Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 6, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:58:09

The Raw Deal (6 June 2025) with co-host Paul from CA

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal, right here on Revolution Radio Studio B, the sixth day of June 2025.
	The situation has become immeasurably worse in the Ukraine.
	Russia has declared Ukraine to be an existential threat to the survival of the nation.
	They're launching massive attacks now, even as I speak.
	The situation has not gone nuclear, but that could happen.
	By way of background, here we have Colonel Davis talking about what to expect.
	Spots.
	In retaliation for what the Ukraine side launched into the bomber fleet of Russia just a couple of days ago.
	It's been talked about a lot.
	We've had a lot of shows on talking about the fallout, et cetera.
	But now then we're having a bigger and a more direct statement out of both the Kremlin and the White House, for that matter, that something is coming.
	And we're going to find out exactly what that means.
	And we're going to see how it fits in together with all these other kinds of efforts to both bring the war to an end, to have some kind of negotiated settlement, because there's all kinds of things on the map.
	And they kind of are going in, if not opposite directions, their own directions.
	And we're going to see how all this fits together.
	And we have back with us, we hadn't had him on for a while, Patrick Henningsen, geopolitical analyst, journalist, and host of the Sunday Wire and 21stCenturyWire.com.
	Hope you guys are doing well.
	We are, and we're doing even better now that you're back on the show here.
	And I just want to get right into what the issue here is.
	We've been talking a lot, everybody has about that strike, so I think everybody's pretty much aware of what happened right now.
	What everybody is waiting for though is what's going to happen in response and the Chancellor of Germany Friedrich And in the typical fashion that they do, they had some, I guess, about an hour in the Oval Office with the cameras rolling and talking about all different kinds of things.
	And by the way, some of this video you're looking at here, this is some new video.
	Of that attack where the Ukraine side released even more information than they had.
	And there's actually some pretty fascinating views on some of this.
	Some of the drones were flying around under the planes even before they launched.
	But that's all good video for the West, but that could portend some pretty negative things.
	And President Trump today talked about that issue about what Putin told him on the phone.
	He got hit.
	He's been doing hitting, so I understand it.
	But he got hit hard.
	And I don't think he's playing games.
	I thought he wanted the entire everything having to do with Ukraine.
	America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war.
	So let's talk about what we can do jointly and we are ready to do what we can and you know that we gave support to Ukraine and that we are looking for more pressure on Russia.
	The European Union did and we should talk about that.
	We will talk about it.
	When I see the moment when when I We're not going to make a deal when this thing won't stop.
	Is there a deadline?
	Yeah, it's in my brain, the deadline.
	When I see the moment where it's not going to stop, and I'm sure you're going to do the same thing, will be very, very tough.
	And it could be on both countries, to be honest.
	It takes two to tango.
	But we're going to be very tough.
	Whether it's Russia or anybody else, we're going to be very tough.
	That's a bloodbath that's going on over there.
	There's at least three major elements in that video I want to get to at the first, and we're going to start with the one about Putin, since that's kind of where we titled this, that Putin is going to act.
	And it was interesting to me, both in the Truth Social that Trump posted yesterday, as well as his comments here, is that he did at one point say in the...
	And he didn't say anything in the Truth Social or elsewhere that he said, if you do it, I'm going to take X, Y, and Z countermeasures.
	He just said, he's mad he's going to do it.
	What do you take from where Putin is and what do you expect to happen?
	I expect Russia to respond in the way they've always responded to these provocations.
	And they're going to do it very deliberately.
	It's going to be measured.
	It's going to be pragmatic.
	And so Russia's behavior is pretty predictable as an international actor, both politically and also militarily, in the framework of what they're calling a special military operation.
	Now, this is a level of provocation that has exceeded anything that we've seen before.
	However, exactly a year ago, Daniel, you remember that Ukraine launched attacks that hit This is just on the western border of Kazakhstan, 1,500 kilometers inland in Russia.
	And that was right before the Zurich scheduled so-called peace summit that Zelensky was hosting.
	And there was obviously no chance that Russia would show up to anything like that, especially after hitting their nuclear deterrent early warning radar system.
	Here we have a repeat.
	The timing of this, of course, is no coincidence.
	So I'm really looking also at the political side of it right now.
	And so I expect Russia to do what Russia normally does, play it by the book.
	And they're going to, if they have to send a clear message to Ukraine and maybe to the United States, they're going to do it in the way that they see fit.
	What I see is consistency on the Russian side and we see inconsistency on the Trump side.
	It was just a month ago they're saying, ah, we're going to back off.
	We're going to wash our hands.
	If Ukraine and the Europeans can't figure this out with Russia, we're just going to walk away.
	And now all of a sudden it's, no, we're going to hit back hard.
	We're going to do something very strong if Russia doesn't submit to the will of the United States.
	They're all over the place.
	So Russia's just looking at this, and this has basically reinforced whatever ideas that Russia had before, that the United States is completely unreliable, totally inconsistent.
	And, you know, to think that the U.S. had no knowledge of this attack right before the Istanbul summit, it's not credible.
	So, you know, where is the U.S.?
	Can they play aloof?
	Trump said, I had no idea about the assassination attempt on Vladimir Putin's helicopter.
	I had no idea about these drone strikes.
	And this is the same president that constantly has been saying, this war would never have happened if I was president.
	It's Biden's war.
	Well, Trump, you're president now, and this stuff is happening.
	So you can't have it both ways.
	So Russia and other serious actors, China, they're looking at this thinking, what's going on in Washington?
	Who's in charge?
	Lindsey Graham, meanwhile, is gallivanting between Kiev and Washington.
	Mike Pompeo's gallivanting around Odessa, flexing in Kiev, basically.
	So they're sending out the...
	And that's also sending a message.
	So don't you think that's a bad idea?
	If Trump is really in control, wouldn't he want to rein in the likes of Lindsey Graham so as not to antagonize negotiations and show goodwill?
	or is that not in the calculus?
	So what's this all about besides political theater and perhaps, you know, accidentally slipping into politics I'm not sure.
	Yeah.
	That's a simply wonderful critique.
	Now, Hal Turner, per usual, is on top of it, urgent.
	Russia declares existential threat from Ukraine.
	This morning, the Kremlin in Moscow said the Ukraine situation has become an existential threat to Russia.
	According to Russian military doctrine, which is, Long published and well-known, an existential threat is caused to use nuclear weapons.
	NATO has long made clear that if Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine and the radiation drifts across the border of a NATO member country, NATO will view the radiation as an attack by Russia against NATO.
	They will invoke Article 5, collective self-defense against Russia.
	Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear at the start that the Ukrainian Special Mission Operation, that if NATO declares Article 5 against Russia, Russians will die as martyrs.
	NATO won't even have time to repent.
	I don't know how fast any of this is going to happen, but today's declaration of the Kremlin is the final step before Russia uses nuclear weapons.
	More if I get it.
	Update, 9.38 a.m. Eastern.
	Kremlin, responding to Trump's fighting children comments, says Ukraine, war is an existential threat.
	More, early in the day, but Ukraine is launching a massive several dozen UAV raid in the direction of Moscow and Rezon.
	Update 958.
	From last night's Russian attack against Ukraine, the following data is now available.
	A detailed breakdown of the Russian missile strike carried out overnight.
	Tennis Klander and ballistic missiles were launched, zero intercepted.
	Thirteen-caliber NK cruise missiles, two intercepted.
	Four KH-101 strategic cruise missiles, one interception.
	One COV-31 PD anti-radar missiles, zero intercepted.
	Total missiles, U-27.
	Total intercepted, 3. Overall interception rate, less than 10.7%.
	Strike breakdown by region.
	Churchill, 4 times.
	9M731, Isklander, a missile-struck target.
	Kiev and surrounding areas.
	3 times.
	9M7231, Isklander, targeted the region.
	Polsava region, two Isklander missiles struck the area.
	Dubrovskog region, one Isklander hit a target, three 10 missiles, more hit their targets, This wave of missile strikes appears to have been highly effective, with most missiles reaching their target, and only a small number intercepted by Ukraine air defense.
	Paul, my co-host from California, is here.
	Paul, I welcome your comments on these developments so far.
	Jim, like I've said already, I hate to be a party pooper here, but I have Ukraine war fatigue, and I'm probably the wrong guy to believe any of this stuff about nuclear weapons, as you well know.
	I just don't think...
	I don't certainly think there's not going to be a nuclear conflict because I don't believe nuclear weapons are real.
	So that's probably going to send part of the audience the other direction, and maybe some people are going to be more aligned with that.
	I know that in prior iterations of these comments I've made, I've read show comments, and there are some people out there that think the same way I do.
