SANDY HOOK “Pozner v. Fetzer” Lawsuit: Defendant Fetzer’s Proposed Undisputed Findings of Fact

James Fetzerblog

Jim Fetzer

After filing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on 30 April 2019, I received a letter from the Court advising me that I could not speak for my co-defendants and otherwise would be practicing law without a license and that I had to supplement my Motion with a declaration of Proposed Undisputed Findings of Fact before the Court could consider it  So I filed both an Errata to change my submission to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the following Proposed Undisputed Findings of Fact, which I hope will be sufficient to decide the case without having to go to trial.
For those in need of a primer, as I explained in “THE SANDY HOOK ‘Pozner v. Fetzer’ LAWSUIT FOR DUMMIES” (8 January 2019), the man who calls himself “Leonard Pozner” and poses as the father of a child said to have died at Sandy Hook has sued me for defamation for describing the death certificate he gave to Kelley Watt (above left) as a “fabrication”. He claims that, since the State of Connecticut has certified a death certificate (above right) that does not differ “in any material respect”, I have defamed him. Follow the facts I have submitted to the Court and then decide for yourself.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF WISCONSIN                                    CIRCUIT COURT                                           DANE COUNTY

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LEONARD POZNER,                                                                                                           CASE NO. 2018-CV-003122

Plaintiff,

vs

JAMES FETZER,

MIKE PALECEK, and

WRONGS WITHOUT WREMEDIES, LLC,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT FETZER’S PROPOSED UNDISPUTED FINDINGS OF FACT

_____________________________________________________________________________

Defendant James Fetzer (hereinafter “Defendant”) hereby submits his proposed findings of fact in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claims dated 30 April 2019. The term “Motion” is used, below, as a substitute for “Fetzer Affidavit,” since he has sworn under oath to the veracity of the factual statements in the Motion.

  1. Plaintiff Leonard Pozner (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) engaged in around 100 hours of phone conversations with Kelley Watt of Tulsa, Oklahoma, over a six-month interval (Watt Aff., ¶9).

 
2. Kelley Watt has listened to audio of an interview done by Richard Gutjahr and confirmed that the subject of the interview, identified as Leonard Pozner, is absolutely the same man she had those conversations with, who identified himself to her as “Lenny Pozner” (Watt Aff. ¶20).

 

  1. After repeatedly asking Plaintiff for his son Noah’s death certificate and other materials, Kelley Watt received the following email:

On Monday, May 12, 2014, Len Pozner <______________> wrote

Take a look on my google page lenpoz.com

The documents posted there may interest you

Lenny

(The actual email is in Defendant’s Errata; it was referred to but not quoted in Ch. 11, p. 184, of Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Pro1mote Gun Control, on p. 49 of 51 of theMotion, Exhibit 3 to Watt Aff.; Watt Aff. ¶¶17-18.)

 

  1. The web address lenpoz.com directs to a Google Plus page with the address https://noahpozner.blogspot.com, which has numerous family photos of “Noah Pozner” on it, all posted by “Lenny” and bearing the label “Lenny Pozner” (admission of a party opponent per Wis.Stat. 908.01(4)(b)(1)).

 

  1. Kelley Watt found the death certificate for “Noah Samuel Pozner” posted on the above website, which says it is owned by Leonard Pozner. She provided that death certificate to Defendant (Motion, p. 2; Watt Aff.).

 

  1. It is attached to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit B (Motion, p. 2).

 

  1. Exhibit B is the version Defendant wrote about in the book, Nobody Died At Sandy Hook:It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd edition, 2016) and concluded to be afake, a forgery, or a fabrication. (Motion, pp. 1, 9-10.)

 

  1. Chapter 11, “Are Sandy Hook Skeptics Delusional with ‘Twisted Minds,” was co-authored by Defendant and Kelley Watt, and is identical in both editions (Watt Aff., ¶10).

 

  1. Defendant and Kelley Watt addressed the death certificate that Plaintiff gave to Kelley Watt (Exhibit B) in that chapter (Exhibit 3 to Watt Aff.).

 

  1. Exhibit B to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is the death certificate purporting to be of “Noah Samuel Pozner” that Defendant has repeatedly asserted to be a fake, a forgery and a fabrication in Chapter 11 of the book and many blogs, videos and interviews (Motion, pp. 2, 3; Exhibit B).

