What could be more obvious proof that Sandy Hook was a hoax than that the school building was not compliant with state and federal laws implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which require that all entrances and exits to public facilities be wheelchair accessible? Look at the featured image here. This is an exit from Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES), which is clearly not wheelchair accessible. SHES cannot have been legally operating as a public school on 14 December 2012.
We have a mountain of proof that SHES had been closed by 2008: it was loaded with asbestos and other bio-hazards, damaged by hurricanes and affected by a major flood in 2007. They took an abandoned school and conducted a FEMA drill–a mass casualty exercise involving children–which was presented to the public as mass murder to promote the gun-control agenda of the Obama administration. It was perhaps the most cynical act by a president in the history of the United States–and we have endured many!
It’s all documented in the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015; 2nd ed., 2016), which has thirteen (13) contributors, including six (6) current or retired Ph.D., professors. What are the odds that six (6) Ph.D. professors are going to be wrong when they conclude that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder? We even have the FEMA manual for the exercise, which is included in the book as Appendix A. You can download it for free here or get the 2nd edition here.
In the time since, further research has substantiated that the children who are supposed to have died were fictions made up out of photographs of older children when they were younger–and multitudes of additional proof that this was an elaborate deception. Here’s a video, “Sand Hook Update”: Tracy loses, Wolfgang wins. The Deep State Strikes Back!” (14 January 2018). See the evidence for yourself:
The latest state-of-the-art compendium of Sandy Hook research has been published in the Memoranda for the President on Sandy Hook (7 August 2018), which has the memorable short URL, http://tinyurl.com/SH-POTUS, No one familiar with the evidence should have any doubt that Sandy hook was an elaborate hoax. Nobody died at Sandy Hook: CASE CLOSED!
So what’s this “Pozner v. Fetzer” lawsuit all about? It’s a public-relations effort by the Deep State to perpetuate the fraud in the mind of the public. If you follow the case, even just by reading through this Answer, you will see that the Plaintiff—who is suing me for defaming him by describing the death certificate he gave to Kelley Watt as a “fabrication”—wants to shut down proof it was a FEMA drill, which is absurd. Because if no body died at Sandy Hook, then any death certificates for alleged decedents must be fabrications!
As you will discover here, I doubt that the attorneys representing the man who calls himself “Leonard Pozner”, whose true identity remains in dispute, are even in contact with their client. Read this document and you will see their best effort to tarnish me for defamation, as though it could alter the facts about Sandy Hook. They are hoping against hope that, if they succeed, then the mainstream media will tell the world that the fake death certificate has been found to be authentic—and that means Sandy Hook was real!
————————————————–
STATE OF WISCONSIN
CIRCUIT COURT
DANE COUNTRY
______________________________
DANE 2C0O18UCVN0T03Y122CASE TYPE: DEFAMATION
LEONARD POZNER,
Plaintiff
ANSWER TO RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS BY DEFENDANT JAMES FETZER
VS.
JAMES FETZER,
MIKE PALECEK, AND
WRONGS WITHOUT WREMEDIES, LLC,
Defendants
________________________________
Comes now Defendant James Fetzer (hereinafter “Defendant”), and he answers the Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admissions (collectively, “Requests”) pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 804.11 as follows:
RESPONSE TO GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Requests generally on grounds that (1) they are over broad and burdensome; (2) inconsistent with Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) seek information that is “not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation”; (4) they can be more easily obtained from other sources; (5) their expense would outweigh their benefits; (6) seek information protected by attorney-client privilege; (7) responses would not be relevant or admissible; (8) some are vague and imprecise; (9) some are intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress or subject Plaintiff to undue burden or expense; and (10) Plaintiff will not provide any information encompassed by (1)-(9).
Plaintiff offers specific objections and responses to each of the 30 requests for admissions posed by Defendant, which, upon inspection, contradict the grounds on which Plaintiff would like to avoid having to answer them. None are intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress or subject Plaintiff to undue burden or expense; indeed, in virtually every case, a simple admission to the request would have been less burdensome and expensive than this Response. Plaintiff cannot be unaware that Defendant seeks information about his true name and identity, the existence of the person “Noah Samuel Pozner” (to whom he refers as “N.P.”) and evidence that would confirm or disconfirm his claims to have lost a son during the alleged shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES).
Defendant’s Requests for Admissions are all relevant and material to this suit. Plaintiff poses as if he were unaware that Defendant asserts SHES to have been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, for which he has produced abundant evidence, including an edited book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed., 2016), with thirteen (13) contributors, including six (6) current or retired Ph.D. professors; a two-hour videotape, “Sandy Hook Update: Tracy loses, Wolfgang wins. The Deep State Strikes Back!” (BitChute 2018); and Sandy Hook POTUS Memoranda (September 5, 2018), edited by Robert David Steele, which includes 31 memoranda—the latest research on the alleged shooting-—which Defendant will introduce as exhibit at trial to demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the grounds for skepticism about SHES are both abundant and compelling.
Defendant observes Plaintiff’s Objections and Responses are virtually without exception non- responsive to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions. They are abundant in legalistic language but almost entirely devoid of factual content. Defendant believes this anomaly may be explicable if Plaintiff’s attorneys are having to act in absence of contact with Plaintiff. If Plaintiff’s attorneys are unable to reach or are barred from contacting Plaintiff and having “to make this up on the fly”,as Defendant believes, that could explain the bizarre absence of content to what otherwise ought to have been the routine exercise of admitting or denying Requests for Admissions he has posed. The responses made are as if Plaintiff’s attorneys have no idea regarding the facts of the matter.
Defendant has at least three reasons for believing that Plaintiff’s attorneys are not in contact with Plaintiff.