	And I know that there's a lot of sincerity and somberness in the way that you read these stories, but I can't really be serious about it myself.
	Paul, okay, listen, I accept that.
	You stand by.
	I'll cover these stories.
	And when I turn to a different subject on which you will have more to say, I'll bring you back in.
	Yeah, thanks.
	I'm glad you're here nonetheless.
	Meanwhile, Kyiv under heavy bombardment.
	Russia launched missile and drone strikes, forcing thousands underground.
	Casualties rising.
	Breaking news.
	Kyiv is currently under heavy bombardment as powerful explosions hit the capital.
	Russia is attacking full force.
	Here's some video.
	That apparently is an earlier video.
	Here's more.
	Russia launches airstrikes on Kyiv.
	This is one of those cases where you get hit with a security claim.
	Meanwhile, more video footage of Russian missiles striking Kiev's Lutsk today, the dynamic map of the flight of Russian drones and missiles during the nighttime massing strike on Ukrainian territory.
	This is current from TikTok.
	Fuck!
	See the mess?
	What the hell?
	What the hell?
	Fuck!
	is just a Here's more.
	The dynamic map of the flight of Russian drones and missiles during the nighttime massive strike.
	Here's a map showing the paths.
	The missiles are taking.
	The missiles are taking.
	Of course, you only see this in the video version for the audience.
	Massive, massive, massive!
	Just staggering number of drones in flight.
	To attack.
	To attack.
	More to that.
	Meanwhile, presumably, Russian cruise missiles rained on the factories in Lutsk.
	Presumably the target was a motor repair plant.
	Air defense seems not to exist here at all.
	Another video.
	a
	Here's another Russian cruise missile K-101 approaching target with the release of heat flares over Lutsk.
	More.
	Here's another.
	All across Ukraine missiles and drones are hitting.
	All across Ukraine missiles and drones are hitting.
	Well, there's a lot going on.
	Perhaps one more another attack target and turn a pole.
	Seriously?
	What the hell?
	It hurt...
	...and I'll be right back.
	Well, there's a lot of room for doubt that these attacks are indeed taking place.
	Here's another report.
	Roll out the nukes.
	Paul has skepticism.
	I do not.
	Personally, I find it very difficult to imagine the denial of the existence of nuclear weapons.
	Indeed, I believe the most important cinematic achievement, the most important move he ever made is Dr. Strangelove.
	Stanley Kilbrick's warning about this.
	Prospects of nuclear war, which I believe everyone in the world should watch at least once a year.
	The Russian and the Chinese have both been developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles that can cause such immense destruction they make the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima look like child's toy.
	The US has been working on a new intercontinental ballistic missile too, but it won't be ready for quite a few years, unfortunately.
	We are closer to nuclear war right now than we have been at any other point in human history.
	In fact, we are extremely fortunate the Russians didn't decide to start launching their nukes after Ukraine's very foolish surprise attack on Russia's nuclear bombers.
	If there had been a surprise attack on our nuclear bombers, we may not have shown the same level of restraint.
	We are literally teething on the brink of the unthinkable.
	It's all important the general population understand what we are facing.
	According to a brand new report just released, in Our World Today, there are more than 9,600 nuclear warheads ready to be used.
	Here's a quote.
	The number of nuclear warheads ready for use by nine countries has slightly increased from the last year, reaching just over 9,600, according to a Japanese think tank report.
	Russia, the U.S., and China remain the world's three largest countries in terms of the size of their nuclear arsenal.
	As I have extensively documented, a full-blown nuclear war would be cataclysmic.
	A large part of the U.S. population would be immediately wiped out, even more with time from famine during the subsequent nuclear winter.
	Sadly, most of that population doesn't even realize we just had a really close call.
	Paul, I'll bring you in when I'm ready for you.
	Thank you, my friend.
	President Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, just explained to Fox that Ukraine's assault on Russia's nuclear bomb has resulted in risk levels going way up.
	I'm telling you, the risk levels are going way up.
	I mean, what happened this weekend?
	Trump's envoy, Keith Kellogg, told Fox.
	People have to understand.
	In the national security space, when you attack an opponent part of their national survival system, which is their triad, their nuclear triad, that means air, sea, and land-based missile systems, that means the risk level goes up because you don't know what the other side is going to do.
	You're not sure.
	Our continued existence literally depends on Russian President Vladimir Putin showing some restraint.
	Fortunately, Putin didn't press a button this time, but do we really want to keep living on the edge like this?
	More.
	Here's a chilling map showing how 75% of the US population could be wiped out in nuclear war.
	A chilling Cold War map showed how 75% of the US population could be wiped out in a nuclear war with radioactive fallout.
	A taunting map from the Cold War era forecasts that vast areas of the U.S. would be covered in radioactive fallout in the event of a nuclear war.
	The harrowing prediction suggests up to 75% of residents in the most severely impacted fallout zone would perish.
	Despite the end of the Cold War, Concerned over a potential nuclear conflict that have escalated recently due to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the military tension between Israel and Iran.
	Nuclear weapons are currently held by the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China, while Pakistan, India, and North Korea also possess nuclear capabilities.
	Israel is suspected to have these devastating weapons, but has never publicly confirmed that.
	It comes at a time of global turmoil.
	And Trump labeled Ukraine's Zelensky a badass on delivering a two-word verdict.
	Meanwhile, RAND maintains a substantial uranium enrichment program, which, of course, I add is for peaceful energy production.
	In 1986, scientists William Doherty, Barbara Levy, And Franklin Hippold from the Institute of Medicine published a study exploring the potential effects of nuclear strikes on the continental United States.
	Here's a map.
	The trio hypothesized an enemy assault on the U.S. nuclear storage facilities, including direct hits on the silos housing the Minuteman missiles.
	America's land-based nukes first developed in the 1950s, triggering them to detonate on sight.
	If you're unable to view the full map, click here.
	We do that.
	We click here and let's see if we find the full map.
	It's all profoundly disturbing for all who believe
	Paul, we've got just a minute before the break.
	If you want to offer rebuttal, go right ahead.
	In a minute, huh?
	Okay.
	You know, when you said something about the intercontinental ballistic missile, I was just going to make a quip.
	I said, well, I don't believe in those either.
	And in actuality, there's good reason in terms of the math not really working out.
	I don't think that we can shoot rockets anywhere near as far as they want us to believe because I don't believe they can carry enough fuel and the motors have not become that much more efficient since the Germans were lobbing their V2 a few hundred miles.
	You know, there's lots of evidence for the non-existence and for the fact that fission itself is not a, mathematically in terms of physics, cannot produce the chain reactions necessary to sustain this so-called critical mass nuclear explosion.
	And that's a show in and of itself.
	Both good articles on that, a book that I have mentioned many times, and also some videos, so we could actually do something like that sometime if you wanted to.
	Well, we're about to hit the break.
	It is a peculiar, let's say anomalous situation, and I'm reporting on what I think to be, without any doubt, the greatest risk to the extinction of the human race in history.
	And here my co-host is disputing the very existence of the weapons that pose that risk.
	Paul, we're going to be hitting a break again in about 50 seconds.
	Go right ahead with one more claim, and then after the break we'll turn to a different subject where you are an expert.
	Go right ahead.
	Well, again, I make this claim that I've made many times before here and a few other places.
	It's not something that I...
	Most people don't have any other evidence for nuclear weapons except they believe in them and they believe in them because they're told that they exist and they've seen film.
	And of course, much of this film is produced or has been produced by the military itself and on a place that doesn't exist anymore called Lookout Mountain.
	The facility is still there.
	We're hitting a break.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Paul, by my calculation, we're back on the air.
	You did a turning to a subject where you have a higher degree of expertise, but feel more comfortable discussing.
	You recently did an interview with this fellow Victor Hugo, and of course, as we all were predicting, he did clips and edits and rather distorted what happened there.
	Here I'm looking at the latest from Bitchute.
	If you enter Victor Hugo, Jim Fetzer, there are now 604 videos found.
	Not every one of which, of course, is an attack upon me, but the overwhelming majority of which, I would say 500 or more, are included.
	Here are some of the titles.
	Michael Deacon, Ruins Integrity, Braces, Jim Fetzer, San Diego Treason, whatever.
	Jim Betzer criminal complaint exposed and police chief Jennifer Pagakoff.
	Angel at death, Sandy, promised character assassin kills Jim Betzer.
	She'll defends Brian Davidson.
	Cowardice, Jim Betzer misinformation.
	ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt upsets anti-Semite, Jim Betzer, Herbie Ross, Ross Swinner.
	Paul proves Jim Betzer surrounds himself with ass kissing convicted.
	Let's look at that one, Paul, since that's citing you.
	Let me get the whole title.
