invited me to give the keynote address.
And that, of course, was all revolving around 9 /11.
Now, it may very well be that this appearance of Victor Hugo is because, given the appeals I've made and the substance, the very detailed, extensive evidence I've presented, there's concern that my case is going to be reversed, and they're trying to get out in front and contaminate the public with a belief I threw it.
I don't see how that's going to be sustainable once the case is reversed.
Well, obviously, I'm not in a position to guarantee.
I can just say the evidence is monumental and detailed, and I'd like to believe the Court of Appeals will do the right thing.
Victor has had remarkable success in getting his story out, aided and abetted by a host with whom I've had very cordial relations in the past, such as Michael Deacon, who seems to have been enthralled with the idea of featuring Victor, who Expose me when Michael should have known better.
I mean, I've discussed the case before on his shows.
He's even got on with Stu Peters.
I've reached out to his producer, explained to her what's going on, requested that the record be corrected, that the simplest way might just be to feature me is Sandy Hook last man standing.
And he even, many said he interviewed by Mike Adams.
And when Mike's admin somehow didn't have it posted the way Victor lied, he went after Mike Adams for the suppression of freedom of speech.
Now, when you're talking about truthful and accurate reporting, that's, of course, to be commanded.
But in this case, he's spreading spears and libel, and I'm hoping to bring about a reversal.
Now, what we have here then is a classic straw man and exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to attack.
If he were accurate and truthful after all, there'd be no way to go after me.
There's even been a book published about it by Ron Avery.
The situation is very clear.
The attorneys involved and Victor didn't even do a literature search.
So far as I can see, they haven't watched any of my videos.
They haven't read my briefs.
And that's utterly irresponsible.
It makes the degree of complicity here, the seriousness of the violation, all that much greater.
I believe that Victor's story, living in the Republic of Georgia, is fantastic.
I suspect he is still residing in Miami, and he simply changed his style to go after the internet platforms that are going to give him Most attention and try to benefit by basically defrauding those who think what he's speaking is true, when what is issuing is, alas, a barrage of distortions, exaggerations, and lies, sad to say.
*music*
Special thanks to Dean Ryan for availing this opportunity for me to address this issue which is causing a lot of distress among me and my colleagues who are doing our best to bring the truth to the American people.
And if any of you share those concerns, you'd be welcome to write to support at bitchute.com or report at bitchute.com.
Bitshoot.com and just give them your opinion about whether this is fair and just and an appropriate use of that platform.
I would be in your debt.
Once again, thanks to Real Deal Media, which I admire beyond.
Words.
I'm here to set the record straight.
Parents and magicators and magicians.
John Sandy Hook.
John Sandy Hook.
Veteran American refugee living near the Russian border.
I'm now living as a veteran American refugee near the border with Russia in the Middle East in the former Soviet bloc country.
Now, a veteran, as we all know, is a person who has served in the active military Naval Air and Space Service of the United States and was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.
The definition outlined in Title 38 of the U.S. Code is used to determine eligibility for various benefits and services.
Now look.
Here we have Victor, veteran American refugee speaking truth to power.
My name is Victor Hugo Vaca Jr.
I served as a midshipman officer at the United States Naval Academy and received an honorable discharge after being a whistleblower who exposed toxic leadership at the highest levels of government and military following the attempted cover-up of the sexual assault of a female midshipman officer.
Now just look at that!
You're saying he was a midshipman and he was discharged honorably?
That may all well be true, but a midshipman is not a person on active duty.
A midshipman is not a veteran.
He's displaying stolen valor.
And listen, you go back to this photograph.
That's him as a freshman at the Naval Academy.
No one who's ever served in the military would use their lowest rank in a photograph.
Look at mine, for example, where I was commissioned in the Marine Corps at graduation from Princeton, lower left, you can see.
I served, among other places, at the Rico Depot in San Diego, here I am, when I was promoted to captain, my wife put on my bars.
Now, if Victor actually had served in the military, we'd have something other than this midshipman photograph, which, in my opinion, is proof, combined with his admission here, that he was discharged after being a midshipman.
A midshipman is not an active duty officer.
I was a midshipman.
I was in ROTC at Princeton, but I would never have parlayed that into claiming I was a veteran.
That's all you got, Jim.
What more does it take?
Are you going to let me speak now?
So, you know, you say that's all I got.
You're asking for me to add more.
If you are honorably discharged as a midshipman for Toxic, that's great, but it does not make you a veteran.
That's fraudulent, that's a false claim, that is stolen valor victor of which you have convicted yourself.
is stolen power of anger, that you have convicted yourself.