 

  1. The document Plaintiff attached to his Complaint, which he has represented to the Court as the death certificate of his son “N.P.”—Exhibit A to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment—contains much of the same information as Exhibit B (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion).

 

  1. Exhibit A has distinct differences from Exhibit B (Motion, pp. 2-5, 8-10).

 

  1. Exhibit A has a state file number, while Exhibit B does not (Exhibit A; Exhibit B).

 

  1. Exhibit A bears the words “boxes 12 & 22 corrected as per Father 6/14/13 Leonard Pozner” and has the address “37 Alpine Circle” lined out in boxes 12 and 22, with a new address “3 Kale Davis Road” typed in.

 

  1. Exhibit A, to the extent to which it is discernible, has relatively uniform texture and tone while Exhibit B displays obvious differences in tone and texture, where the bottom has a dark cast that is missing from the top (Exhibit A, Exhibit B).

 

  1. Defendant has stated that this difference arises because the document is a fabrication using the bottom of an authentic death certificate with the top half of a fake (Motion, p. 3).

 

  1. Exhibit A is not the death certificate that Defendant has repeatedly asserted to be a fake, a forgery or a fabrication in the book or in many blogs, videos and interviews (Motion, p. 2).

 

  1. Defendant had published no statements whatsoever about Exhibit A prior to this suit, which he had not previously seen (Motion, p. 2).

 

  1. Exhibit B is an uncertified copy or version of a death certificate purporting to be of “Noah Samuel Pozner” (Motion, pp. 4-5; Exhibit B).

 

  1. The Town Clerk is the Registrar of Vital Statistics within each Connecticut town. (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-37(a)).

 

  1. In Newtown, CT, the Registrar of Vital Statistics in 2012 was Debbie Aurelia (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, p. 4). She has since changed her name to Debbie Aurelia Halstead (judicial notice).

 

  1. The town registrar registers the original death certificate and submits a certified copy to the State Department of Public Health and Vital Statistics, which then can also issue certified copies itself. (Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-42).

 

  1. The Registrar of Vital Statistics in each town has an official seal provided by the town, which is required to be used to authenticate certificates and copies of record. (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-40).

 

  1. Debbie Aurelia’s signature at the bottom of the death certificate is not the required certification of authenticity of the copy, but is, instead, her declaration of when the certificate was received by her for recording (Exhibit B; Motion, p. 4).

 

  1. There is no certification of authenticity of the copy on Exhibit B; no attestation of it as authentic; and no official town seal (Exhibit B).

 

  1. Under Connecticut law, no one but an approved genealogical researcher or state or federal agency can obtain an uncertified copy of a death certificate (Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-51a).

 

  1. The uncertified death certificate, Exhibit B, was created in violation of law and is a forgery (Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-51a; Motion, pp. 5, 6).

 

  1. Because Exhibit B was posted on lenpoz.com, Plaintiff was in possession of Exhibit B (which necessarily follows from its presence on his website).

 

  1. ExhibitB,  in  box 39,  has  “No” checked  to  the question,  “WAS  AN AUTOPSY PERFORMED?” (Exhibit B).

 

  1. Plaintiff has filed with the Court an autopsy report for “Noah Samuel Pozner” attached to Plaintiff’s “Motion for Paternity Testing” (Exhibit C).

 

  1. The statement in box 39 of Exhibit B is false (which necessarily follows from Exhibit C).

 

  1. Exhibit A has the same false indication in box 39 (necessarily follows).

 

  1. No medical personnel ever entered Sandy Hook Elementary School during the day of 14 December 2012 (Exhibit D; Motion, p. 8).

 

  1. Then-Chief State Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver II, M.D. said publicly that the bodies were not brought out of the school until sometime during the night after the 14 December 2012 event at Sandy Hook Elementary School, under cover of darkness (Motion, p. 8, n. 4).

 

  1. No medical professional declared anyone dead inside Sandy Hook Elementary School during the day on 14 December 2012 (necessarily follows from the above).

 

  1. The Official Report by Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky III says the shooting took place between 9:30 AM and 9:41 AM (“Errata to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment”; https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DCJ/SandyHookFinalReportpdf.pdf,p. 9).