	Okay, all right.
	Telling me to drop this?
	You got to understand, not only are they trying to debank me, my only source of income is the people that support this show, that subscribe to the show.
	And he's contacting Gifts That Go and telling them that I am not a veteran, that I was never on active duty, that I, this, that, the other thing, all these lies.
	But anyway, the point is, I've been seeing more and more about James Fetzer, people are warning me about it, that he is actually COINTELPRO.
	That he is, as Juxtaposition pointed out, dishonest talk, writing, or behavior intended to deceive people.
	It can also be used as an exclamation to describe something as hypocritical, nonsense, or gibberish.
	Robert David Steele is a purported CIA operative.
	Jim Fetzer did interview with him.
	That's analogous to the revolving wheel of COINTELPRO.
	Well, that's a stretch, but okay, go ahead.
	Yeah, or was that you on the interview, Paul, when you said that?
	Was that a remark right now?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, no, that's what I said in the interview, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, he himself, during the great debate, admitted he had never been commissioned as an ensign.
	That he never stood on active duty, that he dropped out of an ambulance after his first year as a midshipman, who is not, that does not qualify as active duty.
	So here he is reaffirming false claims he's made, which fall under the category of stolen valor as defined by U.S. Code for veterans.
	And of course, me as a co-intelbro, Paul Jesus, given all the exposure I've done in collaborative research, The government complicity in JFK, 9-11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, even the moon landing in war.
	If I'm a government agent, I must be the most counterproductive in history.
	And Paul, where are those checks?
	Yeah, well, you know, it's funny because quite the switch here from topics, and, you know, I would say – In my opinion, this topic is fairly uninteresting and, you know, not so worth talking about.
	But I understand, you know, the things that he's doing and the fact that he's – I've been made aware of the fact that he's had on people, which I find to be staggering because obviously, you know, the man is not an authentic human being in terms of what he's done.
	When you first sent me the link weeks ago to this site where supposedly his channel and I saw all those videos, I just laughed because I didn't watch any of them.
	I just thought it was silly nonsense.
	What is this guy?
	A damn schoolchild with a grudge now.
	You've hurt his feelings.
	It's pathetic.
	But again, not having watched any of them and remembering there's a couple of shows.
	I think it might have been three, but it could be two shows I did with him podcast where we recorded.
	We were all friendly.
	They were fine.
	It went well.
	He told me I was a favorite of his listeners and all that kind of stuff.
	You know, when he asked me to come on again because of what I said on the previous show, and he said, look, we'll just have a back-and-forth discussion.
	You know, you can just say what you want to say.
	I won't censor you and blah, blah, blah.
	I just wanted, you know, all friendly-like.
	So I said, okay, fine.
	I mean, I just thought I'd be a human being and listen.
	And if he played the whole show, you know, it was almost exactly two hours.
	I didn't go into it thinking it was going to be any length or such, or we were going to talk about exactly this or exactly that.
	I just figured I'd let him air his side, his take, and then I was going to react and give him my take, and I wasn't going to hold back.
	And for the most part, I didn't.
	But, of course, what I didn't know is that he was going to chop them up and put sensationalized titles on them, like the Globe or the Enquirer, you know, and make ridiculous accusations and refer to me in names.
	I mean, listen, I am a racist.
	There's no doubt about that.
	So, you know, he put that in the title.
	And, of course, the whole show has got nothing to do with me being a racist.
	But, you know, the clip that he put up under that title, I got no problem with it.
	I'm fine.
	I'm not embarrassed.
	I'm not humiliated.
	I'm not worried about anybody debanking me.
	I'm not worried about losing a job.
	I'm not, you know, so on and so forth.
	But the mistake I made was, you know, taking this man in any way, shape, or form seriously.
	And in my humble opinion, he's...
	You know, he's like a gnat.
	He's nothing.
	He's not done anything.
	He's not produced anything, in my opinion, no research.
	He just basically is attacking people, which makes him a nothing.
	He's not even a hair on your nutsack or mine, to be honest with you.
	And that's the way I feel about him now.
	He's just a weasel.
	And a weirdo.
	If he believes any of this stuff, the way he frames it, if he believes it, he's a weirdo.
	But I don't really think he really does believe it all that much.
	I think unless he's just got some delusions of grandeur with his gonzo journalism, you know, beautiful chaos nonsense that he prefaces everything before, you know, he does a show.
	So I don't, you know.
	Anyway, I don't care about him anymore.
	I don't think what he says or does is important, but I know that it supposedly has had an effect on people.
	Paul, I appreciate all those remarks, and I think they're completely well-founded.
	I do have reason to believe, however, that there's a deeper motive behind all of this, which concerns the fact that my
	And I believe with a high probability they're going to reverse my case and that there are parties, including those for Sandy Hook Promise, Which continues to rake in an estimated million bucks a month, Paul, a million bucks a month, from gullible Americans who believe 20 children and six adults died at Sandy Hook.
	No, that's allegedly.
	I just want you to know, I find that hard to believe at this point, with Sandy Hook being in 2012, and someone is making a claim, whatever it may be, a million dollars a month to me, I just find that not – But then you're also a guy who did not see the existence of nuclear weapons.
	Yeah, well, there's good reason for that, though.
	Listen, listen, listen.
	Here's some background.
	Dave Gaheri, who published the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	This was after it was banned by Amazon.com because the original was actually published with CreateSpace, which is Amazon's own publishing branch, or was at the time, talking about a recent development in my case that he referred to as a big win for Jim Fetzer.
	I want to share this and then get your comments after all, but we're back on a break.
	Stand by.
	We'll be.
	Oh, no.
	Really?
	Top of the hour?
	No.
	Just read my clock.
	We will have to take a break.
	Which we're not yet.
	Well, we are live, but we're not appearing on the site, and we'll wait until that happens.
	And then we'll get rocking and rolling.
	There we are.
	Okay.
	Maybe I think I may.
	Yeah.
	You got it?
	Okay.
	Excellent.
	No, actually, I don't.
	Hang on.
	I'm still.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Take your time, Jim.
	Take your time.
	I'll keep talking.
	I don't hear you, though.
	You took the mic out somehow.
	I hear you.
	Okay.
	Okay, that's perfect.
	Do you hear me through your headphones?
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Beautiful.
	Jim, this is the first time that we've been together on FTJ.
	It is?
	Yeah.
	It is?
	It is.
	Beautiful.
	So let me fill the audience in.
	A little bit about our background.
	You know, we've been very close for many years.
	And it was in November of 2015, Jim, that you reached out to me on Skype, which sadly is no longer, as you know.
	And you told me something about a book you had put out called Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	And you told me in November of 2015 that Amazon banned your book.
	And my reaction was, Jim, what are you talking about?
	Amazon doesn't ban books.
	You know, this was before, you know, it became fashionable to do that.
	And, of course, Jim, you also let me know in, I believe it was December.
	2013, about Wolfgang Halbig.
	And you told me that Wolfgang Halbig, a former school safety consultant living in Florida, was visited by his county's, a couple of homicide detectives, who asked him to not contact any of the folks up in Connecticut.
	And question the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
	And again, at that time, I was like, Jim, that's impossible.
	What are you talking about?
	So I asked to be put in touch with Wolfgang, and Jim did put me in touch with him.
	And I interviewed Wolf, and this was the only interview I ever did that went viral.
	And you can never tell when these things are going to go viral.
	But it did, and that drew the attention of a lot of individuals around the world, because Wolf gave his phone number out, and he was getting calls as soon as the interview went up.
	And it also attracted the attention of Infowars.
	And, of course, Alex Jones interviewed Wolf several times, and they used that to try to
	But getting back to the book, The Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, I found that so unbelievable that Amazon would ban that book, that being a First Amendment freak, I was like, that's impossible, Jim.
	We've got to do something about it.
	And we both agreed, and we formed a company called Moonrock Books, and that was the first book that we put out.
	And, of course, we got it ready for Christmas that year in 2015.
	In fact, Simona and I were busy packing up over 1,000 orders, even into Christmas Eve, to get them out.
	And it was crazy.
	But that was December of 2015.
	And then fast forward to around Thanksgiving of 2018, and you...
	This is the fella here.
	I'm going to show you him.
	We'll show the audience.
	You know, obviously.
	You could select any of these images here, and we can see who this fella is and many different pictures, obviously.
	There he is in his get-up.
	He's disguised for a 60 Minutes interview right there.
	It's not the same person, Dave.
	I mean, I'll explain all this.
	Yeah, well, we're going to get to that, but let me just lay the groundwork here.
	We were sued by Posner, and Posner was represented by a big law firm out in Madison, Wisconsin.
	Of course, you live on the outskirts of Madison, in Oregon.