Thank you.
Thank you.
you you you you you Well, Paul, we got a couple minutes here before the break.
I'd be glad to have your comments or response to what you've seen there.
Go right ahead, my friend.
Well, I love the musical team there.
You know, you worked Pink Floyd in there earlier.
That was effective.
And, you know, I would say overall, it was like Hulk Hogan.
A.K.A.
Jim Fetzer.
You just slammed Vicar Hugo all over the ring, pile-drived him, and got the pin, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, I love that!
I love that!
I love that!
Now, how ironic, you know, I mean, this Alex Jones thing, this development today...
Dean Ryan, by the way, updated by Gary King, he added additional images, not in the very original version, but I wanted to hold off to make it public until they were there.
it's not perfect but it does cover the basis and i really felt it was terribly important to lay out the background here about how we know sandy hook was a fraud you notice in those Well, something happened.
What I'm saying is it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, but they don't want to even acknowledge my theory of the case.
And notice how they say erroneous theory.
They can't just say theory began, you know, at the time, because there were so many indications that this was fake.
And by the way, Lenny Posner, a.k.a.
Ruben Vabner, has taken down over 1,500 videos that were exposing Sandy Hook.
Over 1,500, Paul.
I mean, the public has seen through the fraud, but it's been suppressed massively.
Your thoughts?
Right.
Okay, so in all seriousness, no.
It was very well done, I thought, very well produced.
I kind of felt like I was invited to a premiere, right?
So, having said that, the key thing you just said a minute ago was something happened, right?
Something happened.
It just wasn't what they told us.
You know, sort of like, okay, the moon landings, right?
Something happened.
Well, sure, they built a massive company Something happened, but it's not what they said.
We didn't go to the moon.
Same thing with 9-11.
Something happened, but it sure as hell wasn't Arab hijackers flying planes into buildings.
You know, so what really did happen?
So from that aspect, I admire, you know, And for that, you have my respect.
And as far as your stand in the courtroom, in many ways, it's like Custer's last stand.
Here's Jim Fetzer in his blue cavalry uniform, you know, waiting to get, you know, overrun.
So it's just – Well, I appreciate that, Paul.
And I've been doing everything I can to get these stunning.
If you went right now on the bit shoot and you entered Victor Hugo comma Jim Fetzer, you're going to find 580 videos, 580 videos.
The overwhelming majority are attacking us.
Paul, we're at a break again.
We'll be right back.
Stand by.
Stand by.
Stand by.
Thank you, Michael.
So much.
Well, apologies for the delay, still mastering the techniques of doing shows without hearing the bumper music.
Paul, I'm so pleased you're here today.
Let me say, those who want to learn more about it, I published a while back an open letter to Vicar Hugo Vaca II on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
Here's how I introduce it.
Editor's Note.
His cited taught calendar is a part of his thesis that I toss my case, as you can see from the cover image above.
Listen to this 358 clip and you'll get a sense of Victor's style.
He plays fast and loose with facts he does not understand.
Where Brian Davidson's connection to Sandy Hook is that he has gone into the Connecticut State Police files and found proof not only of no mass murder, But that was not even an operating school.
Victor speaks authoritatively, but has no idea what he's talking about.
Unlike Victor Hugo and Wynn, Todd appears to be a reasonable man and has offered to do a show with us to sort things out.
have accepted, but he has not pursued it.
Here I say, concerning my appearance on your show where Victor invited me in, and in fact, I did, in fact, go on the show with him, and where I exposed that his claims to be a veteran are indeed, in fact, stolen honor.
In fact, that was my primary objective, for him to admit that he had only been a midshipman, that he never served on active duty, and he was not, never commissioned as an ensign and never served on active duty, which by saying,
Victor and Wynn, having found your invitation for me to appear on your show below, I noticed several points have raised concern.
One, you refer to me as an atheist when you should know that I am an agnostic, too.
You seem to expect others to join me, which was not the deal.
I was not speaking for them.
And three, You defer my appearance to after Easter, which suggests to me you might need that time to set up an attack on me during the show.
Since it would be idiotic for me to join you for another round of smears, I'd like to have some proof of good faith or proper intention.
Considering the following, consider following as litmus as A. And I won't cover everything, but these are key points.
A. Do you and Wynne now acknowledge that I did not throw my case since I took it all the way to the Supreme Court and am fighting to reverse it, for which I have both documentary and witness proof?
For documentary, see the three briefs attached.
Petition for writ of certiori, 16 May 2022.
Motion to recuse Judge Frank Remington, 9 July 2024.