 

  1. The 11:00 AM time of death stated on both Exhibit A and Exhibit B is thus false (follows from the four previous findings).

 

  1. Sandy Hook Elementary School is within the Town of Newtown (judicial notice; Motion, pp. 4, 6).

 

  1. The death of “Noah Samuel Pozner” was registered in the Town of Newtown on 26 December 2012, as established by the dated signature of Debbie Aurelia on both Exhibit A and Exhibit B (Motion, p. 6).

 

  1. No burial permit could legally issue for “Noah Samuel Pozner” until after the registration of his death, which occurred on 26 December 2012 (Motion, pp. 6-7).

 

  1. There was no permit for the burial of “Noah Samuel Pozner” on 17 December 2012 (Motion, pp. 6-7; follows from foregoing finding).

 

  1. “Noah Samuel Pozner” was not buried on 17 December 2012 (follows necessarily from foregoing findings).

 

  1. Defendant’s published statements about different typefaces and pitches used in various boxes; lack of certification; and different shading on Exhibit B are true (Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 2-3, 8-10).

 

  1. Exhibit A does not bear the official seal of the town registrar certifying the authenticity of the copy (Motion, p. 8).

 

  1. Neither Exhibit A nor Exhibit B is on safety paper, meaning the certificates could the more easily have been forged (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; judicial notice).

 

  1. Exhibit B, because it is uncertified, violates Connecticut law and is therefore a fake, a forgery and a fabrication (Motion, pp. 4-6).

 

  1. Exhibit A, because it contains a false indication of nonperformance of an autopsy, is a fake, a forgery and a fabrication (Exhibit A; Motion, p. 6).

 

  1. Exhibit B, because it contains a false indication of nonperformance of an autopsy, is a fake, a forgery and a fabrication (Exhibit B; Motion, p. 6).

 

  1. Exhibit A, because it contains a false statement about time of death, is a fake, a forgery and a fabrication (Exhibit A; Exhibit D; Motion, pp. 7-8; Sedensky Report; Errata).

 

  1. Exhibit B, because it contains a false statement about time of death, is a fake, a forgery and a fabrication (Exhibit B; Exhibit D; Motion, pp. 7-8; Sedensky Report; Errata).

 

  1. Exhibit A bears a date of receipt of the death certificate by the town registrar more than five days after death, in violation of Connecticut law, and therefore is a fake, a forgery and a fabrication (Exhibit A; Motion, pp. 6-7).

 

  1. Exhibit B bears a date of receipt of the death certificate by the town registrar more than five days after death, in violation of Connecticut law, and therefore is a fake, a forgery and a fabrication. (Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 6-7).

 

  1. Since Dr. Carver checked “No” to the question, “WAS AN AUTOPSY PERFORMED,” in box 39, and signed the death certificate which is Exhibit A, even while completing a Post-Mortem Examination Report on the same day, 15 December 2012, he made a material misrepresentation on the death certificate, which is a crime (Exhibit A; Motion, p. 7).

 

  1. Since Dr. Carver checked “No” to the question, “WAS AN AUTOPSY PERFORMED,” in box 39, and signed the death certificate which is Exhibit B, even while completing a Post-Mortem Examination Report on the same day, 15 December 2012, he made a material misrepresentation on the death certificate, which is a crime (Exhibit B; Motion, p. 7).

 

  1. Exhibit A is not an authentic death certificate issued by the State of Connecticut (necessarily follows from the foregoing).

 

  1. Plaintiff and his lead counsel Jacob S. Zimmerman both knew, or should have known, before filing this suit, that Exhibit A was not an authentic death certificate issued by the State of Connecticut (necessarily follows from the foregoing).

 

  1. Death reportedly occurred on Friday, 14 December 2012, and five business days later is 21 December, not 26 December 2012. Thus, the registration of the death on 26 December 2012, violated Connecticut law (Motion, pp. 6-7).

 

  1. Because both Exhibit A and Exhibit B state the death was not registered until 26 December 2012, funeral director Samuel Green violated the law requiring registration of the death within five business days (necessarily follows from the foregoing).

 

  1. The paramedic who declared “N.P.” dead at 11:00 AM, as referenced in the autopsy report, is unnamed, because no medical professional entered the school during the day (Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Motion, pp. 7-8; Sedensky Report, p. 9; Errata).