First, as Dr. Eowyn has reported on a recent blog, “Sandy Hook’s Leonard Pozner sues Professor James Fetzer and publisher” (December 4, 2018), nationwide searches using two widely-employed search engines have been unable to locate anyone with the name of “Leonard Pozner” in the United States (fellowshipoftheminds.com/sandy-hooks-leonard-pozner-sues-professor-james-fetzer-and-publisher), attached as Exhibit X. According to Plaintiff (Exhibit Y), “conspiracy theorists” have forced him to move at least nine times in the past 10 years, which seems incredible given that national searches have been unable to turn up anyone named “Leonard Pozner” in the entire United States. This strikes Defendant as very odd. How could they have possibly found Plaintiff, not once and not twice but, according to Plaintiff himself, at least nine times? Like the rest of Plaintiff’s narrative, it just doesn’t add up and constitutes prima facie proof that no one in America is named “Leonard Pozer”, which makes Plaintiff in this case a fiction, as Defendant believes and has insisted from his initial Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Second, Plaintiff has made a practice of being a “no show” in previous litigation he has filed,which, like the present case, appears to have been done for harassment and to suppress reports of the findings of serious students of the alleged shooting at SHES. As Alison Maynard reports in her blog, “The Chimera Lenny Pozner – Somebody’s Cyberpuppet” (December 4, 2018), when“Leonard Pozner” sued Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper, U.S. Customs Agent, past school administrator and nationally recognized school safety expert, also for defamation, even though Defendant Halbig appeared for every single hearing, Plaintiff did not show up in Court even once—although, ostensibly, the case was being tried in close proximity to his home. And when, after numerous delays, the Court ordered Plaintiff be deposed, he withdrew the suit rather than be deposed (https://jameshfetzer.org/2018/12/alison-sunny-maynard-the-chimera-lenny-pozner-somebodys-cyberpuppet) in Lake County, FL,
Third, “Leonard Pozner” was interviewed between May 2-4, 2018 at re:publica 18, by Richard Gutjahr—“How to Fight Conspiracy Theories”—during which “Leonard Pozner” complained that constant harassment from “conspiracy theorists” had forced him to move nine times in the past decade. Plaintiff claims to be dedicating himself to ridding the Internet of information disputing the SHES narrative, and has succeeded in having removed “tens of thousands of pieces of content from the Internet”, in alleged efforts—ongoing to this day—to suppress “hate speech”. This is not what would be expected of a grieving parent, but more likely of a party to covert activities—and raises more grounds to doubt Plaintiff’s claim not to be a “public figure” on SHES. Exhibit Y—the full transcription of the interview—presents loads of fascinating information with Plaintiff talking about Plaintiff himself. The re:publica conference is an annual event held in Berlin with upwards of 500 participants and attended by more than 7,000, with all discussions streamed directly to millions of viewers and listeners worldwide over the Internet. How interesting that, of all the citizens of the world, the Plaintiff should be selected for an interview. Notice the repeated use of the editorial “we” in context after context as, “Well, we’ve had a lot of success in removing content. We also had a lot of success in convincing people in the early phase to pull them out of this conspiracy world, and now they are volunteers and they help us. We removed thousands, tens of thousands, of pieces of content from the Internet, and then taking some legal action where it’s appropriate, where it can have an impact, and it’s been a learning experience along the way.”Defendant suggests that Plaintiff is not just a “limited purpose” public figure, but a public figure extraordinaire, establishing the true identity of whom will be a major focus of this case both during discovery and when it comes to trial.
Coincidentally, Defendant himself was hit with a DMCA strike from Plaintiff on March 1, 2019 (DMCA Takedown Notice, Twitter Case of the alleged violation of a protected image (Exhibit Z), which was a phony claim. As Defendant explains in his reply (Exhibit Z), the protected image is of Plaintiff’s purported son, “Noah Pozner”, the protected image (by Plaintiff’s own allegation) is a photograph of the alleged decedent, “Noah Pozner”, in a brown jacket. But the takedown was for an image posted by Wolfgang Halbig of eight (8) of the allegedly deceased Sandy Hook girls “alive and well—and looking very perky!” The protected image does not even appear in the tweet subjected to the DMCA strike because of the complaint by Plaintiff, which exemplifies the role of Plaintiff. Like Plaintiff’s suit against Defendant, Plaintiff’s Takedown Notice has no merit or substance when consideration is given to the facts of the matter and distinguishing real vs. fabricated evidence.
REPLIES TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
Defendant now turns to Plaintiff’s Specific Objections and Responses to each of Defendant’s 30 Requests for Admissions, which support Defendant’s belief that Plaintiff’s attorneys are not in contact with Plaintiff and therefore respond in convoluted ways to avoid their embarrassment.
Defendant’s Request No. 1: Admit that your name is not “Leonard Pozner”.
Plaintiff’s Response No. 1: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, this Request is Denied.
Defendant’s Reply: Plaintiff could not admit what Defendant has (long since) concluded to be the case without establishing that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was for harassment as an Abuse of Process.
Defendant’s Request No. 2: Admit that you have no son by the name of “Noah Pozner”
Plaintiff’s Response No. 2: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects that this Request, as written, may be interpreted as implying a temporal limitation that renders it vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, this Request is Denied. For the avoidance of ambiguity, Plaintiff’s son, Noah Pozner, was killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 12, 2014.
Defendant’s Reply: Defendant has submitted exhibits and will produce further proof that “Noah Pozner” is a fiction made up out of photos of his purported older step-brother, Michael Vabner. There was no “shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 12, 2014”, which is why Defendant’s proof that it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder matters to this case.
Defendant’s Request No. 3: Admit that your name is “Reuben Vabner”.
Plaintiff’s Response No. 3: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, this Request is Denied.
Defendant’s Reply: Having faked the death of his alleged son, “Noah Pozner”, using photos of his purported older step-brother, Michael Vabner, the most reasonable explanation for the many photos and images of “Noah Pozner” with “Lenny Pozner” (aka “Leonard Pozner”) is that they were taken because they are father-and-son, but have been presented to the public under fictional names for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud upon the public and committing theft by deception.
Request No. 4: Admit that you have a son by the name of “Michael Vabner”.
Response No. 4: Plaintiff objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Same as Defendant’s Reply to Request No. 3. Obviously, if there is no “Noah Pozner”, who is a fiction created out of photographs of Michael Vabner as a child, then there is no decedent “Noah Pozner” and the death certificate under consideration is a fabrication.
Request No. 5: Admit that “Noah Pozner” is a fiction made up out of photographs of Michael Vabner as a child.
Response No. 5: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, this Request is Denied.
Defendant’s Reply: Same as Defendant’s Reply to Request No. 4. Obviously, if there is no “Noah Pozner”, who is a fiction created out of photographs of Michael Vabner as a child, then there is no decedent “Noah Pozner” and the death certificate under consideration is a fabrication. What could be more central to this case than whether “Noah Pozner” existed and died at SHES?
Request No. 6: Admit that Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dickinson Drive in Sandy Hook, CT, was closed on 14 December 2012.
Response No. 6: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request as insolubly ambiguous. As written, it is not clear whether the Request is intended to reflect the act of closing the school as a result of the shooting on December 14, 2012, or is instead intended to reflect a then-existing condition of the school, implying that the school had being closed at some point prior to December 14, 2012. Plaintiff specifically objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent the Request is intended to reflect the former, then Plaintiff admits that as a result of the shooting on December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School was closed. To the extent the Request is intended to reflect the former, then this Request is Denied.
Defendant’s Reply: Obviously, Plaintiff would prefer that Defendant offer no evidence at all in response to Plaintiff’s malicious lawsuit, which, Defendant maintains, reflects Plaintiff’s abuse of process to harass Defendant and suppress exposure of SHES as political theater to promote gun control, as Defendant has explained in his blogs, videos and books. Does Plaintiff seriously contend that evidence supporting the conclusion that SHES had been closed by 2008 and there were no students present has no impact on the issue of whether anyone died at SHES? Plaintiff makes a mockery of the rules of evidence to defect the mountain of circumstantial (or “indirect”)proof that the school was closed and there were no students present, which means that the death certificate for “Noah Pozner”, cannot be authentic and must a fabrication, as Defendant claims.
