The Sandy Hook Lawsuit: Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer

_______________________________________

STATE OF WISCONSIN

LEONARD POZNER,
vs.

JAMES FETZER,
MIKE PALECEK, AND
WRONGS WITHOUT WREMEDIES, LLC,

Defendants

_______________________________________

FILED
02-25-2019 CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY, WI 2018CV003122

DANE COUNTY

CASE TYPE: DEFAMATION

ANSWER TO MOTION TO STRIKE BY

DEFENDANT JAMES FETZER NO. 2018-CV-003122

Plaintiff

CIRCUIT COURT

_______________________________________

Comes now Defendant James Fetzer (hereinafter “Defendant”), and he answers the Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer filed by Plaintiff pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 802.06(6) and Defendant’s allegations of fraud pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 802.03(2), to wit:

MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant Fetzer’s “purported ‘Answer’” because it fails to meet the basic requirements of Wis. Stat. § 802.02, especially because Defendant does not admit or deny the 51 numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint that are purported to have given rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff further attempts to limit Defendant’s ability to pursue discovery, which reinforces Defendant’s belief that this lawsuit is brought for the purpose of harassment and to conceal what actually happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School (hereinafter “SHES”) on December 14, 2012, from the American people. This also explains why the death certificate plays such a crucial role in this deception; truth after all, is an absolute defense against defamation. Plaintiff thus wants to keep Defendant from exercising his right to expose SHES truth.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER CONSTITUED A GENERAL DENIAL

Three kinds of denials need to be distinguished, moreover: general denials, which encompass the complaints made in their totality; specific denials, which deny individual claims by enumeration; and special denials, which are affirmations of facts that constitute denials of elements of the Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant’s Answer provided both general and special denials. Defendant’s Answer clearly constituted a general denial of the Plaintiff’s claims and advanced special denials, including both direct and indirect proof that the death certificate in dispute does not appear to be authentic. Plaintiff maintains in addition, “Defendant Fetzer baselessly asserts that the State of Connecticut issued a counterfeit death certificate. To the extent Defendant Fetzer is accusing Plaintiff and/or the State of Connecticut of committing fraud, he has failed to plead that allegation with the required degree of particularity.”

Defendant finds this allegation bewildering, insofar as numbered paragraphs 8-14 of Defendant’s Answer identify specific features of the disputed death certificate with regard to its color and texture, variation in fonts (both with respect to size and style) and various other specific features that are exceedingly particular regarding the document in question, including the following elements of Defendant’s Answer [Emphasis added 8-14 below]:

8. The copy of the death certificate circulated by the plaintiff, the same mentioned in the last two lines of paragraph 3 hereof, is materially different from the death certificate said to be prepared by the State of Connecticut, among other things in that the copy circulated by the plaintiff has no file number, no state seal, is different in color and texture, and includes text which was plainly enough photo-shopped. The said features of the circulated copy substantiate the conclusion of the defendant Fetzer that the purported death certificate of N. P. is inauthentic and fake.

9. As reported on pages 182-183 in the publication mentioned in the last two lines of paragraph 3 hereof, the type is clearly smaller in Box 3 than in the rest of the page. Moreover, capital A in Box 12, Box 22, and Box 33 has a small flat in the pinnacle, yet the capital A in Box 12, Box 22, Box 26, Box 39, and Box 46 does not have a small flat in the pinnacle, which indicates fabrication and fakery.

10. Again as reported on pages 182-183 in the publication mentioned in the last two lines of paragraph 3 hereof, the spacing between “N” and “o” in Box 1 and Box 7 are clearly different, which indicates fabrication and fakery.

11. Again as reported on pages 182-183 in the publication mentioned in the last two lines of paragraph 3 hereof, the “N” in Box 1 and the “N” in Box 26, are clearly not the same, which indicates fabrication and fakery.

12. Again as reported on pages 182-183 in the publication mentioned in the last two lines of paragraph 3 hereof, the spacing between “S” and “a” in Box 1 is clearly not the same as the spacing between “S” and “a” in Box 11, which indicates fabrication and fakery.

13. Again as reported on pages 182-183 in the publication mentioned in the last two lines of paragraph 3 hereof, the printing of the name “Pozner” in Box 1 is clearly different from the name “Pozner” in Box 20, which indicates fabrication and fakery.