And appellant's reply be 31 July 2024.
Which proved my case remains active and cannot have been thrown.
Indeed, I have four appeals currently pending before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 4 is shown here.
I did not throw my case.
There's more, but let me skip to B. We have noticed that you play the reporter game.
By denying that you are making these false and indefensible allegations but are only reporting them and are therefore not legally responsible.
But given you know better, surely journalistic integrity demands that you correct the record in the same venues under which these attacks have been made in malice and with reckless disregard for the facts.
So I now ask, are you Victor Hugo Vlaka II?
Willing to admit to the public that you and Wynne were wrong and apologize for having so viciously attacked me.
And I ask the same of Wynne, who, once Bill, Bill Bonitotti, had informed him that he was mistaken, has not been acting in good faith.
If this continues and I have to take legal action, I suspect he may even be in jeopardy of this moment.
See!
It appears to many of us that you, Victor, will do anything to get attention.
Here's a report from Miami, Florida, about your bizarre behavior in 2008, which may or may not be a manifestation of narcissistic personality disorder, NPD, which is a mental health condition.
You don't have to be a shrink to see that something is very wrong.
Who has 25 years of counseling experience would be far better positioned to offer professional opinion, but it's obvious that something about you is just not right.
Your willingness to admit you are wrong for attacking me, not to mention others you have abused, such as Russ Winter and Susan Bradford, would go a long way to relieving concerns that you are not in possession of your mental faculties and have gone off the rails.
After all, look what you're doing and have done.
Over then, 444 videos smearing me and Brian, Russ, Susan, Carl, and more, since Brian took exception to your It's the Jews, It's the Jews mantra during our recording of Truth Versus News, 17 December 2024.
That's 444 videos in about four months or 111 a month, which is more than two or three per day.
Since virtually all of your attacks on others were because they were sticking up for me and telling you that you were wrong about my case, it would be highly appropriate for you to apologize to one and all and to take down the offensive videos you have published in your zeal to attack those who stood up for me.
You and Wyn have a chance to come clean and make an effort to set things right.
We hope you will take it.
Awaiting your response, Jim.
Paul, is there any room for any doubt about the situation here?
I really appreciate your commentary about the whole matter.
Well, having watched all of Victor Hugo's videos multiple times, I can honestly say...
It reminds me of a Seinfeld episode.
Where Newman continues to go to a comedian's show, and this comedian has built her whole act on criticizing Jerry Seinfeld.
It was pretty funny.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, what's your take on the big picture?
I mean, see, this is such bizarre behavior.
Yeah, no, I know.
I mean, I just would say, you know, it just...
And I mean, we both firmly believe that Victor is what he appears to be, which is a Brooklyn Jew, a loud, pushy, abrasive Brooklyn Jew.
And, you know, what do you make of a Brooklyn Jew who tells you it's the Jews all the time?
Do you take him at his word?
I suppose so.
And I also had the humorous thought that, wow, what – I mean, just to say a few words, and man, we got a small production company in the response.
And again, you're as thorough and well-founded as you are on all your other work, you know, for sure.
Well, Bo isn't just claiming, he's citing these two attorneys.
As though they had the good, this one guy, Arwen Young from Ohio.
He looks like a fag.
Did you see the way he looks?
He looks like a fag.
I think he's a tranny.
Paul, I do believe he's a tranny.
He's a tranny.
Yeah.
Listen!
He makes a virtue out of ignorance.
He's never read any of my briefs.
He's never read the book.
He's never watched any of these videos, and I have a ton of them.
Laying out what really happened at Sandy Hook.
And he claims it's a virtue.
How?
Because he knows, since I didn't obtain insurance, as though authors would obtain insurance, that's something publishers might do.
Because I didn't get insurance, I threw the case.
Does that make any sense?
Insurance would pay off for a liability.
It wouldn't affect any argument or defense I had in court.
So that's a non sequitur.
It's got no relevance.
Then he claims I didn't take it to federal court on diversity, meaning because parties were in different states or on First Amendment grounds because it's an issue of freedom of speech, freedom of the press.
But I was being sued here in Dane County Circuit Court.
I sought to find an attorney to represent me, Mike Palachek, my co-editor of the book, and I. We contacted like 70 attorneys.
No one would represent us.
We went up pro se in court.
I didn't know the nuances of the law.
Today, I'm fairly experienced in certain aspects, at least.
But the idea that his difference in strategy as to how he would have handled the case, had he been submitted with it, How can that be relevant to the claim that I threw my case?
I didn't throw my case.