 

  1. The statement of declaration of death at 11:00 AM is false on the autopsy report provided to this Court by Plaintiff (Exhibit C).

 

  1. Both state and town certifications of the copy of the death certificate appear on Exhibit A (Motion, p. 8).

 

  1. There is no raised seal accompanying either certification on the copy of Exhibit A which Plaintiff served on Defendant (Motion, p. 8).

 

  1. Exhibit A—putatively certified by the state, but lacking the seal—does not comport with

 

the state’s legal requirements for authenticity (necessarily follows from preceding findings).

 

  1. To the extent to which both death certificates are similar, the differences in font types, styles and sizes in both Exhibits A and B support Defendant’s additional allegations of fabrication (Motion, pp. 9-10).

 

  1. The use of typewriters rather than computers makes these variations easy to spot, such as

 

in the downward slope of the name “Noah Samuel Pozner” on both certificates (Motion, pp. 8-9).

 

  1. At the very top in box 3, where the date is posted, the type is clearly smaller than the rest of the page (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. The capital “A” in Alpine in box 12 for RESIDENCE is identical to the capital “A” in Alpine in box 22 for MAILING ADDRESS and is also identical to the capital “A” in Abraham in box 33 for FUNERAL FACILITY (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. The capital “A” in question above in three different boxes has a small flag at its pinnacle (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. Comparing the capital “A” in findings 67 and 68, without the small flag in box 4, ACTUAL OR PRESUMED TIME OF DEATH, box 26, CITY OR TOWN OF DEATH & ZIP CODE, box 27, COUNTY OF DEATH, box 38, TIME PRONOUNCED, and in box 46, TIME OF INJURY, compels the conclusion that they are not the same (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. Comparing “Noah,” in box 1, DECEDENT’S LEGAL NAME, with “November,” in box 7, Date of Birth (MM/DD/YYYY), compels the conclusion that the spacing between the “N” and the “o” is quite different (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. Comparing “Samuel,” in box 1, DECEDENT’S LEGAL NAME, with “Sandy,” in box 11, RESIDENCE, compels the conclusion that the spacing between the “S” and the “a” is not the same (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. The entire spacing in box 1 is unlike any other in Exhibit B, as reported on pages 182-183 of Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control. The spacing between “N” and “o” in box 1 and box 7 is clearly different (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. Comparing “Pozner” in box 1, DECEDENT’S LEGAL NAME, with “Pozner” in box 20, INFORMANT’S NAME, compels the conclusion that they are not the same (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. These variations indicate that the document was created at different times using different typewriters or different type-balls with a typewriter (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10).

 

  1. Defendant contends that, insofar as Exhibit A is the same as Exhibit B in these respects, the latter is inauthentic, too, and is a fake prepared as such by the State of Connecticut (Exhibit A; Exhibit B; Motion, pp. 8-10; follows from above findings).

 

  1. The faint imitation of a circular seal on the bottom left of Exhibit B is not where the seal from the town should be placed, another indication of fakery, since no seal is required for the registrar’s statement of receipt of the record.

 

  1. The differences between Exhibit A and Exhibit B are material (necessarily follows).

 

  1. Defendant’s assertions about Exhibit B are substantially true (necessarily follows).

 

  1. The false time of death, false indication of no autopsy, late 26 December receipt by Debbie Aurelia, and absence of a raised seal establish that Exhibit A is also a fake, a forgery and a fabrication (necessarily follows).

 

  1. Since Defendant’s statements are substantially true, Defendant did not publish statements with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false.

 

  1. Plaintiff has secured opinion pieces in some of the nation’s largest newspapers, and appearances in front of the nation’s largest broadcasters (Motion, p. 14).

 

  1. Plaintiff instigated a campaign to get Professor James Tracy fired from his tenured teaching position at Florida Atlantic University for publicly sharing his private doubts and concerns about the official narrative of the Sandy Hook Elementary School event on his own personal blog (Motion p. 14).

 

83. Plaintiff’s successful venture against Professor Tracy was extensively covered by the print, broadcast and digital media worldwide at the time (Motion. p.14)

 

  1. Plaintiff has voluntarily thrust himself and is a key figure to the forefront of the Sandy Hook controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved (Motion, p. 14, reciting statements from Plaintiff’s Complaint).