14. Because of the variation in spacing and fonts in the copy of the death certificate circulated by the plaintiff and the copy said to be certified by the State of Connecticut, hereinabove described in paragraphs 8 through 13 hereof, if the latter is the same as the former as insisted by the plaintiff, the latter is most likely inauthentic and a fake prepared as such by the State of Connecticut, as the defendant Fetzer believes.

Plaintiff claims Defendant has not identified the specific players who created the death certificate with regard to “the time, place, and content of an . . . alleged misrepresentation,” which Defendant hopes to expose during discovery. Curiously, both local and state officials have been evasive about even releasing death certificates in the case of SHES. As Defendant explains in his Prologue, “Thinking about Sandy Hook: Reality or Illusion?”, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed. 2016, page 7), the Clerk of Newtown entered into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid issuing death certificates; the Attorney General of Connecticut argued against the release of the 9-1-1 calls about the alleged shooting; a special panel of the state legislature recommended that any state employee who released information about the alleged shooting other than via FOIA requests be prosecuted as an E-felony with a five-year sentence; and those who participated in the demolition of the school were required to sign lifetime gag orders not to reveal anything they had seen or not seen during its destruction— which reflect the pattern known as a “cover-up”.

Defendant believes Plaintiff was involved in fabricating the death certificate for “Noah Samuel Pozner”, which Defendant intends to vigorously pursue during discovery. Defendant has noted that the copy of the death certificate attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is of extremely poor quality, where Defendant intends to demand the production of the original death certificate certified by the State of Connecticut in discovery—and to request the Court’s assistance in determining the Plaintiff’s actual identity, insofar as Defendant’s research (presented in his books and videos and other research on the alleged SHES shooting) strongly suggests, that “Leonard Pozner” is a fake name to conceal his true identity. Indeed, in her recent blog, “Sandy Hook’s ‘Leonard Pozner’ sues Professor James Fetzer and publisher”—jamesfetzer.org/2018/12/dr- eowyn-sandy-hooks-leonard-pozner-sues-professor-james-fetzer-and-publisher—Dr. Eowyn, who publishes extensively on the alleged SHES shooting, reports, “people search engines Spokeo and TruthFinder say there is no such person named ‘Leonard Pozner’ in all of the United States.”

Defendant’s Answer demonstrates that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike has no basis or foundation with regard to Defendant’s allegation that the State of Connecticut has issued a counterfeit (fake, forged or fabricated) death certificate for the party known as “Noah Samuel Pozner”. On the contrary, paragraphs 8-14 above leave no room for serious doubt that the document in question is a counterfeit (fake, forged or fabricated), where Defendant’s contention is conditional rather than declarative, namely: if Plaintiff’s affirmation that this document does not differ in any material respect from the document certified by the State of Connecticut is correct, then the conclusion that the State of Connecticut has issued a counterfeit (fake, forged or fabricated) death certificate is not in doubt [Emphasis added].

Defendant also observes that Plaintiff cannot possibly be unaware of the serious issues revolving around the authenticity of the death certificate, regarding both the certificate Plaintiff sent to Kelley Watt and the various versions of the State of Connecticut’s certificate. Defendant’s First Request for Admissions from Plaintiff includes the images of six death certificates, including five for “Noah Samuel Pozner”, which are not the same in numerous respects and establish prima facie proof that the death certificates in question are counterfeit (fake, forged or fabricated), as Defendant has repeatedly asserted in video presentations, radio interviews and public lectures.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER ALSO ADVANCED SPECIAL DENIALS

Defendant’s Answer also advanced special denials of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which offer indirect (or “circumstantial”) proof that the events of December 14, 2012 presented to the public as mass murder were based upon a two-day Federal Emergency Management Agency (hereinafter “FEMA”) exercise, the manual for which has been published by Defendant as Appendix A of his book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed., 2016). Special denials in Defendant’s Answer included each of the following [Emphasis added 15- 27 below]:

15. Over and above the direct proofs of fabrication presented in the publication identified in paragraph 4 hereof, additional evidence is covered in “Sandy-Hook-Collected Memoranda (2018),” tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/SH-POTUS, which provides extensive additional indirect proof of fabrication and fakery by the plaintiff and/or the State of Connecticut by demonstrating that the school had already been closed, and was not open on December 14, 2012; that there were no students in the school on the day of the alleged shooting, and that the incident was part of a two-day FEMA exercise to promote gun control in which nobody died, which implies that death certificates for any must be fabrications. Among other things, the defendant Fetzer asserts the facts in paragraphs 16 through 28 in behalf of himself and his co-defendants, much of which is reported in said Chapter 11 in the work mentioned the paragraph 4 hereof, to wit:

16. An aerial photograph of the parking lot of the school at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, reveals that there were no blue and white signage or parking spaces for the handicapped as required for an open facility under state and federal laws and regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, and thus confirms that the school was not open on December 14, 2012.

17. Although the ground temperature was 28 degrees Fahrenheit, no heat or steam was rising from the roof of the school building on December 14, 2012, probably because the boilers in the heating system were dysfunctional from lack of use since the year 2008.

18. In the center two rows in the parking lot, all parked vehicles faced the building itself, in violation of driving instructions visible from the road itself.

19. A credible witness contacted the United States Department of Education, and was told that on December 14, 2012, there had been a drill, that no children had died, and that the drill had been conducted to promote gun control.

20. Gathered in published works, certain photographs show the furnishing of an empty house said to have been the residence of Adam Lanza mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, and a second series of photographs of refurbishing the school to serve as the stage, including one of a SWAT vehicle present before the claimed shooting incident that day. That the photograph was taken prior to the event is discernable, because a series of four windows in Classroom #10, which were conspicuously shot up after the incident, are still clearly intact.

21. Certain citizen journalists have found the FEMA manual for a two-day Mass Casualty Drill Involving Children at Sandy Hook, under the auspices of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the same expected to begin in the morning of December 12, 2012, and ending around midnight on December 13, 2012, then to be evaluated the next day. The said manual was published by the defendant Fetzer, among other places in an appendix in both versions of the book referenced in paragraph 4 hereof.

22. Images broadcast from the scene of the alleged shooting on December 12, 2012, confirm that the incident was a FEMA exercise, including a sign which read, “Everyone must check in,” portable toilets, pizza and bottled water nearby to feed participants, and persons with name tags on lanyards.

23. There was no surge of EMTs into the building, no string of ambulances to fetch injured or dead persons, as would have occurred if the shooting incident had occurred as the plaintiff claims.

24. During his press conference on December 14, 2012, Wayne Carver, M. D., Medical Examiner for the State of Connecticut, stated that parents would not be allowed to see the bodies of their deceased children, which was a violation of applicable medical protocols.

25. The final report on Sandy Hook by the Danbury state’s attorney in and for the State of Connecticut offers no proof that anyone died at Sandy Hook and does not establish a causal nexus that ties the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, to the weapons he supposedly used or to the victims he is said to have killed.

26. Recent research published as a video entitled “Sandy Hook Update: Tracy loses, Wolfgang wins. The Deep State Strikes Back,” and other videos reveal that casualties on December 14, 2012, were fictions who existed only in the form of photographs—among other things, that Noah Pozner was a fictitious person created out of photographs of a person who has been represented as his older step brother Michael Vabner.

27. A photograph showing what appears to be a policewoman herding a string of children to safety, published around the world, was preceded by a second photograph, taken by the same photographer, and showing many parents present, casually looking on, as the policewoman in charge rearranges the kids, replacing a little girl in a pink sweater at the head of the line with a taller boy with a dark sweater and blue jeans to get a better shot—a photograph to which the plaintiff (sic) refers as “lounging at the massacre.” This photograph is journalistic theatre, because there would have been no time to call parents to Sandy Hook Elementary School, had the incident here in question been a genuine emergency.

These special denials are elements of extensive indirect (or “circumstantial”) evidence that nobody died at SHES, where the thirteen (13) contributors—including six (6) current or retired university professors—to the 1st and 2nd editions of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed., 2016), established beyond a reasonable doubt that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it was a FEMA exercise presented as mass murder to promote gun control, where of course the standard in a civil suit of this kind is instead preponderance of the evidence.