I'm still active in the case.
The whole accusation is preposterous, but it's been repeated endlessly, and this Todd Callender guy even seemed to go along with it after we've informed him.
I mean, he knows about the four appeals before the Court of Appeals here, District 4, and I expect now I'm bolstered by this outcome in Texas.
The Court of Appeals here in Wisconsin is going to act in a parallel fashion to the Court of Appeals in Texas.
I'm just elated about it.
Paul?
Well, you know, the one thing you got to keep in mind, in all fairness, is that a lot of these people out there that follow the general, what I call the broad outline of these issues, they're not going to remember or follow all these details in terms of the law and court procedure.
I mean, that's why I've always tried to be in favor when I...
I'm not saying that they're not.
I think the average person, and rightfully so, regards the whole legal profession in a very low light, similar to the government.
It's a quagmire and a sewer of very corrupt and, in many cases, contemptible individuals.
And they want to have nothing to do with it.
So sometimes it's much less important to talk about the details of some of these legal matters.
As it is to remember the broad general principles of the fact that they are committing fraud all the time and that the mainstream media and the government is complicit and not only goes along with the fraud but promotes it.
They don't counter it.
So it's all part of what I would call this kind of a megalith of a government-corporate media partnership of crime and fraud.
If you will.
And it's, of course, you know, darn important that people stand up to it like you have and not like, for example, in my opinion, okay, Alex Jones did, you know, with this, you know, what I call a slight, more than a slight capitulation on his part and a back, back, back.
You know, he did that on multiple occasions, and now he's proclaiming what a great victory it is.
But initially, if you heard some of his shows, he started to walk it back.
Well, not only that, but when he was welcomed back onto Twitter, he and Elon Musk had a lengthy conversation during which he claimed he'd been misled by these two professors and his school safety expert.
Right.
Disparaging remarks about me.
I don't know how this all fits now.
Because that was in the context of his contrition over having been wrong and claiming it to have been a fraud.
But now he's vindicated, I suppose, it's on procedural grounds that he wasn't afforded his due process right, just as I was not afforded my due process rights.
Well, where is he going to stand now on the fact of the matter?
Is he going to acknowledge it was, in fact, a fake, a state of end?
Exactly.
Are you reporting, or is he going to say, well, they just didn't give me a fair trial, so even though it was a real event, I was wrongly convicted?
Exactly, exactly my point.
What is his true position?
Which is his true position?
In other words, when the so-called S hits the fan, where do you stand?
Are you going to just change, change your mind now?
You know, so I think you know me and I know you, right?
In other words, you know that I'm the type of person I'm not going to, you know, equivocate.
You know, once I plant my feet in the ground, as long as I still firmly believe I'm right, it doesn't matter what you say.
I'm going to be right.
Well, I think he's put up something in a sticky situation here.
I always thought it was wrong for him to be on both sides of the fence, both declare it had been staged an event and also declare now it was real.
I thought that was pathetic.
And, you know, I offered to be an expert witness for him.
I even wrote directly to Norm Pettis, his attorney, offering to do that.
Every time I sought to enter as an amicus, you know, a friend of the court, to provide evidence, I was turned down by both.
The plaintiffs and the defense, both neither side, wanted me in there to tell them what we discovered about Sandy Hook.
I mean, Paul, this is appalling.
Of course.
Jim Fetzer, the most unwelcome guest in the courtroom.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
Well, like I said, the sentiments I expressed at the beginning of the show still stand, in my opinion.
I don't really take it seriously.
I don't believe it was real.
Yeah, well, it was a thing.
I mean, look, I got participants in the event who are, you know, providing information as I'm explaining.
I mean, how much more evidence could we have?
You had this wonderful case of Paul Preston.
Who actually is a school administrator in California.
He'd supervised lone shooter exercises.
He was so disturbed by what he saw being reported from Newtown that day that he reaches out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, and they all confirmed it was a drill.
No children were harmed.
It was done to promote gun control.
I mean, that's from the Obama Department of Education, Paul.
Why didn't that settle the case right there?
Period.
Stop.
Full stop.
End of story.
Well, such is the world in which we live.
We're, you know, let's face it.
You know, everything is almost the opposite, for example.
You know, like chemotherapy drugs, they say they're carcinogenic right on the label.
And the vaccines that...
Do the exact opposite.
Well, I want to encourage everyone during the break, and that's why I was delayed.
I was putting up on my Twitter, Victor Hugo exposed.
So I want everyone to have access.
I would like to believe that it gives them enough information to understand Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax.
And of course, it was...
