Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Pro Se Defendant,
Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Recuse
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington
DEFENDANT’S REPLY
NOW COMES James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Pro Se Defendant, with a Reply to the Response
from Plaintiff’s attorneys filed on July 24, 2024, to Dr. Fetzer’s Motion to Recuse Judge
Frank Remington Pursuant to Wis. Stats. 757.19(2)(g) filed July 9, 2024. Plaintiff’s Response
observes (correctly) that ruling against a party per se does not require a circuit court to
recuse. But this case involves conduct by Judge Remington that has been egregiously
biased in favor of the Plaintiff and against Dr. Fetzer, including (most recently) repeated
violations of basic due process rights under Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Fetzer cannot meet his burden for recusal, alleging that there
is not even the appearance of partiality and that there is no basis for objecting on due
process grounds. Both are in blatant contradiction with Judge Remington’s conduct in
this case from the beginning, which Dr. Fetzer has previously documented and will (at
least, in part) summarize here. All previous submissions in Case No. 18CV3122 are
incorporated and adopted for the purpose of this Reply.
BACKGROUND
Wis. Stats. Chapter 757. General Provisions Concerning Courts of Record, Judges,
Attorneys and Clerks, under Section 757.19 Disqualification of judge, specifically 757.19
(2) asserts, Any judge shall disqualify himself or herself from any civil or criminal action
when one of the following situations occurs: (g) when a judge determines that, for any
reason, he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner
(emphasis added). In relation to the 26 exhibits A-Z supporting Dr. Fetzer’s Motion to
Open Judgment Pursuant to Extrinsic Fraud and Fraud Upon the Court filed on June 20,
2024 (cited below as “MOJ”), Dr. Fetzer submits the following proofs of clear bias and
partiality by Judge Remington, who was acting in collusion with the Pozner attorneys.
ARGUMENT
- (1) Judge Remington Suppressed the Affidavit of Kelley Watt
Judge Remington’s approach was to manufacture a predetermined outcome by
finding that Dr. Fetzer had libeled Leonard Pozner by declaring a death certificate
that Pozner himself had provided to Dr. Fetzer’s research colleague, Kelley Watt,
to be fake. It was done by substituting a different and complete death certificate in
the Complaint. The published death certificate, unlike the substitution, had no file
number nor state or town certification. Under CT law, not even parents are allowed
to possess incomplete death certificates. Kelley Watt’s Affidavit exposes the fraud
and vitiates the case against Dr. Fetzer but was suppressed by Judge Remington in
collusion with the Pozner attorneys (MOJ, Exhibits J, K, and V).
- (2) Judge Remington Dismissed Proof that Nobody Died at Sandy Hook
Judge Remington excluded Dr. Fetzer’s proof that nobody died at Sandy Hook on
both legally and logically absurd grounds, when he declared that, “whether or not Sandy
Hook ever happened or not is not relevant to this – the – the truthfulness or the accuracy
of the death certificate”. But the death certificate states the decedent died at Sandy Hook
on December 14, 2012, of “multiple gunshot wounds” (MOJ, Exhibit M). Once again,
the proof amassed in Dr. Fetzer’s co-edited book, Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a
FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed., 2016), was inconsistent with Pozner’s
position, thereby producing disputed facts that, had they been admitted, required a jury.
- (3) Judge Remington Set Aside Reports of Two Forensic Document Experts
Having restricted the issue to the authenticity or truthfulness of the death certificate
and having disallowed extensive and detailed proof Dr. Fetzer had submitted in defense,
Dr. Fetzer provided reports of two (2) forensic document experts—Larry Wickstrom and
A.P. Robertson—who found not only that the incomplete death certificate published by
Dr. Fetzer was fake but that the complete death certificate attached to the Complaint was
also fake (along with two others obtain from the Town of Newtown and from the State),
Judge Remington simply dismissed them as “someone else’s opinion” and said, “I just
don’t think they were helpful” (MOJ, Exhibit R, pages 163 and 165). Their uncontested
reports (again) vitiated the case against Dr. Fetzer by proving his statements were true.
- (4) Judge Remington denied Dr. Fetzer Discovery on his Counterclaims
To ensure that Dr. Fetzer not discover more proof of the non-occurrence of mass
murder or that the decedent had not died at Sandy Hook, Judge Remington took the
further step of bifurcating the case to deny Dr. Fetzer discovery on his counterclaims
of Abuse of Process, Fraud and Theft by Deception, and Fraud upon the Court, a deft
maneuver to cut off Dr. Fetzer’s access to new evidence that might strengthen his case
(MOJ, Exhibit N). This denial of Dr. Fetzer’s right to discovery has now been used to
claim that Dr. Fetzer had not made allegations of Fraud upon the Court in a timely
manner, brought about by Judge Remington’s denial of Dr. Fetzer’s discovery rights.
- (5) Judge Remington Refused to Admit Proof that Noah Pozner is a Fiction
Dr, Fetzer repeatedly advanced proof that the alleged decedent, Noah Pozner, was not a
real person but a legal fiction created out of photographs of his purported older half-brother,
Michael Vabner. Dr. Fetzer raised the issue by moving to expand DNA testing to include,
not just Noah Pozner and Leonard Pozner, but Michael Vabner and Reuben Vabner, whom
Dr. Fetzer had concluded to be the basis for “Noah” and for “Leonard” (MOJ, Exhibit O).