The FEMA Manual for a Mass Casualty Exercise Involving Children at SHES cited above, which many of the special denials support, has been attached here as Exhibit U. Insofar as the context of release of the death certificate requires consideration in evaluating its authenticity, Chapter 11, “Are Sandy Hook skeptics delusional with ‘twisted Minds’?”, which Defendant co- authored with Kelley Watt (to whom Plaintiff sent the disputed death certificate) in response to “Our Grief Denied: The Twisted Cruelty of Sandy Hook Hoaxers”, Hartford Courant (July 25, 2014), authored by Plaintiff—one of many proofs of Plaintiff’s role as a limited-purpose public figure in relation to the alleged shooting at SHES (courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-commentary- pozner-sandy-hook-newtown-hoax-07-20140725-story.html)—is attached as Exhibit V.

Defendant observes that the Final Report by the Danbury State’s Attorney, Stephen Sedensky III—https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DCJ/SandyHookFinalReportpdf.pdf—fails to establish a causal nexus that connects the alleged shooter to his victims or the weapons he is alleged to have used; that the photo sent around the world where someone who appears to be a police woman is escorting kids to safety was staged; that there is no evidence of 469 students (and 70 staff) being evacuated, for example, which are among many facts of this case Plaintiff would like to exclude. Plaintiff’s desire to suppress the context within which the death certificate was fabricated, manifests Plaintiff’s attempt to disallow evidence indispensable to understanding why the fabrication took place.

The chapter by Defendant, “Sandy Hook was A FEMA Drill, Nobody Died, for an Anti- Gun Agenda”, in Sandy-Hook-Collected Memoranda (2018), tinyurl.com/SH-POTUS, which was also cited in Plaintiff’s Complaint—attached as Exhibit W—offers additional proof that the alleged SHES shooting was an orchestrated event where nobody died. This included aerial photographs showing SHES was not in compliance with state and federal law regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and therefore could not have been legally operating as a public school on December 14, 2012. Which, of course, in turn implies that there cannot have been a bona fide shooting at SHES on December 14, 2012, and that any death certificates for any victims of that event must be counterfeit (faked, forged or fabricated).

Plaintiff, unsurprisingly, would like to sweep away the abundance of circumstantial evidence that nobody died at SHES by focusing exclusively on the death certificate proper. Plaintiff would have the Court believe proof the school was closed on December 14, 2012—by discounting the condition of the building, the absence of handicapped parking, the lack of steam or heat rising from the building or even the medical examiner’s non-compliance with applicable medical protocols by using photographs to identify the victims—should be viewed as “insufficient and immaterial” to the case, when their presence or absence makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the issues at stake in this case. Plaintiff would thereby incapacitate Defendant from presenting a defense by constraining Defendant’s ability to present crucial relevant evidence.

Confronted with two alternative hypotheses, namely: (h1) the shooting was real and kids actually died; and (h2), the shooting was staged and nobody died, what is the probability that the school would be in deplorable condition, that it would be in non-compliance with ADA, and that the medical examiner would not comply with accepted medical protocols, if (h1) were true; as opposed to the probability of the same evidence, if (h2) were true? It’s not rocket science to infer that the probability of the evidence on (h1), that the shooting was real, is quite low, and that the probability of the same evidence on (h2), that it was staged, is rather high, where they appear to have taken an abandoned school to conduct a drill and present it as real to promote gun control. Plaintiff’s desire to exclude this evidence is understandable, but inappropriate, and exemplifies the fallacy known as special pleading (or “selection and elimination”), by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER OMITTED SPECIFIC DENIALS

Plaintiff correctly observes, however, Defendant omitted specific denials with regard to 51 numbered averments in Plaintiff’s Complaint: “Plaintiff’s Complaint included fifty-one numbered paragraphs containing the averments giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Rather than admitting or denying those simple, concise averments, Defendant Fetzer served a rambling missive rehashing his contention that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a government conspiracy and that no one, including Plaintiff’s son, actually died.” While the general denial and special denials of Defendant’s Answer demonstrate Defendant has been offering detailed evidence as proof that the alleged SHES shooting was a FEMA exercise presented as mass murder to promote gun control in which nobody died, Defendant seeks to remedy the omission of specific denials of numbered paragraphs 8-20 as follows:

1. Defendant denies paragraph 8, that Plaintiff is the father of deceased minor, N.P., because “Noah Pozner” appears to be a fiction and Plaintiff himself also appears to be using a fake name.