	And that lawsuit, it really consumed a lot of our time, obviously.
	And one of the reasons it did was because as a company, you cannot represent yourself.
	You can't go pro se.
	So we needed to get a lawyer.
	You and Mike Palachuk, you could represent yourselves.
	Of course, it would have been better to have a lawyer, but it was virtually impossible.
	To get an attorney.
	And I spent many hours, many days, many weeks, many months trying to find one and nobody wanted to touch it.
	And Jim and I had spent countless hours on this lawsuit.
	And then it had come to the point where And Alex wouldn't represent Jim or Mike for whatever reason or reasons.
	We tried.
	So Jim and Mike were in it on their own.
	And we did the best we could with help from a lot of people, advice.
	And it got to the point where...
	And then I had, and this is, the deposition was going to be actually on Memorial Day in 2019, so the end of May.
	And I had made all the arrangements to come out to Madison, and I found a really cheap flight.
	Allegiant Air, it was like, Literally $40 each way from here to Des Moines and $40 back from Des Moines.
	And I rented a car in Des Moines, drove up to Jim's house, and I stayed there for a couple of days.
	I remember I slept on that very comfortable reclining chair in the basement.
	And I thought for sure that – Lenny Posner would not show up because he had a history of doing that in depositions because he didn't want to be on video.
	And we had secured a video for the deposition.
	Before I came up, though, they had, for some reason, canceled my deposition.
	And I didn't know what to do.
	You know, I'd already got the tickets, rented the car, got a hotel for one night.
	And I said, well, geez, I don't have to go.
	And Simone said, you know, why would you go?
	You don't have to go.
	And Jim really wanted me to come, and I wanted to go, too.
	And I said, you know what?
	We already got all that stuff.
	It wasn't that expensive.
	I'm just going to go there.
	And Jim, correct me if I'm...
	Yeah, they didn't depose me in advance.
	I thought it was curious.
	I think that I would have got too much evidence on the record, Dave.
	They were going to play this.
	They wanted to minimize what evidence I could introduce.
	So I had a massive proof in the book.
	Brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs.
	We established the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students or teachers there, and that it had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, for which we even had the FEMA manual, which, of course, as you know, we published as Appendix A. Well, they didn't want to get that on the record.
	So they looked.
	They did depose me, and they used the judge to exclude all my evidence during a scheduling conference.
	He excluded all my evidence and said whether or not Sandy Hook actually occurred was not relevant to the truth or the accuracy of a death certificate versus someone who's supposed to have died at Sandy Hook.
	How absurd is that thing?
	Yeah, it wasn't just that that was excluded.
	And I'll continue with, you know, this brief summary of it.
	You're doing it wonderful.
	I love your summary, Dave.
	I'm enjoying this tremendously.
	Thank you.
	And, well, we lived through it, right?
	Yeah, we did.
	It was amazing.
	And ultimately what happened was that the lawyer that I had, Alex Patali, great guy, he had told me and us, All along, once he had seen this judge in action, this Frank D. Remington, who we call FDR, once he saw FDR in action, he told me to settle.
	And the reason he did, he said, because it's rigged.
	They're going to get you.
	He saw how it was going.
	Because of what Jim said, the judge was basically – And my attitude was, no, this is a First Amendment matter.
	I'm not going to settle.
	And he kept insisting.
	And then when I went up to the deposition, I got to witness what was happening.
	And so I made the decision to settle.
	And Mike Palachuk did also soon after.
	And Jim didn't.
	And Jim kept fighting.
	He's been fighting since November of 2018.
	So we're going on seven years this November.
	And the trial was in June of the following year.
	Well, you mean the oral hearing.
	It was not a trial.
	Right, not a child.
	It turned out to be...
	How many times did he say judges apply to law, juries determine the facts, but every fact was disputed.
	He had to arrange it so there were no disputed facts, or at least so he could declare, which he did, in order to find me guilty in a summary judgment.
	Exactly.
	And so Jim...
	was found guilty of defaming Posner, and the judge granted an award of $450,000.
	And then later on...
	Yeah, the jury.
	Separate trial by the jury.
	Right.
	And just to make it clear, I was sued over three sentences in the book where I declared that Noah Posner's death certificate was fake.
	And one sentence in another publication, I introduced two forensic document experts who not only confirmed that it was fake, but that the alternative death certificate attached to the complaint was also fake, and that two other death certificates, one David got from the town, one I got from the tank, all four were fake!
	And the judge has said and decided that wasn't helpful.
	Now notice, that's weighing evidence to say it's not helpful.
	And he's not allowed to do that.
	But of course, I mean, there are so many ways in which I had vitiated the entire claim against me.
	And David, as you well know, he never even declared me to be a media representative, would have raised the bar for finding me liable, even though I was being sued for three sentences in a book I'd edited and another in a book to which I'd contributed.
	I mean, this is absurd!
	And he did everything in his power, as I mentioned, to knock down every piece of evidence, every motion that we brought and then later on that Jim brought, and everything in his power to grant the plaintiffs what they wanted.
	And like I said, Jim has been battling with this guy, with this Frank D. Remington.
	For almost seven years.
	Give me a few, I'll call you back.
	And we got to a point now where, and let me just make mention one more thing.
	The videotape deposition, which was controlled by me, I had it, and I gave it to Jim, and Jim wanted to use that.
	To continue to fight.
	And he gave it over to someone who was assisting him, not knowing that that would not be allowed because it was marked confidential.
	And the judge then found him in contempt and fined him another $650,000.
	So it was a $1.1 million judgment against Jim, which he's still fighting.
	And it even got to the point where the judge said, you know, Dr. Fetzer, you're not even allowed to file motions anymore.
	You know, I thought this was America.
	I guess not.
	And it's been such a battle.
	But the reason for this show is that Jim called me last night to give me some incredible news.
	Jim, why don't you tell the audience about that?
	Well, I had resurrected the suit based on new evidence.
	I had the benefit of a private investigator in Houston, Texas, Brian Davidson, who had, when I carried the case to the United States Supreme Court, and they had declined my initial petition for a writ of certiorari, I had submitted a motion for reconsideration.
	We're up against the break.
	We cannot hear it at this end, but it's taking place there.
	So we're going to pause for the break and we'll continue after.
	Stand by.
	Dustin, I'm on the air.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Well, by my calculation, we're back on the air.
	I'll back up just one minute for the framework here.
	It's been such a battle, but the reason for this show is that Jim called me last night to give me some incredible news.
	Jim, why don't you tell the audience about that?
	Well, I had resurrected the suit based on new evidence.
	I had the benefit of a private investigator in Houston, Texas, Bryan Davidson, who had, when I carried the case to the United States Supreme Court, and they had declined my initial petition for a writ of surgery, I had submitted a motion for reconsideration.
	It added new evidence where Brian had gone into the Connecticut State Police files and discovered right off the bat they'd removed all the metadata, which meant that technically they weren't admissible in court, but I regard them as admissible for proof of consciousness of guilt because the only reason they'd removed the metadata is because they were involved.
	And he found, by studying their photo file, where there's supposed to be blood and body, no blood, no body.
	Where there's supposed to be kids stacked up with a classroom, not only no kids, but no desks, no chairs, all the furniture pushed to the side.
	So he found not only evidence that it had not been a mass murder, but that it wasn't even an operating school.
	Well, what happened would be that I would continue, you know, having run through the United States Supreme Court, I was at a bit of a turning point.
	I discovered new evidence was available that allowed me to submit a motion to reopen, to open sanctions pursuant to extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the court, which included the presence of who was supposed to be Leonard Posner on 60 Minutes, but with somebody else.
	In fact, Dave, you know, in my very first I mean, when you get a complaint, you can move to dismiss, which I should have done because the complaint attached to the death certificate attached to the complaint didn't correspond to the death certificate I had published.
	But I wanted to get all the evidence into the public domain, and I thought through the judicial process was a way to do it.
	So I went ahead and sent me to my answer, but I began my answer saying, I'm presuming the plaintiff to be a real person.
	And I ended by saying that I believe the plaintiff was in fact not named Leonard Posner, but Reuben Vabner.
	Jim, let's take a look at that 60 minutes, a short clip from that 60 minutes.
	Well, here's the thing, Dave.
	Let me explain.
	Let me explain.
	This was very much a family affair because the Noah Posner turned out to be photographs of his Ruben He was very photogenic.
	But Michael Fabner's alive and well doing stand-up comedy in Cambridge.
	And I introduced this during the hearing.
	I introduced this, but the judge just ignored it.
	And that the party who came to testify here, and Dave, you may or may not remember, but they pushed it back a week.
	And the week was because they knew the transcript could be available in time for the oral hearing if they pushed it back a week.