Request No. 7: Admit that Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dickinson Drive in Sandy Hook, CT, had been closed for several years prior to 14 December 2012.
Response No. 7: Plaintiff objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Same as Defendant’s Reply to Request No. 6. Plaintiff insults the Court with childish arguments that have no discernible merit when the Requests for Admission go to the core of the case in litigation. If the school was closed, the death certificate is a fabrication.
Defendant’s Request No. 8: Admit that you have authored articles and commentaries about the purported Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on 14 December 2012.
Plaintiff’s Response No. 8: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the description of subject matter of Plaintiff’s articles and commentaries is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff admits he has authored articles and commentaries, the subject of which was focused on the harms caused by conspiracy theorists and hoaxers, but due to the ambiguity of the Request, Plaintiff cannot reasonably ascertain whether those writings would fall within the scope of Defendant’s Request.
Defendant’s Reply: Plaintiff wants to suppress Plaintiff’s very active role in the public domain with regard to posing as the (fake) father of a child who died at SHES, with the intent of playing a role in support of a gun control and profiting financially through theft by deception. Plaintiff does not want to answer because it puts the lie to his pretensions to be a private person rather than a public figure or, more precisely, a limited public figure in relation to the events at SHES.
Request No. 9: Admit that you knew what you were asserting in the articles and commentaries cited in REQUEST NO. 8 were false and fabrications
Response No. 9: Plaintiff objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Feigning the role of the (fake) father of a child who died at SHES, when the school had been closed by 2008, there were no students there. and the images of “Noah Pozner” which have been published world-wide millions of times, Plaintiff could not have not known he was perpetrating a fraud upon the public and benefitting financially through theft by deception.
Request No. 10: Admit that you have benefited financially from posing as the parent of a child who died during the purported Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Response No. 10: Plaintiff objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: The best estimates available to Defendant suggest that sympathetic but gullible Americans, emotionally affected by the official narrative of SHES and unaware that it was a FEMA exercise involving children presented as mass murder to promote gun control, gave between $27,000,000 and $130,000,000 in donations, which, evenly divided between the twenty-six (26) purported “surviving families” equaled over $1,000,000 apiece. Plaintiff does not want the truth about SHES made public lest Plaintiff be prosecuted for fraud and theft by deception. The Newtown School Board also benefited financially with a grant of $50,000,000 to build a new school on the old location, even though Defendant ascertained that the average cost for a K-4 school (as was Sandy Hook Elementary) was only $7,000,000, which raises questions about the role of the school board to which the answers appear obvious. Plaintiff’s desire to not reply to Requests for Admission of this kind reflects Plaintiff’s desire to suppress personal motivation.
Request No. 11: Admit that the purported Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on 14 December 2012 was the second day of a two-day FEMA exercise.
Response No. 11: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: The proof this was a two-day FEMA exercise is abundant and compelling, where the FEMA manual for the mass casualty exercise involving children. The FEMA manual was even published as Appendix A in Defendant’s edited book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed. 2016), as Plaintiff must be aware in view of Plaintiff’s citing Defendant’s analysis of reasons for concluding the purported “death certificate” appears to be a fabrication, which Plaintiff has referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Request No. 12: Admit that the portable sign “EVERYONE MUST CHECK IN” was part of a two-day FEMA exercise.
Response No. 12: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Given Plaintiff’s stance for the reality of the SHES event as authentic, it comes as no surprise that Plaintiff would not want to acknowledge the abundant and compelling proof that it was a two-day FEMA exercise, where the sign, “EVERYONE MUST CHECK IN”, conforms to the stipulation in the FEMA manual that everyone must check in with the controller upon arrival for confirmation of their participation and designated roles. That blows completely apart Plaintiff’s pretense to have lost a child at SHES, since it was a FEMA exercise where no child or adult died. Defendant asks anticipating Defendant’s Answer to have it on the record.
Request No. 13: Admit that Porta-Potties were present in the vicinity of the Sandy Hook Elementary School on 13 December 2012 as part of a two-day FEMA exercise.
Response No. 13: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Insofar as the subject matter of Plaintiff’s litigation is the authenticity of a purported “death certificate”, what could be more obvious than that, if it was a FEMA drill and no body died, then any death certificate for a decedent of the SHES event must be a fabrication? Plaintiff adopts the stance of irrelevance because the evidence against the authenticity of this one for “Noah Pozner” because that it was a FEMA drill where nobody died is such stunning proof.
Request No. 14: Admit that bottled water and pizza was at the firehouse in the vicinity of the Sandy Hook Elementary School on 13 December 2012 as part of a two-day FEMA exercise.Response No. 14: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Events on the ground—including the sign, “EVERYONE MUST CHECK IN”, the Porta-Potties in place, pizza and bottled water at the Firehouse, name tags on lanyards and parents bringing children to the scene—are powerful confirmation of Defendant’s position that the events at SHES were elements of a two-day FEMA mass casualty exercise involving children, where no body died. Plaintiff appears to be panic-stricken that obvious evidence that SHES was an elaborate hoax should become part of this case, the viability of which depends on the exclusion of mountains of relevant evidence on specious grounds, as this Objection displays.
Request No. 15: Admit that many persons were wearing name tags on lanyards because they were participants in that two-day FEMA exercise.
Response No. 15: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Standard practice for FEMA drills—the players are identified by color-coded name tags on lanyards. The circumstantial (or “indirect”) proof that this was a FEMA drill by itself defeats Plaintiff’s claims to have lost a child during a massacre and therefore Plaintiff denies the abundant evidence that this was a FEMA drill where no body died, which, of course, means any death certificates for alleged victims have to be fabrications—including for “Noah”.
Request No. 16: Admit that parents were bringing children to the scene in the vicinity of the Sandy Hook Elementary School on 13 December 2012, because it was FEMA exercise.
Response No. 16: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: No parent would have brought a child to the scene (or vicinity) of a child shooting massacre. But we have lots of video footage showing that happening, which supports the inference this was not a child shooting massacre but a FEMA drill involving children, which was being treated as though it were a festive occasion. The expressions and demeanor confirm it.
Request No. 17: Admit that there was no surge of EMTs into Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012 to render emergency assistance to the purported victims.
Response No. 17: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Among the most blatant indications that Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill and that no children died—which, in turn, implies that any death certificates for alleged “victims” must be fabrications—was the absence of a surge of EMTs into the building. A similar absence occurred at the Boston bombing and in Orlando at the purported Pulse Club shooting, which also involved an abandoned building, where the permit for the club had expired three years earlier, at which time it was repainted black to signify it was closed. Parkland has become prominent on the ground that then-Sheriff Scott Israel did not allow his deputies to enter the building, which would have been absurd had it been real. The deputies were not in on the scam and the Sheriff appears to have been worried that they might have shot one of the fake shooters, who was using simulated ammunition(known as “simunition”) made out of bees was and laundry detergent, which doesn’t even penetrate the skin. Defendant has done collaborative research, composed blogs, produced videos and published books on all of these events. An overview of a dozen or more representative samples is “How to Spot a ‘False Flag’”, and available at 153news.net.