2. Defendant denies paragraph 9, that N.P. was killed on December 14, 2012 at SHES, because it was a FEMA exercise with children to promote gun control in which nobody died.

3. Defendant affirms paragraph 10, in particular, that Plaintiff has made extensive public efforts to debunk Sandy Hook skeptics, has authored numerous commentaries and has been

featured in prominent venues, including newspapers and magazines around the world, and has thereby become a limited-purpose public figure.

4. Defendant denies paragraph 11, because Plaintiff was quoted in the New Haven Register (December 17, 2014), commenting on the Final Report before addressing “Sandy Hook skeptics.”

5. Defendant affirms paragraph 12.

6. Defendant affirms paragraph 13, apart from Plaintiff’s claim to have had a murdered son, since Defendant’s research shows that nobody died at SHES on December 14, 2012.

7. Defendant believes alleged threats cited in paragraph 14 were orchestrated by Plaintiff to gain public sympathy, when in fact Plaintiff has been engaged in defrauding the public.

8. Defendant acknowledges published reports of the kind cited in paragraph 15, which are separate and apart from Defendant’s assertions about Plaintiff’s fabrication and fakery.

9. Defendant affirms paragraph 16, where the 2nd edition of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (May 2016) incorporates some minor revisions, and includes four chapters and one appendix not included in the 1st edition (2015).

10. Defendant affirms paragraph 17, where Defendant has asserted on more than 100 occasions that the death certificate Plaintiff gave to Kelley Watt is fake and a fabrication.

11. Defendant likewise affirms paragraph 18 in having asserted the death certificate to be a fabrication, a forgery or a fake in the SH-POTUS Memorandum (August 5, 2018) that it cites.

12. Defendant affirms Connecticut issuance of “an official death certificate for N.P.” as paragraph 19 reports, which differs in several material respects and also appears to be a fabrication. 13. Defendant affirms paragraph 20 and asserts that the crime of issuing a forged death certificate for N.P. has taken place, in which the State of Connecticut appears to be complicit by authenticating a fabricated death certificate, which is a crime.

Defendant defers responding to all 51 of Plaintiff’s assertions as a meaningless abuse of the Court’s time and effort. Defendant believes Plaintiff wants to use the legal process to harass Defendant, in accord with the saying, “When the law is on your side, emphasize the law; when the facts are on your side, emphasize the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table!”, the last of which Defendant believes to be exemplified by this Motion to Strike and the Plaintiff’s allusions to “conspiracy theories,” which are intended to appeal to popular beliefs about conspiracy research, when the specific evidence Defendant cites substantiates the conclusion that nobody died at Sandy Hook, which therefore, in turn, implies any death certificates for alleged decedents must be counterfeit (fake, forged or fabricated).

The crucial stage in transforming “conspiracy theories” in the weak sense of speculations, rumors or guesses into “conspiracy theories” in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses entails sorting out the authentic evidence from the manufactured. Defendant has pioneered the application of the principles of scientific reasoning to cases of this kind in “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK” and “Reasoning about Assassinations”. The former appears in Defendant’s book, The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007); the latter was presented as a lecture at Cambridge and then published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. While the cover-ups in those cases involved violations of laws of nature (of physics and of aerodynamics, for example), the SHES shooting cover-up involves more pedestrian violations of laws of society (such as the ADA and rules of the road) as well as the usual false testimony, fake photos and fabricated documents.

Faking deaths has an ancient history, where several recent articles have appeared about how it can be done to evade the law, to escape debts or to benefit from life insurance. Marshall Sloane,

“Real People, Fake Deaths”, The Boston Globe (10 August 2016), for example, addresses data from Elizabeth Greenwood, Playing Dead: A Journey Through the World of Death Fraud (2017), where the author even secured documents to fake her own death during a visit to the Philippines in 2013 with multiple witnesses to a high-speed vehicle collision. The documents have all of the right official seals, watermarks and signature—but they were all fake. There was no accident, where faking her own death was the culmination of years of research, while faking the deaths of the alleged SHES shooting appears to have been politically motivates to promote gun control— but where the participants of the 26 “surviving families” are reported to have split between $27- 130,000,000 contributed by sympathetic but gullible Americans. That’s over $1,000,000 apiece.