	So I made up a phony reason, pushed it back a week.
	He came, gave the testimony.
	I thought he was too young, too small to be the one we had in photographs.
	You showed a lot of those photographs.
	And in fact, it now turns out, and Brian was very helpful, but it's, They said everyone in the community loved the book, but they were upset that I was being, you know, taken to court.
	They didn't like that.
	so they wanted to lend a hand, and indeed they did, including even some of the photographs of what turns out to be Ruben Vabner's older son, Benjamin Vabner, being made up to appear on 60 Minutes.
	David, including a whole series, a wonderful new affidavit from Brian Davidson documenting that Leonard Posner was actually Ruben Vabner, that Noah Foster was actually Michael Vabner as a child, and that the person who appeared in 60 Minutes was actually, I don't know if Ryan called it out to be Benjamin Vabner, but it's Benjamin Vabner.
	I mean, I'm just telling you, this whole thing is such a scandal.
	So you've got the attorneys even supporting perjury.
	You've got the judge in collusion with the attorneys.
	So I was making a big issue.
	And when I submitted this, the judge immediately rejected it.
	I mean, you've got to go through the steps of submission of motion, you go through the other party, they give a response, and they come back to me for reply.
	He skipped that.
	So I protested that.
	And he jettisoned it again, not going through the submission, response, reply.
	And then I submit a motion to recuse the judge.
	He rejected that, of course, again, right off the bat.
	So I now have four different appeals before the court that they've not ruled on.
	And what we're leading up to, David, is the following.
	They could have ruled on these some time ago.
	One of them even involved fining me, where they took money from my joint Tax return, federal and state, my wife part.
	So I protested this before as we didn't prompt, or you can only take, you know, incur a debt, collect from the debtor, not from his spouse or other relatives.
	But they know I did that the first time, and I protested, and it went up to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals came back and said, you can't do that.
	He did it again!
	He did it again!
	Finally, the Court of Appeals, so I've been sitting on that.
	They've been sitting on my other appeals.
	There's one final that remains where I now only have to write my reply brief.
	But what I learned from the response brief that they had delayed submitting was Judge Remington was retiring, and since he was retiring, the whole issue of his recusal was moved.
	David, he retired on May 3rd, and I didn't even know it.
	Now, his term of office ran until 1 August 2030.
	So they gave him the choice.
	You know, I'm sure it was quite a conversation.
	Frank, look, here's the situation.
	We got all this evidence.
	We're going to act on it.
	So you can decide to remain on the bench and be removed or recused or censured, or you can take an early retirement and he exercising his Wisdom and discretion.
	Choseworthy retirement!
	It's just fantastic!
	It's fantastic!
	So here I am, pro se, and you'll love this.
	You'll love this.
	I don't know if I've really truly shared this with you today, but Ruben Vabner, he's a good guy, okay?
	I'm actually in indirect contact with Ruben as well as I am with a party's cast as Emily Parker and cast as Victoria Soto, okay?
	And Rubin at one point said, "Jim's briefs have gotten a whole lot better.
	This is when I introduced a motion for reconsideration." And I explained back that's because now I was writing them myself.
	I'd had assistance in writing all my briefs, which you're entitled to have.
	You can get benefits.
	I mean, I would fine-tune them, and I would be submitting them, so they were my briefs technically.
	It's clear from the statutes that if you're a pro se litigant, if you're referencing yourself, you can solicit advice any way you want, even including from attorneys, Dave.
	So Rubin was saying he thought my briefs were a lot better, and I was saying, well, that's because I'm writing it myself.
	And the gal who was cast as Emily Parker, who turns out to be completely brilliant, she's She's claiming, she authors my briefs.
	It's just very, very amusing.
	The whole thing is absolutely just fabulous, fabulous beyond words.
	And this, I think, means we have an indication now that the case has turned and that that's the situation of judging.
	It's virtually unheard of for a judge to step down early to remove himself from the bench.
	Yes, exactly.
	Let's take a look at this clip.
	Yeah.
	This is the 60 minutes clip.
	It's just a short, short clip.
	But this is where Lenny Posner is all gussied up.
	Conversations denying the tragedy, accusing the government of staging it.
	What was the most hurtful thing they said about you?
	That Noah did not die?
	That I'm not Noah's father?
	It all revolves around the notion that these are staged shootings, that they're scripted events, that I'm an actor, that I'm paid to fake the death of a child.
	Before the COVID pandemic, we hired theatrical makeup artists to disguise Posner for his safety.
	He's pursued by death threats.
	One woman left a voicemail saying, Sooner.
	How many times have you had to move your family?
	Around seven times.
	He's targeted because he's invented ways to fight back.
	He copyrighted photos of his son to control how they're used.
	He published a letter to Facebook's CEO that read, You have deemed our lives are less important than providing a safe haven for hate.
	This was meant by you and your ex-wife to be That has been really the only effective way to get change for online platforms.
	It began a relationship with Facebook that helped them learn about the material that is being posted on their platform and how it is abusive.
	Defamatory.
	Have you seen a difference, a practical difference in Facebook?
	Yes, it's almost all gone.
	Of course, we saw the whole interview.
	You know, Dave, I have never...
	I'll just tell you, the whole thing is a fraud.
	Totally fake.
	That isn't Leonard Posner.
	There isn't a Leonard Posner.
	Leonard Posner's a fiction.
	If he even went to where he was supposed to have lived, there's no Leonard Posner who lived there.
	All these moves are fabrications.
	It's all fake.
	They haven't been harassed.
	It's all bullshit.
	This is Benjamin Vabner made up to more resemble the individual they had at the Sandy Hook as Leonard Posner.
	They made him up to look more like, but I'm telling you, the whole thing is a monster scam.
	I don't know how much 60 Minutes knew about the facts of the matter, but this is a grotesque play of the American people.
	And the public, see, can't wrap their mind around the idea that there could be a scam of such enormous proportion.
	Twenty children killed, six adults.
	The government says the president is there confirming it.
	You got the attorney general involved.
	I mean, you know, the whole state of Connecticut would have to be a complicit if this were a fraud.
	Well, That's the fact.
	The whole state of Connecticut is complicit.
	It was a fraud.
	It was even run behind the scene by the Connecticut State Police.
	There is no Leonard Posner.
	There is no Noah Posner.
	Nobody died.
	It was a FEMA drill.
	I can tell you the parties involved agency, the whole thing.
	Totally, total scam, David.
	Total scam.
	So what do you think, with him gone, what do you think will happen now?
	I think they're going to reverse the case.
	See, I was asking to reverse the case, you know, send it back to trial, but normally there wouldn't even be another trial.
	They have appointed now a very good replacement for Remington, who is an assistant.
	Oh, they already did.
	Yeah, they've already done it.
	A woman assistant attorney general.
	She looks very, very confident.
	So if it were to set back for a trial, I'll just rip them a new one because, I mean, my evidence now will be admissible.
	For God's sake, I got the FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012.
	To this day, it says for deaths in Newtown, of which Sandy Hook is a division, zero.
	Zero deaths in Newtown.
	Yeah, here it is, right.
	That's where he's calling for the applicants to replace Frank Remington.
	But he's already replaced.
	If you did a search, you can find her.
	I think her first name is Susan.
	I've got it somewhere, but the fact is, this is stunning, David!
	Stunning!
	God, I love it!
	Absolutely.
	So, replacement.
	Let's see if we can find it here.
	So, you know, I've got a search for New Dane County Circuit Court Judge underway.
	That was in March.
	Seeks applicants.
	Oh, here it is.
	I got it.
	Okay, here we go.
	And this is not that old, so let's bring this up.
	Brand new?
	Yeah, well, just two weeks?
	No, no, no.
	May 3rd.
	No, no, I mean the replacement.
	Well, it just been announced.
	Just been announced.
	Here it is.
	Okay, it's got April 28th.
	We've got the name.
	Stephanie.
	Stephanie Hilton.
	Yep, Stephanie.
	She's been Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, co-leads the Wisconsin Sexual Assault Initiative, co-chair jury trials, multiple felonies.
	Look, she's good.
	I'll be glad.
	I'll be glad to have a new juror.
	You know, there's so many aspects to this.
	The degree of corruption is so monumental, Dave.
	This is a stunning stuff.
	Because as I spelled out, I spelled out, you can flip back to us.
	As I spelled out in my motion to open sanctions pursuant to extrinsic fraud upon the court, the judge was in a...
	So, I mean, he was involved in conspiracy.
	And I've proven it.
	The evidence I submitted, that 548 pages, man, I just nail it right in the lab.
	That's her, Jim.
	Yeah, that's her.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	It's good.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Excellent.