This fact has now been substantiated by the Affidavit of Brian Davidson, P.I., who has also
established that the party who testified as “Leonard Pozner” in Madison is not the same
person as the “Leonard Pozner” of Sandy Hook, whose image has appeared millions of
times around the world (MOJ, Exhibits W, X, and Y). This has enormous importance,
not least of all because it implicates Pozner’s attorneys in the subornation of perjury.
- (6) Judge Remington Refused to Acknowledge Dr. Fetzer as a Media Person
To lower the bar for finding Dr. Fetzer liable, Judge Remington declined to rule
that Dr. Fetzer had media standing as an investigative journalist, even though Dr. Fetzer
had submitted a brief laying out his experience as an investigative journalist/reporter
for decades, including paid assignments (MOJ, Exhibit U). Even more blatantly, Dr.
Fetzer was being sued over three sentences in a book he had co-edited and another in
a separate publication to which he had contributed. How could Judge Remington,
who insisted that he read every document submitted to the court, have missed this?
- (7) When Dr. Fetzer tried to Expose the Impostor, he was Sanctioned
Among the most important tells that Judge Remington was acting in concert
with the Pozner attorneys is that, when Dr. Fetzer attempted to expose the party
who had testified under the name of “Leonard Pozner” as an impostor (because
he was too young and too small to be the Sandy Hook Pozner), Dr. Fetzer sent
the video deposition to Wolfgang Halbig for confirmation. Judge Remington took
offense and held Dr. Fetzer in Contempt of Court, adding attorney fees in the
amount of $650,000 to the $450,000 that would be awarded by the jury for
his purported defamation of Leonard Pozner, thereby protecting himself and
the Pozner attorneys, when Dr. Fetzer had told the truth (MOJ, pages 11-15).
Judge Remington has been so eager to avoid his exposure that he has now
violated Dr. Fetzer’s due process rights by abandoning the Wisconsin Rules of
Civil Procedure, Chapter 802, not once or twice, but three times: (1) by rejecting
Dr. Fetzer’s Motion to Open Judgment Pursuant to Extrinsic Fraud and Fraud
upon the Court filed on June 20, 2024; (2) by rejecting Dr. Fetzer’s Request for
Relief from Judgment or Order filed on June 20, 2024, and (3) by granting Plantiff’s
Motion to Seal or Redact a Court Record filed on June 24, 2024.
The Pozner Response thus fails. It was not making decisions per se that deprived
Dr. Fetzer of his legal rights but the decisions that Judge Remington made. The pattern
of ruling to deny Dr. Fetzer’s motions and facts to produce no disputed facts when the
case was factually contradictory from the beginning reveals that Judge Remington was
acting with partiality and bias—of a rather extreme variety given he manufactured the
absence of disputed facts to apply Summary Judgment—in a case that had to be sent
to a jury for fact resolution. This goes far beyond the appearance of partiality and bias.
. Judge Remington, together with the Pozner attorneys in opposition—including Jake
Zimmerman (Pro Hac Vice), Genevieve Zimmerman (WI #1100693), and Emily M. Feinstein
(WI SBN: 1037924)—acted in concert to deprive Dr. Fetzer his right to present a valid defense
by violating the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure and denying Dr. Fetzer his right to a trial
by jury. They (separately and jointly) sabotaged these proceedings by going so far as to suborn
perjury by an impostor witness. And when Dr. Fetzer attempted to expose the fraud, he was (in
no uncertain terms) smacked down by Judge Remington, lest the deception become known.
They don’t want to be held to account for multiple violations of Supreme Court Rules
and Rules of Civil Procedure whereby they committed Fraud upon the Court (Dekker,
214 Wis. 2d at 21) by eliminating disputed facts and fabricating a case against him.
RELIEF SOUGHT
By suppressing the Affidavit of Kelley Watt, dismissing proof that nobody died
at Sandy Hook and that Noah Pozner was a legal fiction, setting aside the reports of
two forensic document experts, denying Dr. Fetzer discovery on his counterclaims,
failing to acknowledge Dr. Fetzer as a media person and holding him in contempt when
he sought to expose the impostor witness—together with his more recent procedural
violations to suppress the proof of his egregious misconduct as quickly as possible—
Judge Remington has egregiously violated Wis. Stats. Chapter 757. General Provisions
Concerning Courts of Record, Judges, Attorneys and Clerks, under Section 757.19(2)(g)
Disqualification of Judge. Dr. Fetzer therefore again moves that Judge Remington recuse
himself from this case and any further associated proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Electronically signed by: /s/ James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Pro Se Defendant
800 Violet Lane
Oregon, WI 53575
(608) 835-270
Submitted the 31st day of July 2024. jfetzer@d.umn.edu
For more on my Motion to Open Judgment Pursuant to Extrinsic Fraud and Fraud upon the Court, click here.
Or visit my GiveSendGo site at GiveSendGo.com/fundingfetzer