And you notice he even had that one quote of Obama talking about how high-powered weapons of war, that we're the only nation that makes them available.
But the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.
It's simply a very versatile, semi-automatic rifle.
That's probably the single best all-purpose weapon anyone could have.
For multiple purposes, including home defense.
So here you have the President of the United States, whose own presidency may be fraudulent since he appears to have been born in Kenya and wasn't actually eligible to serve, making false declarations of misrepresentation to promote his gun control agenda.
And of course, he signs, I think it was 23, you know, a month and two days later, he signed that 23 executive orders to constrain our access to weapons under the First Amendment.
The whole thing was a sham.
And let's zoom out for the moment for the big picture, which you know is one of my favorite topics because it's a reality.
So you have Obama, half black and half Jew.
Okay, no doubt about that, right?
You know, presiding over the implementation of our demise.
In other words, when you look at what's going on in the world, it's quite simple.
All right?
This is one thing that Victor Hugo had correct, is that it's the Jews and they're out to kill us.
And the minute that they can get the weapons out of our hands, you can be sure that a slaughter will commence that will last years.
They've done it before in Russia.
And they'll do it again.
And that's all this is.
That's all it's ever been.
And that's why they're letting in all these black and brown males, okay?
And they're constantly stirring up racial tension because it really is their desire that we be killed and preferably at the hands of black and brown invaders.
That's really all this is.
That's all it's ever been.
And I just hope that white America wakes up soon enough to figure it out and we can assert our will over this country and over the world the way we used to.
Because in the late 1800s and by 1900, white people ruled the world in all effect.
We dominated all the political economic systems.
We had the best military.
Everything was under our control.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed here, and after two world wars, the Jews are clearly in control.
And we have to reverse that if we and our children don't want to continue to die at their hands.
That's the simple fact of the matter.
Paul, my understanding is that mass migration into all these nations is intended to corrupt and destroy the notion of nation states.
To destroy their identity, their demographics, their population, make sort of heterogeneous all these nations so that the notion of sovereignty is really vacuous, that that's part of the Great Reset, that they're out there, you know, that one world government where the COVID vaccine, the death jab, is promoting the vast depopulation.
It continues, sad to say.
Well, there's overwhelmingly greater awareness of the avoidance of vaccines as being indispensable to your health rather than the opposite.
I mean, I think we are making progress.
The question becomes, is it soon enough?
Will enough people absorb the truth to make a difference to the outcome?
I regret to say I'm not convinced it's going to play out that way.
I have to sort of agree.
I won't say I'm totally losing heart or faith, but the fact of the matter is this, is we have to be sufficiently violent enough to survive.
And I'm not sure.
I believe there's still plenty of people that have those tendencies in them.
It's part of our DNA, but I think it's been, shall we say, covered up and suppressed.
You know, watered down, if you will, through many means, including psychological programming, including food, water, nutrition, so-called medicine.
All these things have an effect on what would normally be our natural instincts.
So, yeah, there's no, in my opinion, there's no political and no nonviolent way out of the predicament that we're in.
And that's just the way they want it.
And sooner or later, we're going to have to give them what it is they're wanting.
And hopefully that happens and we can prevail.
That's my, you know, succinct assessment.
Oh, I'm delighted to have you here today as my co-host.
And I think that such differences of opinion as we have on various issues is all to the good.
Because it means we're in a position to offer critiques of one another.
This is one of the great benefits of the collaborative research that I've fostered since 1992, by bringing together the best experts to ever study the assassination of JFK, World Authority on the Human Brain, PhD in Physics, also board-certified in radiation oncology, a physician who was in trauma room number one, the last to observe the body.
Closing his eyelids as he was wrapped in sheets, put in the bronze ceremonial casket, another PhD.
He's become an expert on the Zapruder film, legendary photo and film analyst, publishing all those books, doing again founding scholars for 9 /11, bringing experts from around the world, hundreds and hundreds, and of course then replicating in relation to Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Orlando, Dallas.
Anyone who wants more, check it out.
Moonrockbooks.com.
Moonrockbooks.com.
Paul, I can't hear it, but I think we're on the verge of the break.
I can't thank you enough for joining me today.
Meanwhile, everyone, spend as much time with your family, your friends and people you love and care about.
We do not know how much time we have left.
Don't waste a precious minute of it.
Have a great weekend and support Revolution Radio.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's perfectly timed.
It's 58 now, two minutes before.
Thank you, Bob.
Hey, Jim, so we've got to get the car situation fixed.
I haven't concluded yet.
Oh, I'm sorry.
▲
Export Selection