	Yeah.
	Let me tell you a couple aspects of this when we flip us back.
	Sure.
	We're back.
	The Posner attorneys were made lawyers of the year in Minnesota for taking me down in a completely contrived rigged case.
	They got lawyer of the year.
	So, I don't know.
	My opinion of the bar associations is they don't give a shit what anyone does.
	They're there to protect them.
	We had the case of this Judy Carnes, who was, you know, Zoker, Saranov's attorney, who formally pled him guilty.
	And then in her second paragraph, she said he did it.
	He did it.
	So they didn't have to prove it.
	But he didn't do it.
	He didn't do it.
	The whole thing was framed.
	a retired professor of law, okay?
	Jack.
	Yeah, Jack, who pointed out that we have photographs of them there and the backpacks don't match the backpacks that exploded.
	The backpacks that exploded were compact black nylon.
	With a white square, and I think the white square meant they were loaded, okay?
	They wear big, baggy backpacks that weren't the same shape or the same color.
	So we got photographs of them in the street, on Boylton Street, where their backpacks show.
	You know, you heard the phrase, right?
	If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
	Well, the backpacks don't match.
	They didn't do it!
	They didn't do it!
	Of course not.
	Look, I submitted that.
	We submitted that to the Massachusetts and recorded it, ignored it.
	I wrote to the California bar that she was being used in all these cases to seal the deal, you know, in fraudulent legal, like they didn't give a damn.
	They don't care.
	These law boards just don't give a shit, Dave.
	It's absolutely awesome.
	How can there be this degree of corruption in the judicial system in the United States?
	It's because the damn lawyers are covering their own ass, one another.
	And when this first happened, when we got sued in November of 2018, you actually believed that you could get justice.
	I thought it would go according to the way I understood summary judgment.
	I produce all my evidence.
	the plaintiff is supposed to agree or disagree.
	If he agrees, But they're my facts.
	And then you proceed to a judgment because there are no disputed facts.
	In this case, every aspect of this was disputed.
	He said it was a real shooting.
	I said it was a FEMA drill.
	He said all these people had died.
	I said nobody died.
	He said his son's death certificate was authentic.
	I said it was fake.
	And in every case, of course, I was right.
	He was wrong.
	But the courts upheld.
	And these lawyers, who have an ethical obligation to conduct themselves in court with truth, were just blatantly lying throughout and were so esteemed by their colleagues, they were made Lawyers of the Year in Minnesota for a totally fake red case about a sham event.
	It was all part of an elaborate cover-up.
	And by the way, Eric Holder was at the center.
	He came to Newtown, it turned out, in 2006.
	And offered the community $114 million if they would do this, which was supposed to illustrate what could happen, what hypothetically could happen, if we don't take guns away from the American people.
	There's video of Eric Holder back in 1995 addressing a National Women's Democratic Conference in Washington saying, we've got to brainwash the American people to change their attitude.
	Well, this is how they did it, using FEMA.
	And get this, David.
	They had auditions for the rolls.
	They had signed non-disclosure agreements.
	They still get benefits.
	They don't pay any taxes.
	They get free college.
	It goes on to this day.
	Get this, Dave.
	The scam is still bringing in.
	This is through Sandy Hook Promise.
	The scam is still bringing in a million bucks a month.
	A million bucks a month.
	Now the reason why my parties, they were cast by their mothers.
	Their mothers put them into the...
	So they never signed the non-disclosure agreements.
	And they're bent out of shape.
	But the way I was being turned into a pretzel, actually a piñata, I mean, they just beat me.
	Man, mercilessly in court, legally.
	David, let me give you a perfect illustration.
	They wanted to do a DNA test to confirm that Leonard Posner was the father of Noah Posner.
	Well, I knew they were going to establish a parent-child relationship by DNA because he was a parent and child, but Reuben Vabner and Michael Vabner.
	So I said, okay, Judge, let's do it four ways.
	Let's get the DNA for...
	He ignored it.
	He just ignored it.
	I don't think he ruled favorably for any motion I submitted.
	I don't think he ruled favorably even one time, Dave.
	I'd be surprised if even one time this shot.
	And he immediately bifurcated the case.
	Yeah, but that's because I had counterclaims.
	I have counterclaims for fraud.
	And unfortunately, we agreed with it.
	Well, we didn't have the choice.
	I mean, he bifurcated.
	That's why I couldn't do discovery and get more evidence.
	So he was not only going to exclude all the evidence I already had.
	he wasn't going to let me acquire any new evidence by bifurcating.
	So he only gets around to my claims after the And I think that's why Alex said it's rigged.
	Well, he was right.
	Get out.
	It's rigged.
	Get out.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if this works, Jim, if they reverse this, holy mackerel.
	I mean, you hung in there, buddy.
	You hung in there and fought.
	You don't give up.
	There's no way this judge would be stepping down.
	Except under the most extreme conditions of being confronted with being removed from the bench.
	Of course.
	Or retiring.
	And obviously those are your choices.
	Yeah, they all want to retire.
	You know, play their time out, but he couldn't because of what you're doing to him.
	I mean, it's just so obvious, if anybody follows the case, how obvious it is that this guy was making these rulings, like you said, without even following the procedure.
	Oh, yeah, he was violating judicial procedure again and again, and I was calling it out again and again, and these appeals are sensational, David.
	Look, I had seven examples.
	Because the judge himself said there's no justification for recusal unless he had made blatantly biased rulings in the past.
	So I gave not one, two, I gave seven, seven blatant rulings, including that he ignored the affidavit from Kelly Watt.
	The whole case was predicated on my having published a version of the death certificate that wasn't the version that Posner, ironically, had given to Kelly Watt because they'd been in a...
	And she had told him she didn't believe he had a son, didn't believe he died, blah, blah, blah.
	So one day he said, well, go to my Google Plus page, and here's his death certificate that has no file number, no town, no state certification to her.
	So here's how it turned out, and I only learned this during the oral hearing.
	They claimed that what actually given was a complete death certificate, and somehow – We created this fake.
	Why did an affidavit from Kelly Watt say, no, no, no, the one published was the one she was given, which settles the case right there?
	Exactly.
	They just ignored it.
	So I had seven of that caliber.
	Seven.
	Yep.
	Stand by.
	We're hitting another break right here on Revolution Radio.
	Then we'll complete.
	My interview with Dave Gaherian.
	Unleash Paul for his critique.
	We'll be right back.
	Susan, I'd like you to recast this as a defamation suit for federal court for that Western District Court here in Wisconsin.
	And you use almost everything and new stuff.
	This has to be the most massive defamation.
	And, I mean, just take a look at that and see if that's feasible.
	That's something we can do.
	I mean, the Oregon Police Department had left me down, but I want to pursue this and go as far as I can.
	I think you can find federal statutes on criminal harassment and so forth.
	I mean, well, whatever you find.
	Find the strongest case can be made for harassment, for cyber bullying, for elder abuse and all that, but recast it as a federal suit, primarily for defamation.
	If that works for you, Susan.
	Thanks, thanks, thanks.
	Thanks, thanks.
	My estimates are right.
	We're back on the air.
	Paul, the break has ended.
	We're going to conclude my interview with Dave Goharry, and then I elicit your commentary, your critique.
	Stand by.
	Yeah, because if that was the death certificate that you had in the book, and you proved that that wasn't the authentic death certificate, they should have just quit the case right there and said, mistrial.
	Of course, of course, of course, of course, of course.
	And then we had the two forensic doc experts I mentioned and, you know, the bifurcating the case and not declaring me to be a media person.
	Completely ignored the experts.
	Oh, yeah.
	What did he say exactly?
	They didn't have an expert to assert they were authentic because, of course, they were fake.
	What did FDR say about not even, Oh, he said they weren't helpful.
	You said they were to help.
	That sounds like a...
	They weren't helpful to his determination.
	Right, right.
	I mean, who is he to determine if they're not?
	It had to go to a jury.
	See, this is why I went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	It was a Seventh Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment case, Dave, because Does the defendant have a way of disputing?
	In Texas, it would have been thrown out right away.
	But in Wisconsin, so I'd point out Wisconsin has a mocked-up procedure.
	Texas has better.
	That violates the 14th Amendment, equal protection, because if Wisconsin had the same process in Texas, which is a proper process, it would have been thrown out.
	And I can't believe they passed on it.
	I believe it had to be political pressure.
	Because get this, David, this is ironic.
	Of the first 10 amendments, and this was Posner's team arguing this because I was unaware of it, nine of the first 10 amendments have all been affirmed by the Supreme Court to apply to all 50 states, only one not.
	The seventh!
	So I was teed up for the Supreme Court not only to correct the flawed summary judgment procedure in Wisconsin, but to make it uniform for all 50 states.