Request No. 18: Admit that EMTs who rushed to Sandy Hook Elementary School from the firehouse on 14 December 2012 were denied access to the building.
Response No. 18: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: As serious students of Sandy Hook are aware, the Chief of the Firehouse situated just 1/3 mile from Sandy Hook on Dickinson Road and his daughter, both of whom are EMT trained, rushed to the school upon hearing reports of an alleged shooting, but were denied access to the scene. That experience runs contrary to what happens in real shooting emergencies and lends weight to the hypothesis that standard medical procedures for emergencies were not followed because this was not a medical emergency. Given the alternatives that it was real and that it was fake, the probability of this happening if it was real is low, but the probability of this happening if it was fake is high—because the deception would have been immediately exposed.
Request No. 19: Admit that there was no string of ambulances to Sandy Hook Elementary School to rush the purported victim’s bodies to hospitals on 14 December 2012.
Response No. 19: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: As a scholar committed to collaborative research on various purported mass shootings that have been presented to the public in ways designed to advance the political agenda of gun control, such as the alleged mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, The Pulse Club in Orlando, and Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, one of the signs that these are not bona fide shootings is the failure to follow standard medical procedures in response. At these and other staged events, the absence of ambulances to rush the victims to hospitals so physicians could pronounce them dead or alive—which even EMTs are not allowed to do—has to be among the most significant. As the purported father of a victim, Plaintiff has shown an odd absence of interest in the specific details of the events that transpired there. On the contrary, as Exhibit Y establishes, Plaintiff has been devoting himself (in a very aggressive and dedicated fashion) to shutting down the efforts of others, including Defendant, to find the truth about what really happened, which one might have naively supposed would be urgent and pressing for any victim’s parent. In this and other respects, Plaintiff does not act like a bona fide grieving father.
Request No. 20: Admit that no Med-Evac helicopters were called to Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012.
Response No. 20: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Plaintiff knows better, since, if nobody died at Sandy Hook, where instead a FEMA exercise was presented as mass murder to promote gun control and any purported death certificates have to be fabrications, that it may have been a FEMA drill obviously matters to the issues before the Court. Defendant observes that Plaintiff seems to display a remarkable lack of curiosity about events and conditions surrounding what he claims to have been the death of his son. Defendant, who also has a son, would have studied the events and conditions surrounding such a profound result affecting Defendant’s son until Defendant was satisfied that the truth was known and the result was inevitable. Plaintiff displays no such interest in the facts of the matter.
Request No. 21: Admit that no bodies were placed on any of the triage tarps that were laid out in the parking lot of Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012.
Response No. 21: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Plaintiff knows better, since, if nobody died at Sandy Hook, where instead a FEMA exercise was presented as mass murder to promote gun control and any purported death certificates have to be fabrications, that it may have been a FEMA drill obviously matters to the issues before the Court. Defendant observes that Plaintiff seems to display a remarkable lack of curiosity about events and conditions surrounding what he claims to have been the death of his son. Defendant, who also has a son, would have studied the events and conditions surrounding such a profound result affecting Defendant’s son until Defendant was satisfied that the truth was known and the result was inevitable. Plaintiff displays no such interest in the facts of the matter.
Request No. 22: Admit that Sandy Hook Elementary School was not wheelchair accessible on 14 December 2012.
Response No. 22: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Plaintiff would have the Court and parties to this case believe that, even though his son attended Sandy Hook Elementary School, he was unaware that it had none of the handicapped parking and familiar signage required under Americans with Disabilities laws at both state and federal level and that it was not wheelchair accessible, which means that it could not have been legally operating as a public school in Connecticut on December 14, 2012. Such replies suggest that Plaintiff has adopted a false identity and is perpetrating fraud upon the Court.
Request No. 23: Admit that Sandy Hook Elementary School was in deplorable condition, both inside and out, on 14 December 2012.
Response No. 23: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff to access information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Were Plaintiff actually the father of a child who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School, he would have been up-in-arms over its deplorable condition both inside and out, which Defendant has copiously documented in his published blogs, books and videos about the alleged shooting on 14 December 2012. Plaintiff thus supports Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff did not have a son who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School, since he would have been aware of its deplorable condition had he had a son who actually attended that institution.
Request No. 24: Admit that the death certificate attached as Exhibit A is a fabrication.
Response No. 24: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff further objects that the provenance of this document is not ascertainable from the information provided, and Defendant’s description of the provenance appears to be inaccurate. To the extent that this is a true and correct copy of the document Plaintiff posted on his social media page, as it appears to be, then this request is denied.
Defendant’s Reply: Plaintiff must be aware that this is a copy of the death certificate Plaintiff sent to Kelley Watt, which is published several places, including with very specific evidential indications of fakery, fraud and fabrication, which Plaintiff can read for himself in texts cited. So the provenance of this document is not in question, where Plaintiff is knows better, but where to admit the fact of the matter would immediately reveal Plaintiff’s lawsuit as an Abuse of Process.
Request No. 25: Admit that the death certificate attached as Exhibit B is a fabrication.Response No. 25: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff further objects that the provenance of this document is unspecified, rendering uncertain any response by Plaintiff regarding the genuineness of the document. To the extent that this is a true and correct copy of the document attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint in this litigation, as it appears to be, then this Request is Denied.
Defendant’s Reply: Exhibit B is interesting because it shows revisions to Exhibit A, attributed to“Leonard Pozner”, when the name of father on the certificate is instead “Lenny Pozner”; and where this purports to be the death certificate certified by the State of Connecticut that Plaintiff claims not to differ from Exhibit A “in any material respect”, which, if true, Defendant maintains proves that the State of Connecticut has certified a fabricated death certificate, which is a crime. Moreover, Exhibit B has a handwritten file number, while Exhibits A and C have no file number.
Request No. 26: Admit that the death certificate attached as Exhibit C is a fabrication.
Response No. 26: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.Defendant’s Reply: Exhibit C appears on the website of an ally of Plaintiff, which is important because it appears to be indistinguishable from Exhibit A and thus lends support to being the one that “Lenny Pozner” sent to Kelley Watt. It appears to have the same indications of fabrication.
Request No. 27: Admit that the death certificate attached as Exhibit D is a fabrication.
Response No. 27: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.Defendant’s Reply: Exhibit D, which came from the same source as Exhibit C, is missing the bottom portion, which has to have been deliberate and appears to have been done to conceal that the certificate has a second certification of the State of Connecticut, a State Seal now missing.
Request No. 28: Admit that the death certificate attached as Exhibit E is a fabrication.
Response No. 28: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant’s Reply: Exhibit E, like Exhibit D, is missing the bottom portion, but also, like Exhibit D but unlike Exhibits A and C, has a partial file number, which, unlike Exhibit B, appears to have been stamped on the document, but the file number of Exhibit B is handwritten.