Among the ironies of this case is that, while Defendant has already presented proof that the death certificate for N.P. is a fabrication, Plaintiff will of necessity have to present proof in turn that Exhibit U, FEMA Manual for a Mass Casualty Exercise Involving Children, is a fabrication. An example can be found in “Fact Checking “NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK”, Appendix A”, which Defendant has cited, is itself a fake. The obstacles that confront such allegations appear difficult to overcome, however, since events on the ground included a sign, “EVERYONE MUST CHECK IN”, as the manual requires; refreshments and restrooms (pizza and bottled water as well as Porta-Potties in place) and dozens of parties present with name tags on lanyards, all of which confirms to standard FEMA practice. Anyone who doubts the weight of the evidence only needs to review Defendant’s documentary, “Sandy Hook Update: Tracy loses, Wolfgang wins. The Deep State Strikes Back!”, which may explain why Plaintiff has been so aggressive in wanting to suppress the specific kinds of evidence that are cited in its Motion to Strike.

As additional proof that Plaintiff has not been acting in good faith, Defendant asks the Court to observe that the Affidavit by Jacob Zimmerman in support of the Motion to Strike includes two appendices, both of which include images of such poor quality as to be useless in any legal context. Insofar as Defendant has previously included high-quality images for several of those presented in his Second Request for Admissions, this cannot be a consequence of the mode of transmission but rather appears to be a further reflection of the dilemma confronting Plaintiff in this case, namely: that neither the law nor the facts are on his side, which reinforces Defendant’s previously asserted conclusion that this lawsuit is not being pursued in good faith but represents an abuse of process to promote a political agenda.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Over and beyond Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, Defendant maintains Plaintiff’s Complaint represents a public-relations stunt, insofar as Defendant has been vigorous and aggressive in exposing the alleged SHES shooting as a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control. What could be more contrary to reason than to claim that “Leonard Pozner” is not a limited-purpose public figure in relation to the alleged SHES shooting or that Defendant is “malicious” in describing the “Noah Pozner death certificate” as a fabrication hundreds of times? Indeed, as Exhibits U, V and W reflect, Defendant has an abundance of evidence to support his position, where the suggestion that Defendant has been acting maliciously and does not believe what he is saying boggles the mind. But that is the approach taken by Plaintiff, because to admit the facts of the matter would be to expose one of the most cynical deceptions of our time.

Defendant respectfully submits that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike does not represent a sincere effort to advance the suit Plaintiff has brought against Defendant, but rather reflects the plight of Plaintiff’s expectation that citing a death certificate certified by the State of Connecticut would be sufficient to settle the case in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendant, however, maintains that, if Plaintiff’s contention that the document certified by the State of Connecticut is the same “in every material respect” as the document Plaintiff gave to Kelley Watt—or any of the other different versions— then the State of Connecticut has certified a counterfeit (fake, forged or fabricated) death certificate, which is itself a crime.

Defendant requests the Court to deny the Motion to Strike and reaffirms his belief that Plaintiff’s Complaint has been filed for the illicit purpose of intimidation to prevent public knowledge of the truth concerning the events at SHES, and not for genuine legal relief for actionable harm done and is therefore an actionable abuse of process. Defendant requests the Court reserve for Defendant the options to counterclaim for abuse of process and/or to seek relief under Section 802.05 and/or under Section 895.044 of Wisconsin Statutes.

Defendant reaffirms that Plaintiff appears to be perpetrating a fraud upon the Court. See Schultz v. Sykes and Jones v. Courtyard Apartments, LLP. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989), states: “A ‘fraud on the court’ occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense. See, e.g., Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1989); Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp., 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir.1976); England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir.1960); United Business Communications, Inc. v. Racal-Milgo, Inc., 591 F.Supp. 1172, 1186-87 (D.Kan.1984); United States v. ITT Corp., 349 F.Supp. 22, 29 (D.Conn.1972), aff’d mem., 410 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 1363, 35 L.Ed.2d 582 (1973).”