	And as I was giving them an historic opportunity to set the record straight.
	And anyone who reads a brief, they're going to see I just teed it up for them to knock it way down the fairway.
	It would have been terrific in that they passed.
	I submit.
	Had to be politically driven.
	Had to have been politically driven.
	Right.
	And SCOTUS just ignored it.
	Well, they declined to issue the red.
	And then I did the reconsideration.
	This is interesting.
	When I did the motion for reconsideration, I had exhibits A through E. And A through E somehow got published, but E...
	They didn't publish that.
	they did not the supreme court of the united they did not publish my supporting exhibits which is absolutely All that stuff is supposed to be made public.
	It's never been published by the Supreme Court.
	I make it available.
	I included it when I went in my motion for open sanctions, Dave.
	But the Supreme Court did not.
	And I tell you, the new affidavit, Brian, did is so sensational.
	It just rips the whole case.
	I think I just had so much evidence.
	And here's another thing.
	With those seven cases where he violated my rights, I reaffirmed them again and again.
	I gave more and more opportunity for the lawyers to dispute.
	They never disputed one of the seven, which I pointed out was an admission.
	Admission!
	And I repeatedly did this.
	I even had a whole separate filing just to point out that they had not denied any of the seven gross violations of my rights, any one of which was sufficient to vitiate the whole case.
	Which meant they admitted it.
	I think this sealed the deal for Remington.
	I don't think he had any way out.
	Yeah.
	Masterful, Jim.
	Masterful.
	I know you said you had to leave at quarter till, right?
	I'll just tell you, David.
	Now I've got my feet wet.
	I've got the hang of this thing.
	And I loved it when Ruben, you know, regardless of being engaged in a chess game, and I respect, because he had a major role in conducting the whole muddy thing, okay?
	A chess game.
	But we have mutual respect, and I like the guy.
	When this is all said and done, when the opportunity arises, all said, I will have drinks together, even dinner, okay?
	Along with my friends at Sandy Hook.
	I'm looking forward to that, Dave.
	Wow.
	And I just want to tell you how much I appreciate all your efforts, and it was wonderful, your explanation here of the case, absolutely sensational.
	And if anyone has the least interest, because I'm still, there's a residual aspect.
	Sandy Hook Promise appears to have hired a guy who's a character assassin to come after me.
	And this character assassin, who calls himself Victor Hugo, Victor Hugo Vaca Jr., has done hundreds, hundreds!
	You wouldn't believe it.
	Hundreds of videos attacking me and my colleagues who stood up for me.
	And I've got to take legal action against him and against Rumble and Bitchute, which have been allowing this to stand in front of repeated protests.
	Cease and desist demands and the like, David.
	I need help financially.
	If anyone out there, go to my givesandgo.com slash fundingfetzer, givesandgo.com slash fundingfetzer.
	I give you links.
	You can look at these hundreds of video attacks.
	I give you links.
	You can see where I wrote an open letter to him explaining this was indefensible.
	I give you all the evidence you could possibly want to understand.
	If you are in a position to assist, I need the help.
	And Dave, you've been wonderful in Moonrock Books.
	I mean, and of course, Sandy Hook was only the first of many.
	That's right.
	And Amazon kept banning them.
	Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, even the moon landing.
	So they had six of them.
	That had the Holocaust in it.
	Yeah, I know, I know.
	That was actually ADL.
	The other was all the SEMA, the Eric Holder and the government.
	Using the company Amazon.com to perform tasks that the First Amendment does not allow the government to perform directly.
	Exactly.
	I put the link in the chat there.
	Give Sango Funding Fetcher.
	Let me just show it right here real quick before you head out.
	Yeah, we got a Mother's Day thing.
	Oh, very nice.
	I got to take the mother over to the daughter.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And there it is.
	Yeah.
	See, there you go.
	There you go.
	See, Victor Hugo Jim Fetcher.
	No, go back.
	Yeah, right there, right there, right there.
	We actually had a debate where I called him up because he feigns being a veteran.
	Dave, you will appreciate this.
	I called him up, got him to admit he was never commissioned as an ensign, never served on active duty.
	He's got two donation sites on Give, Send, Go where he says he's a veteran.
	So I've even written to Annapolis to complain about this.
	That's stolen valor.
	Stolen valor indeed.
	This guy is a nasty piece of work.
	Yeah, Jim, before you head out, Let me just bring us back.
	We got a couple of comments in the chat.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	The first one says, it's from Bushmaster, 6A says, love Dr. Jim Fetzer, a man with guts.
	And Lori just tuned in.
	Glad to see Jim.
	Justice for Jim's reputation.
	Victor is in a fucking rampage.
	Jim is correct.
	He is unrelenting.
	I watched Victor's garbage yesterday.
	He's putting out as many as eight videos a day, Dave.
	Eight videos a day!
	That Sandy Hook promises.
	They're the bad guys.
	They get millions of dollars from the Jews media.
	They do?
	No.
	This hoax is blown in at a million bucks a month to this day, Dave.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, I know.
	To this day.
	Sandy Hook promises where it's all going.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Absolutely wonderful.
	Great to see you, Jim.
	You look sensational.
	I love it.
	I love it.
	You do, too.
	I love Samoa and Matt.
	It's just wonderful, Dave.
	Thank you, Jim.
	It was great seeing you in New Orleans a little bit ago.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You got it.
	And I hope to see you soon, my friend.
	It'll happen, Dave.
	Off for Mother's Day.
	And I wish everyone out there a wonderful Mother's Day.
	Absolutely.
	You and Simone included.
	Simone included, Dave.
	Thank you, Jim.
	Love you, buddy.
	Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart.
	Thank you.
	Bye.
	All right.
	There goes Jim Fetzer.
	And it's a very significant, very significant case here.
	This judge, this Judge Remington.
	Let me show you a picture of this guy.
	All right.
	Let's get a picture of this guy.
	Judge Remington.
	All right.
	Doesn't matter anything for the listeners here, Jim.
	Frank D. Remington.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So here's old Frank Remington.
	That's not a really good picture of him.
	Let me get another one.
	I don't like that picture.
	I'll get a good picture of him.
	Well, here he is.
	It's a family of lawyers.
	Here he is.
	I remember seeing this picture years ago.
	This is him and his son and his wife.
	Let me just see here.
	Yeah, the pictures suck.
	I don't know why.
	Well, all Paul is that.
	Paul, yeah.
	It's not good radio.
	Yeah, I have done, you know, a better picture of him.
	Go ahead, Paul, give me your critique.
	What do you think?
	Well, I mean, I don't know if I have a critique.
	You know, I would just say, I hope events unfold to justify your optimism, but I have my doubts, you know, the way these people roll, they're going to find some way or another to screw you over.
	As you once said, well, you said it more than once.
	A guest, someone told you that once the government has fixed itself with a lie, it doesn't move off its position.
	It's going to be till death do us part with that lie.
	And I just think they're in some way, shape, or form not going to let you win, although there may be some legal finagling that will perhaps let you off the hook with the judgment.
	I don't know.
	But, I mean, obviously, you're right.
	You're correct.
	You've been correct from the beginning.
	And it just proves, you know, so many things that I say and reinforce about so much is fake that we're dealing with, right?
	Very few things are authentic.
	And this, of course, takes the cake.
	Now, again, I have no way of knowing.
	I'm just giving my opinion here.
	What I would call a pool of American citizens that is freely donating their money monthly to the Sandy Hook Promise.
	If anything, if the money coming in is real, then it's my firm opinion that it's all intelligence, community, government money.
	I will never believe, at this point now, what, 13 years since the event occurred, nearly?
	People, in a residual sort of manner, people, average person continues to pour money into this for what?
	What's Sandy Hook Promise going to do?
	You know, I don't buy it.
	I don't think you could quite get it, Paul.
	No, listen to me.
	Sandy Hook has arranged agreements with school districts all over the United States.
	They make monthly donations to Sandy Hook Promise.
	To promote gun control and school safety all over the country.
	I've tried repeatedly to address the Los Angeles Unified School District about this issue and why they should decouple from Sandy Hook Promise.
	But you just don't know the facts.
	That's all.
	No, no, my characterization...
	Knowing the facts.
	It's not naive.
	Okay, look, it's not naive.
	My assessment was exactly correct.
	The only way they can get this kind of money is with a fix.
	So they basically fixed it with all these various school districts.
	Yeah.
	It's like an automatic kind of a thing.
	It's like these fees.
	Look, I mentioned this book before.
	It's been a long time.
	I don't know when.
	The 90s or the late 80s, but it's called Gotcha.
	Capitalism.