Request No. 29: Admit that the death certificate attached as Exhibit F is a fabrication.
Response No. 29: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.Defendant’s Reply: The existence of fabricated death certificates for the alleged shooter or for any of the purported decedents substantiated Defendant’s contention that it was a FEMA drill in which nobody died, which implies that the death certificate under litigation, like any other from the purported shooting, is relevant and therefore falls within the scope of permissible discovery.
Request No. 30: Admit that the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 13-14 December 2012 was a two-day FEMA exercise in which nobody died.
Response No. 30: In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff further objects that this Request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation and therefore falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.Defendant’s Reply: Plaintiff’s response makes neither legal nor factual sense. If the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, was a FEMA exercise presented as mass murder to promote gun control, as Defendant maintains to have proven in collaborative research on Sandy Hook with other students—including six (6) current or retired Ph.D. professors, what could be more relevant to concluding that the death certificate in question must be a fabrication. If nobody died at Sandy Hook, then any death certificate for an alleged victim is a fabrication.Plaintiff appears unaware that circumstantial (or “indirect”) evidence qualifies as admissible in a legal proceeding, especially to eliminate any shred of doubt in the matter of Plaintiff’s litigation.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Defendant’s Answer demonstrates that Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Requests for Admission pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes § 804.11 has no merit under the law. Defendant submits that Plaintiff has shown again, by the objections raised here, that the suit filed by Plaintiff was submitted to harass Defendant and to suppress the publication of research on the staged events at SHES on December 14, 2012, the exposure of which would be likely to subject Plaintiff to prosecution for fraud and for theft by deception. By this submission, Plaintiff continues to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court. Defendant’s First Requests for Admission are not in violation of Wisconsin Statutes § 804.11. The same cannot be said for Plaintiff’s actions here.
EXHIBIT X
James Fetzer and publisher
Leonard Pozner is the alleged father of alleged Sandy Hook child-victim Noah Pozner whose image, mysteriously, was among the posters of those who were killed by the Taliban in the Army Public School shooting massacre in Peshawar, Pakistan, on December 16, 2014, two years after Sandy Hook.
See “Sandy Hook Child Victim Noah Pozner Was Killed Twice! Also a Victim in Pakistan Taliban Shooting”
The name “Leonard Pozner” is between quotation marks because that persona may not be real. In fact, people search engines Spokeo and TruthFinder say there is no such person named “Leonard Pozner” in all of the United States.
Professor James Fetzer is among those who maintain that “Leonard Pozner” may in reality be an individual named Reuben Vabner, who is named by TruthFinder as one of the husbands of Veronique Pozner, the alleged ex-wife of Leonard and alleged mother of Noah.
To see Vabner’s pic on LinkedIn, click here.
Curiously, although Leonard Pozner is Veronique’s ex-husband and father of her child, he is not among Veronique’s possible relatives according to TruthFinder. But Reuben Vabner is.
More intriguing still is the search result obtained by Wolfgang Halbig in 2016, which shows Leonard Pozner’s social security number is that of a woman named Anna M. Maguire who had died on October 1, 1987 in zip code 02840, Newport, Rhode Island.
TruthFinder has very sparse information on Anna M. Maguire — no family members, no phone information, no social media — other than that she was born on Dec. 20, 1903; had lived at 10 Marin St., Newport, RI; and her social security number was issued in New York sometime between 1934 and 1951.
“Leonard Pozner” has harassed bloggers and YouTubers with DMCA copyright take-down demands, and is successful at it.
“Leonard Pozner” has also sued Wolfgang Halbig and Alex Jones on Sandy Hook. In his last lawsuit against Halbig, Lenny dropped the lawsuit when it came time for him to be deposed, under oath. Hmm . . . .
The latest “Leonard Pozner” effort at stifling free speech is his lawsuit against James Fetzer and his publisher, Moon Rock Books.
Below is a message from Fetzer, December 2, 2018:
As many of you will know, that’s me in the picture above, continuing my research at a recent JFK conference in Dallas last month.
And, as most of you know, I have dedicated my professional life to shedding light onto those events in our nation’s history—and in fact, world history—that have the power to shape what we think and do, including, of course, how future Americans—and citizens of other nations—interpret world events.
This is one of the reasons I—and several of my closest colleagues—created Moon Rock Books, which began with Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control, after Amazon banned it in November 2015.
We’re now up to 12 books—with several more released each year—which cover the most pressing issues of our times: 9/11, the Moon landing, the Boston Marathon bombing, Sandy Hook, the JFK assassination, Charlottesville, Parkland, and many more. And the only reason we can continue to produce these important books is because of the support you provide when you purchase them.
My research has come under fire recently, where websites and platforms I had used to present my—and others—conclusions, have been attacked: loads of videos from YouTube have been deleted, my James Fetzer Facebook page has been scrubbed, and my entire blog, at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com—with 770 blogs posted since 2011—was taken down. Even those who have had me as a guest on their shows have been attacked!
A real 21st century-style book burning. Mike Adams of Natural News went so far as declaring me “The Most Dangerous Mind in America,” because I approach topics like false flags using the scientific method. Fortunately, I have reconstituted my online presence and salvaged most of those blogs at jamesfetzer.org.
Now, I—and my most trusted colleagues—face perhaps our greatest challenge: a lawsuit from Leonard “Lenny” Pozner, the alleged father of one of the children ostensibly killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School almost six years ago. Lenny, whose real name appears to be Reuben Vabner, is suing me, my series editor, Mike Palecek, and Moon Rock Books for defamation, his ultimate goal being to shut down our ability to publish and to stifle free speech.
I am not at liberty to reveal any more information now other than to say that we will be challenging his suit vigorously. We don’t know how yet, and we’re not asking for any donations to a legal defense fund. If you would like to help, what I suggest is that you do what you’ve done in the past: buy our books—for yourself and/or as gifts—to help to fund our defense, by clicking the image below.
Have a wonderful Holiday Season! Thanks for your support of Moon Rock Books and the search for truth, without which we lose our way.
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Please support Jim Fetzer and free speech by purchasing his books from Moon Rock Books. Click here or slow-mail to:
Moon Rock Books
6256 Bullet Drive
Crestview, FL 32536
See also “Wolfgang Halbig has stunning evidence that Sandy Hook Elementary School was closed months before ‘massacre’”. If that post is taken down, it is archived here.
About “Leonard Pozner,” see Bill Saive’s “The Chimera Lenny Pozner – Somebody’s Cyberpuppet“:
It is time the world knew what happened when Leonard Pozner sued Wolfgang Halbig, since the proceedings support the conclusion of many in the Sandy Hook Truth community that Lenny may not even be a real person, at all, but is somebody’s cyberpuppet. In a nutshell, Pozner never appeared for a single hearing in the case, not even for his deposition when–after numerous delays–the court ordered him to submit to it. Pozner dismissed the case right before that deposition was to take place.
~Eowyn
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front page founded by ex-military!
“How to Fight Conspiracy Theories” (audio interview: 21 minutes, 38 seconds)
Richard Gutjahr interviewed Lenny Pozner—https://soundcloud.com/gutjahr/republica-18-how-to-fight-conspiracy-theories-richard-gutjahr-and-lenny-pozner-extended—for re:publica, a three- day conference that takes place annually in Berlin, dealing with the Internet, especially blogs, social media and the information society. With upwards of 500 participants and attended by more than 7,000, all discussions are streamed directly to millions of viewers and listeners over the Internet. This interview was conducted between May 2 – 4, 2018 for re:publica 18.
Richard Guthahr: You’re against conspiracy theorists—how did that all begin?
Lenny Pozner: Well, I started off initially as someone who enjoyed conspiracy theories. So, things like . . . I grew up being interested in things like Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, UFOs. So those are some fun conspiracy theories; there’s no victim there to think about. My life changed in 2012, significantly, after a school shooting that took the life of my son. And after that, I noticed that online conspiracy theories began to get darker. So now they were starting to focus their attention on people who were visible after a tragedy, people who were in the news, people whose names were recognizable after a mass shooting, or people surrounding that event. And so, they started to dig into the lives of those people and research them online and track ‘em down and start making blogs and videos with hate content. So initially I started by making available—and it was kind of like an outreach of a type—where I was looking to help them understand the event better, and if there were, you know, things that they didn’t understand or misinformation, I was working with debunkers and bloggers to help bring out facts. So, I released things like my son’s birth certificate, death certificate, school records, his autopsy report, basically his entire life documented. And then I soon realized that these people were not interested in facts, and so these documents are just part of the conspiracy. They’re faked by me or faked by the government, and I soon realized that there’s no reaching these people. And then I shifted my approach. And that approach was to start working with online platforms. So, working with YouTube and Google and Facebook and Twitter and other hosting platforms and attempting to remove content.
Richard Gutjahr: Working with those platforms, how did that go?
Lenny Pozner: Well, it’s been a painful journey. In the last 12 months, I’ve seen the biggest change that has happened in five years. So, you know, images can be removed on copyright, or for harassment for privacy complaints, especially images of minor children. Now in the U.S., the Internet is largely . . . it’s an unregulated space. It’s a little . . . I think there are more laws in Europe for cyber harassment. There are almost none here, and the very few that there are, are almost never enforced, and so it’s this Wild West that the Internet has become. And people who are dark minded, people who used to reside in the darker corners of the Internet, like 4chan and other places, have now found that they have easy access to tools that are free but very powerful, like Blogger and YouTube, and so they were able to reach millions of people using videos and blogs. And it’s . . . it’s like this . . . you know people call the Internet a global village because it’s a small place online, but I refer to these people as . . . if it’s a global village, then they’re really the cyber village idiots. And they all work together, they collaborate and they take these crazy ideas and they share them amongst each other, and these ideas spread and these ideas are weaponized. And they use the Internet to do that. And if you’re a victim and you’re visible, and maybe you’ve done an interview here and there on TV, and now you become a villain in this massive multiplayer online game that they think that they are playing. And because they are a citizen investigator and they’re going to uncover the truth, and they’re part of this “army of light,” and people surrounding tragedies are somehow the villains and the bad guys. And they have an echo chamber of information that is limited to their own blogs, their own conspiracy websites. They have this cult mentality that mainstream media is lying to you, so they narrow their information source. So, they’re not listening to regular news anymore because that’s part of the bad guys. And so, they get pulled into this world and it’s all about directing hate at victims.
Richard Gutjahr: Victims of tragic events . . . they are usually traumatized. It’s an easy target, right? They don’t fight back.
Lenny Pozner: Well, it is, when you look at it. They’re definitely attacking people who are at their weakest point in their life, and they really don’t almost have the strength to fight back. And so, they do that but it . . . it’s part of their belief that nothing bad ever happens, that people don’t get killed when they’re hit by a vehicle, and people don’t get shot by other people for, you know, reasons of hate, so they just deny that. It’s the same thing as flat-earthers, you can’t convince them; there’s no point in trying to convince them. So, when they start with that premise, then they just assume that anyone connected to a tragedy is a bad guy. And as soon as you see them on TV or you see articles written about the victims and victims’ families, and some people get involved in the gun-control push, they immediately become the villains in this, you know, good versus evil world that they, the hoaxers, understand it to be. And they see themselves as the army of good guys. They don’t think that they’re doing anything wrong. They think that they are saving the world.
Richard Gutjahr: Those conspiracy theorists, do they really believe in their own ideas, or is that just a way to get attention or even money?
Lenny Pozner: Well, some people are profiting from these ideas and some people know how to manipulate the people who are following these ideas. So, they obviously are clever, and they may or may not believe this, but the average blogger does believe it. They are very stubborn in their belief, and that’s it, and once they’re locked into it, it becomes part of their identity and they defend it.
Richard Gutjahr: You have initiated an organization called the HONR Network and together with other victims and volunteers, you’re fighting back. How does that work?
Lenny Pozner: Well, we’ve had a lot of success in removing content. We also had a lot of success in convincing people in the early phase to pull them out of this conspiracy world, and now they are volunteers and they help us. We removed thousands, tens of thousands, of pieces of content from the Internet, and then taking some legal action where it’s appropriate, where it can have an impact, and it’s been a learning experience along the way. But I think people have a responsibility today. If you see something that’s harassment, if you see something that’s angry, if you see something that’s inappropriate, report it, flag it; flag it as spam, flag it as harassment, flag it as bullying. Most platforms have the ability to do that. It takes time to do that, but I think we all have a responsibility to do that. So, whether it’s on Facebook or YouTube or Twitter, and we see this going on, and some people may know people in their own extended family that are doing these things, and I think we have a responsibility to confront these people and to shame them and to also help remove the content online as we see it. I think everyone needs to help and participate.
Richard Gutjahr: So, you’re saying we should take matters in our own hands and not just look away.
Lenny Pozner: Right. Yes. The Internet is unregulated. The police don’t know how to deal with it. They’re not trained for it. So, in the U.S. we’re very exposed right now because the police are only interested in, you know, when there’s blood, and that’s a whole different category and it’s not as visible. They tell you to turn off the computer. They just think it’s . . . How do you turn off your smart phone? How do you stop your accounts being tagged and hate speech? You can’t. You can’t turn that off. You can’t turn off other people.
Richard Gutjahr: So, there is no simple solution. It’s not just the authorities, it’s not just the politics. It’s the court, it’s the people, it’s all of us.