	And in there, what they did is they detailed all these ridiculous little fees that they put on everything.
	They put on utility bills, right, and so forth, where they just have all these little fees.
	Sometimes they're as little as 50 cents or $1.75.
	and cumulatively across.
	It's like, for example, the various taxes on gas and cigarettes and liquor.
	It's a fixed job of...
	I fucking hate it, but there's nothing we can do about it.
	It's like now they're doing it everywhere when you go buy something at the store.
	Would you like to round up for this?
	Would you like to round up for that?
	Almost everywhere I go, it's the same bullshit.
	People are not going to voluntarily give money to this shit.
	So what they do is exactly what you said.
	So I was only naive to the mechanism of what you just described.
	But my characterization is exactly correct.
	And by the way, you were actually alluding to a conversation I had with James Files, who claims to be the second shooter on the grassy knoll in JFK.
	But he appears to me to be acting in accordance with a script.
	Where there are a lot of people who believe files.
	He's supposed to have fired the temple, Sean.
	But I've been able to disprove it.
	I like the guy.
	I like the guy tremendously.
	He came up here to Madison.
	I took him and his wife to dinner at my favorite Longhorn Steakhouse.
	We had a wonderful conversation.
	we hit it off tremendously.
	If we were...
	He's a serious guy.
	I have no doubt he is a hitman for the mob.
	I believe he was involved in serious cases.
	And it was he who said to me twice.
	And it stuck in my mind.
	Now, once the government takes that position, it never changes.
	It's locked in and will never change.
	And we're talking about both JFK on the one hand and 9-11 on the other.
	Once a government takes opposition, it'll never change, which of course shows it's not a research institution, it's not even a rational institution, because when you get new evidence, you gotta change or revise your conclusion to correspond to the new evidence or alternative hypotheses, but the government will not do it.
	We know, for example, that list of 19 Islamic hijackers Mohammed Atta called his dad the next day.
	He was terrified because he knew his mean search.
	A half an Uzzama turned up alive and well, but the government has never altered its position.
	There's proof after proof.
	All four of the crash sites were fake, but the government won't alter its position.
	Of course.
	Multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza, but the government will never alter its position.
	Paul, go ahead.
	Well, I mean, of course.
	All they do is promote lies.
	I mean, that's the world that they want us to believe in.
	And I mean, here's the thing.
	It's unfortunate, but my experience has told me that it will be ongoing.
	and it will continue to work.
	I don't have the interaction with people the way that I used to, but during my, you know,
	And over and over and over again, when I would mention things, right, mention topics, books, authors, you know, such things as that, people would always go, no, no, no, they never heard of them, right?
	Even to this day, I mean, I don't really do it anymore, but I mean, talk about… Right?
	And I have never had anybody say they had.
	Now, we're known online.
	That's why I give people like Victor Hugo and others, I pay them no never mind for the most part because we're in a fairly small pond, I would imagine.
	I used an analogy that I don't think rises to the level of a lake in an ocean of enormous.
	And my experience is the world is filled with normies who don't know anything.
	They don't know that there really isn't justice.
	I do.
	I've known there's no justice for a very long time.
	They don't give it to you.
	I knew that's what they were going to do in your case.
	The fact that the judge can do and say all these things, and I had experienced this on my own, in my own small way, in my forays into the court system and also with others.
	And, yeah, they make it up as they go.
	They do not even care what's written down in the law.
	And, you know, time and time again, it's just proved out.
	And as far as banning of books, this is not a new thing.
	Erwin Schiff wrote a book called The Federal Mafia after he had already written books about the great income tax hoax.
	He wrote a book called How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Tax.
	How about that title?
	He wrote a book called The Biggest Con.
	And several others.
	At the time, he was a really well-known economist, radio personality, and author.
	And in the 90s, he put out a book.
	There's about 500-something pages called The Federal Mafia.
	And the Department of Justice took him to court and was asking for a federal injunction to prohibit the sale of this book.
	And they got it.
	And what was their protest based upon?
	That he was, quote, promoting an illegal tax shelter, which is total nonsense.
	Now, I can actually still get that book because somebody that I know bought up all the copies that there were and still has possession of them and you can still find it.
	But it was unlawful for him to sell that book.
	Because of an injunction against that sale.
	And that's why he went to jail.
	A lot of people don't know if they've heard of the case.
	Oh yeah, Irwin Schiff, he went to jail because he didn't pay taxes.
	No, you fucking morons.
	He went to jail because he violated, like a man with balls similar to you, he violated the injunction and continued to sell his book because he correctly thought that it is not right.
	It's not proper.
	It's unconstitutional to ban the sale of a book.
	So now they just have a corporation do it.
	That's it.
	They control the corporations.
	So now we have essentially corporate tyranny as well as so-called government tyranny.
	Yeah, Paul, you make many, many excellent points.
	Many, many excellent points.
	Here's another example.
	I've told this story many times about what the average normie doesn't know.
	And so I've mentioned many times how during the so-called pandemic, which didn't exist, just walking around, talking to people, going for hikes, I would engage, especially the ones that were wearing the mask on the hiking trail in 80, 90 degree weather.
	Okay, that was my favorite.
	And over and over again, over the course of about two and a half years, I asked at least Could have been slightly more.
	Right around that number.
	Can you tell me what a virus is?
	Or do you know what the difference is between a virus and a bacteria?
	And Jim, it was 100% of the time they had no answer.
	100%.
	One time out of those people, a lady tried to stumble her way through what she thought was, you know, well, it's kind of a thing and it does this and it does that.
	But she was the only one that actually uttered any words.
	To my question on the spot, do you know what a virus is or can you tell me the difference between a virus or bacteria?
	Every single person, a variety of people, men, women, older, younger, middle-aged, had no answer.
	I found a similar experience when I first read the books The Cholesterol Hoax and The Cholesterol Myth, just as an example.
	Probably back in the 90s, I would say.
	I did most of my reading way back in the 80s and the 90s as a rule, and then along came the internet in the early 2000s, and I have not done as much since.
	But over and over again, I would run into people about this, that, or the other conversations would ensue, and I would bring something up such as that, because taking cholesterol medication is a very common thing, right?
	Very common and very lucrative for these pharmaceutical companies.
	And of course, it's completely unnecessary, and it doesn't do any good at all.
	In fact, it only does harm.
	And in both of these books, it spells out the mechanism of action for how these cholesterol drugs work.
	And nobody ever has known that.
	And it's very simple, right?
	They simply suppress an enzyme in the liver that's responsible for the manufacture of cholesterol.
	So your body makes cholesterol.
	So the amount that you eat dietarily has no effect, right?
	And that was proven back in the 60s with what's known as the Framingham study.
	Where they gave a group of men, you know, various diets, including a group that ate all the eggs and bacon and butter they wanted, and they did not have a rise in serum cholesterol.
	So the dietary and serum cholesterol were basically unrelated.
	And this had been well known in the literature for a long time, and yet one of the largest drugs that accounts for sales in the pharmaceutical industry are cholesterol-lowering drugs.
	Which is silly because if you don't take in enough dietary cholesterol, your body makes it on its own because it's necessary.
	And actually, studies have shown that older people are slightly protected by higher levels of cholesterol, and it's hypothesized that it's a coping mechanism by the body.
	So, anyway, a person, of course, has never heard of a book called The Cholesterol Myth or The Cholesterol Hoax, much less read them.
	And I would bet you right now, if you go around and take a man on the street pole, just walking around and pole 1,000 people, 2,000, 10,000 people.
	Sad to say, most people would have no idea what Sandy Hook was, what happened there, allegedly.
	They would have no idea of your battle in court.
	They wouldn't know who Lenny Posner was, despite the fact that 60 Minutes is a nationally televised show.
	Most people just care about their lives.
	And this is the world in which we live.
	And that was my...
	what you're doing is still a noble cause, despite everything I just said.
	Well, Paul, I so appreciate you in so many different ways, even when we disagree, because...
	Even though you're a skeptic about nukes, I like having diverse points of view.
	I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech and in Sir Karl Popper's observation that our most reliable method for discovering truth is open and unfettered discussion and debate to which, in my opinion, you make Invaluable contributions, and I'm very pleased to have you here as my co-host on Mondays and Fridays.
	Paul, thank you for this.
	Meanwhile, everyone, spend as much time as you can with your family, your friends and people you love and care about, because we do not know how much time we have left, and look at the situation now.
	The missiles are flying in Ukraine.
	Russia has declared Ukraine to be a threat to its existence as a nation.
	No telling where this is going to lead.
	So, for what time we have left, don't waste a precious minute of it.
	Meanwhile, support Revolution Radio.
	Have a great weekend.
	Back on Monday.
	God willing.

▲