Lenny Pozner: It is. And I think if anyone watched Mark Zuckerberg discussing Facebook with the hearings, you can see that the lawmakers are—in many ways—they don’t understand this technology in the way that younger people understand it. So, it’s going to be a while until the legislation comes into place that’s very precise. So, if we get legislation, it is going to be very blunt and wide, and nonspecific, and it’s going to try to regulate all of these companies and break them up into little pieces, if they consider them monopolies. And in the meantime, we still have to have this content removed because that’s what spreads the hate ideas. Just the existence of the hate ideas create more hate. So, for instance, websites like stormfront.org—I’ve seen images of photos of my son with conspiracy theories on the forums of that website, and that’s more of a white supremacy website but it’s crossing over; there’s an intersection of hate ideas. So, people who are involved in one hate idea move to another hate idea and they easily adopt other hate ideas because it just gives them more of a camaraderie of people that they can interact with online, and it draws some people in. Things that happen on the Internet, they do cross over into the real world and they have real impact.
Richard Gutjahr: Would you describe what’s happening here as a type of cancer that spreads to the whole body, like to the whole society, it starts really small and then it just gets out of control? Is that a fair comparison?
Lenny Pozner: Yeah, I think that’s a very accurate comparison. I’ve described it in the past as a “thought virus,” and once someone implants the idea online, the idea takes life and it won’t just disappear, especially if there are many blogs about it. So, one of the challenges that I’ve had with Google, Google Search, is that why do you get search results of “Holocaust denial” when you do a search? Well, it’s because there is nobody writing about the Holocaust being true and challenging that idea. So, since there are almost no blogs doing that, the only thing that you get when you search “Holocaust denial” is “Holocaust denial.” So, there’s a lack of back counterbalance. So, I think it’s important to push back against the atheist, and it’s also important to try to have the content removed from the platforms.
Richard Gutjahr: Do you believe we can fix this?
Lenny Pozner: I think so. I think we will get through this. I don’t think it’s going to solve itself in the way that we think. And younger generations will adapt knowing that the Internet is just a big mix of ideas that may mostly be crazy ideas, and so they won’t just believe everything that they see online. All of our brains now are connected. It’s like a science fiction movie, so what do we do with that? We’re able to communicate to many people everywhere in the world at the speed of light.
Richard Gutjahr: So, what can we do with that? Do you see a solution?
Lenny Pozner: I don’t know if there is a single solution. This is humanity now being empowered by the Internet. So, people who didn’t have any power, who didn’t have any strength, who were just restricted to their homes, now they can reach out to people anywhere in the world, and they can feel powerful; they can do anything that they want. They may not be powerful in everyday life, but now on the Internet they can throw around hate and they can feel powerful.
Richard Gutjahr: How do you deal with friends who are saying, “Richard, I heard some awful things about you. I don’t believe that, but . . .”?
Lenny Pozner: You can’t, it’s too late already. That’s why removing this online content is the first responsibility that we need to do, because we know that these hate ideas can spread, and there is no way to change somebody’s mind once the idea is out there. So, we have to reduce these hate ideas, that’s the only thing we can do. If you’re going to argue with your friends and try to convince them otherwise, they’re going to think that . . . why are you arguing so fiercely, maybe there’s some truth to it. So that once you find yourself in a defensive position, it’s already too late. People are going to believe what they want to believe, but the online platforms are the ones that are spreading this hate content that reaches millions and millions of people. So, in the early days, I described this “thought virus” like a small brush fire and it’s burning and it’s burning and it’ll go in every direction. So, the only way is to remove the content so that it has no oxygen to burn because it will continue spreading. It’s just what it does. These hate ideas spread on their own.
Richard Gutjahr: Let’s talk about Facebook and Google for a minute. Do you think they know about this or is that just sheer ignorance?
Lenny Pozner: I don’t think it’s ignorance. I think they completely know what’s going on. I think that in Google’s case the AI [artificial intelligence] does most of the work so they won’t manually go and do something. They need to make their AI more intelligent to deal with a particular unique situation; that’s always how they handle these things. So, they don’t always have a quick fix; they need to go back to the programmers, you know, the kind of priests in the robes, so they can work out, you know, with the AI.
Richard Gutjahr: Have you lost friends over this?
Lenny Pozner: I don’t know if I’ve directly lost friends, but online, yes, I’ve lost Facebook friends and things like that.
Richard Gutjahr: Have you made new friends online?
Lenny Pozner: Oh yes, of course, yeah, people all over the world. Richard Gutjahr: How can you still be an optimist?
Lenny Pozner: Well, I am an optimist. I absolutely am an optimist because we are problem solvers. But at the same time, I can tell you that the Internet has been weaponized and used against me. I’ve had death threats made against me. A few days ago I saw a 100-page background check on me that had every single place I’ve ever lived, every single driver’s license I’ve ever had, my Social Security number, photos of my driver’s licenses in different states that I’ve lived in, photos of places that I’ve lived in, I’ve had apartments in, was also in the background check report, and this is being passed around from crazy person to crazy person. I have moved frequently, probably moved maybe nine times by now since this decade. I have to live this way to be very careful so that they can’t track me down.
Richard Gutjahr: And still you’re remaining optimistic? How?
Lenny Pozner: The web is slowly getting better. And we’ve seen that with YouTube; they’ve gotten better in the last year. Facebook is starting to the look at itself and in a more serious way, so I think something is happening there also. And inevitably Twitter—changes are happening there, the way they respond to reporting. I think they have more people now that are dealing with content. Now, you need to imagine the scope of it. Twitter has I think one billion tweets every two days. So, that’s a large quantity of information for actual human editors to have to read through for the percentage of content that’s being reported. And the AI system—they’re not tuned to do this work as of yet; maybe they’re not sophisticated enough.
Richard Gutjahr: If there’s something we can do here as a people, here in Berlin, at the re:publica, what do you want us to do?
Lenny Pozner: I think people need to get more involved, they need to become more aware of online platforms and how a person’s life can change from one day to the next by a mob of hate. You have millions of people that hate you out of nowhere. And so that reality—we all need to be mindful of the power that that we all have with the Internet.
Richard Gutjahr: Here in Europe I think we are just waking up to this kind of a new reality.
Lenny Pozner: In many ways Europe is ahead of us because the laws are tough in Europe and there are already penalties for platforms in place. So, I think Europe is way ahead, especially Germany.
Richard Gutjahr: Do you really believe that?
Lenny Pozner: Yeah, well Europe has been fighting for the right to be forgotten for at least five years; that’s way ahead of anything going on in the U.S. When I talk to Google about delisting something from Google Search, that’s like the most painful thing you can mention to Google. So, Europe is way ahead of us.
Richard Gutjahr: OK, but what about Google, Facebook, Twitter? I mean, it’s all American— the entire Silicon Valley is American.
Lenny Pozner: Well, one thing is to be able to dream up the technology and invent it, but another thing is to have to deal with the results of it, and those are two separate different things. I know that there have been laws in Europe on hate speech and Holocaust denial; those existed before the Internet. So, in that respect there are some boundaries that have already existed in Germany for a long time. But there’s no such thing here, it’s the Wild West in the U.S.
Richard Gutjahr: Where do we go from here? Any predictions?
Lenny Pozner: My prediction for the future is that the platforms will become regulated and broken up into little pieces; that’s my prediction. I think it’s an inevitability that that will happen.
Richard Gutjahr: Because of their sheer power?
Lenny Pozner: Well, they’re a monopoly. Who competes with Facebook? Who competes with YouTube? Who competes with Google Search? Google can change their search algorithm and that can be the equivalent of burning a million books. So, if you can’t see the search results in the first 20 pages of search results, that information is lost from humanity. That’s a lot of power—the most powerful organization that’s ever existed in the history of mankind.
Richard Gutjahr: And yet you and the HONR Network—you’re still standing and keep on fighting against all of this. Where do you get the energy from to keep on going?
Lenny Pozner: I think the memory of my son keeps me going, protecting his memory and his image. I think that’s what keeps me going. I think that’s what any one of us would want someone else to do if we no longer had a voice and if we died. We would want somebody else to be our voice, so I feel that I need to be that voice for my son and for other people that ask for help.
(“Transcribed” by Jeannon Kralj from a computer-generated data dump on March 3, 2019)
Case# 0106994050: We’ve received a DMCA notice
regarding your account
[ref:00DA0000000K0A8.5004A00001ckUGX:ref]
Inbox x
Twitter Support
to me
7:35 AM(6 hours ago)
Hello,
The following material has been removed from your account in response to the DMCA takedown notice copied at the bottom of this email:
|
• Tweet: https://twitter.com/jimfetzer/status/1070755194613444609 – #FakeNews We have been told 20 kids and 6 adults died at Sandy Hook. Then how can Wolfgang Halbig have photos of eight of the Sandy Hook girls, alive and well–and looking very perky! Haven’t we been played long enough? This was an act of faux terrorism. https://t.co/LaQB864JOD https://t.co/M0wKDxZUhK • Image uploaded with |
|
terrorism. https://t.co/LaQB864JOD https://t.co/M0wKDxZUhK |
If you wish to contest this removal, you may seek retractions from the original reporter, or file a counter notification.
Retractions are not guaranteed, and must be submitted by the original reporter
to copyright@twitter.com. You can request a retraction by using the reporter’s contact information found in the copy of the original DMCA notice located at the bottom of this email.
If you believe the material has been removed as a result of mistake or misidentification, you may submit a counter-notification of your objection pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3).
Please include the following in your counter-notification:
|
• Your full legal name, complete mailing address (including country), telephone number, email address and Twitter username. • Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled. (Must include specific URLs) |
|
• The following statement: “I swear under penalty of perjury that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled”. • Your physical or electronic signature. You may type the full legal name of the individual responsible for this account in order to meet this requirement. • A proper jurisdictional consent statement in the form of: |
|
(If your address is in the United States) “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district in which my address is located and I’ll accept service of process from the person who provided notice under 17 U.S.C. 512 (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.” OR |
|
I’ll accept service of process from the person who provided notice under 17 U.S.C. 512 (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.” |
Please send your counter-notification to us as a response to this message, or as a new email to copyright@twitter.com.
We will forward a copy of your counter-notification, including the information required in item 1 above, to the complainant and Chilling Effects. BY SENDING US A COUNTER- NOTIFICATION, YOU CONSENT TO THIS DISCLOSURE OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION.
Please note that repeat violations of this policy may result in suspension of your account. In order to avoid this, do not post additional material in violation of our Copyright Policy and
|
immediately remove any material from your account for which you are not authorized to post. ****************************** DMCA Takedown Notice == Copyright owner: Leonard Pozner == Name: Leonard Pozner |
|
== Company: HONR == Address: 261 S Main St #332 == City: Newtown == Country: United States ——- == Description of original work: US copyright office registration# VA1950355 – Noah Pozner brown Jacket Sandy Hook School – HONR Network Protected images as Digital Agent == Links to original work: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B- DItIZd7VK8MllhcGloaWNtbE0/view |
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
== Description of infringement: Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image. ——- == 512(f) Acknowledgment: I understand that under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), I may be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, if I knowingly materially misrepresent that reported material or activity is infringing. == Good Faith Belief: I have good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. == Authority to Act: The information in this notification is accurate, and I state under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. == Signature: Leonard Pozner ref:00DA0000000K0A8.5004A00001ckUGX:ref |
James Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> to Twitter
2:45 AM
|
James H. Fetzer |
|
Twitter has made a mistake. The protected image was not in my tweet. Please restore my image. Here’s the protected image:
Here’s the image in my tweet:
|
Notice that the protected image is not in my tweet.
• Your full legal name, complete mailing address (including country), telephone number, email address and Twitter username.
|
James H. Fetzer |
|
jfetzer@d.umn.edu Jim Fetzer |
• Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled. (Must include specific URLs)
== Reported Tweet URL: https://twitter.com/JimFetzer/status/1070755194613444609 == Description of infringement: Unauthorized use of a copyrighted image.
• The following statement: “I swear under penalty of perjury that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled”.
I do so swear. And the proof is obvious. See above. The disabled image is not the protected image.
• Your physical or electronic signature. You may type the full legal name of the individual responsible for this account in order to meet this requirement.
James H. Fetzer
• A proper jurisdictional consent statement in the form of:
I so consent. James H. Fetzer
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today that Remington can be sued over how it marketed its AR-15-style rifles, like the one allegedly used to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.
Except we know that it really didn’t happen.
Judicial Activism At Work
Although the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) clearly shields gun makers from these types of lawsuits, the Connecticut justices ruled 4-3 to reinstate a wrongful death claim against Remington, while also overturning a lower court judge who ruled “the entire lawsuit was prohibited by the 2005 federal law.”
Any Court proceedings must include extensive Discovery. The still living Sandy Hook kids must be subpoenaed to appear in person in Court…be identified and cross examined concerning the hoax.
Jim, you’re making history, and with likely future major motion picture to portray these events 🙂
Our opponents chose the wrong guy to demand full factual discovery, court evidence, and clear explanation to a hopefully neutral jury.
Best wishes to have fun as you’re doing the professional job you always do.
File….Demand for Supporting Deposition….
along with…Motion for Non Performance Summary Judgement….
make request for….Dismissal With Prejudice….
and….Demand for Cost Restitution….
(not legal advice, only PRO SE suggestion)
I don’t understand this legal ease stuff at all. It’s just something to harass fetzer with and wear him downBUT I don’t think they can prove the death certificate is real and the should be required to right? Can any body tell me?
Pozner has a history of being required to appear in Court but never appearing. He’s a chronic no-show.
Dr. Fetzer, I once again applaud you for this monumental effort. You have the patience of a God. BUT, facing the facts they can stonewall this forever, is there a legal maneuver that will force them into an open court with the fictional Leonard Pozner in appearance? This is obviously a result they can never afford to happen. How long can this continue to be caught up in legal theatrics with no conclusion?
IF LP existed, would it not behoove him to appear and bring this to a close. That in itself tells the story.
PLEASE watch your back!