 

  1. Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure (Motion, p. 14)

 

  1. Malice is not shown, as a matter of law, because Defendant’s statements are substantially true (Motion, pp. 14-15).

 

  1. Exhibit B is a forgery due to the violations of Connecticut law revealed on its face (Motion, p. 15 and passim).

 

  1. Defendant made no publication of any statement relating to Exhibit A prior to being served with this lawsuit (Motion, passim).

 

  1. Defendant made no “recklessly defamatory publication” relating to either Exhibit A or Exhibit B (Motion, pp. 14-15).

 

  1. Defendant’s description of Exhibit B as a fake, a forgery and a fabrication was true prior to this lawsuit and has received considerable further substantiation in the course thereof (Motion).

 

Signed:   _____________________________

James Fetzer

Please follow and like us:
error
fb-share-icon
Tweet
fb-share-icon
views: 2,320

Related Posts

November 19, 2024 3

Joachim Hagopian, Order-Following Biden Launches Long-Range US Missiles into Russia to Ignite WWIII

November 19, 2024 1

Jim Fetzer, Princeton in the Nation’s Service, Class of ’62 Style (II)

November 16, 2024 1

DCDave, 2020 Election: Kavanaugh Stabbed Supporters, Nation in the Back over Vote

95 thoughts on “SANDY HOOK “Pozner v. Fetzer” Lawsuit: Defendant Fetzer’s Proposed Undisputed Findings of Fact”

  1. Here are the most recent documents filed by Dr, Fetzer. Jim will be presenting his oral argument to the court on Monday., June 17. This will be a long, ongoing post as there is a limitation on how many images I can download per comment…

    Attachment

    Report comment

      1. and page 3 (of 6)…after the six pages are up, since there are more than a hundred more pages of documents, it’s likely Jim will be providing an article that will include all the documents. It MAY be possible to view all the documents on the Dane County Wisconsin Courthouse site, although I have yet to find the precise filings…just a mention of them…

        Attachment

      6. The following are the 7 pages of Robertson’s Declaration to the court….it’s stunning….

        Attachment

      13. Now we have the credentials for Larry Rivera followed by his affidavit:

        Attachment

      17. Page 3 (of 7)….(Page 2 is above, out of sequence) of Larry Rivera’s affidavit:

        Attachment

      2. With this much reported carnage we ought to see a lot of bodies and blood. But as usual we just do not see it. It looks like a drill. In fact a shooter drill was planned for the following day….therefore everything was in place for this Gladio event.

        Stand by for another one in about a month.

      3. It’s relentless. How they keep getting the authorities et al to continue to go along with this is beyond understanding.
        Seems there is no doubt just about anyone will sell their souls for a bit of gold.

  3. https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-7090009%2FBarack-Obama-says-gun-laws-dont-make-sense.html

    Former chief hoaxer Obama says that machine guns are available to buy in the US. This is a lie. Just one of many he’s told. He is deeply involved in the Sandy Hook Hoax. He travels all the way to Sao Paulo, Brazil this week to continue the charade.

    Here is his Sao Paulo quote..”Gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, anytime without, you know, without much if any regulation. They can buy over the Internet. They can buy machine guns..”

    Report comment

    1. Fetzer tried this not long ago, it’s not Rosen. The text to that FEMA photo has been edited multiple times. Rosen’s name was added and then removed, added again and removed again. Finally whoever put his name with the photo just gave up.

      All the changes made to the post:

      commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:FEMA_-_37563_-_FEMA_representatives_talking_with_children_at_a_Law_Enforcement_celebration_in_Texas.jpg&action=history

      Since 11/19/14 it no longer says it is Rosen in the photo.

      Men do not match anyway. Rosen’s ear on the left, FEMA employee’s on the right:

      imgur.com/UlzXHMW

      FEMA employee’s hand on the left, Rosen’s on the right:

      imgur.com/N2U9BwN

      Report comment

      1. Look at the genius of this. Photos emerge showing Gene Rosen doing his thing for FEMA, so people like “Bob” edit the image so they can claim the image was edited! That it’s Rosen isn’t seriously in doubt. His story was absurd from the beginning; but “Bob” is going to do his best to sow uncertainty and confusion within the public–and look at the swell job he’s doing of it!

      2. The original photo did not have Rosen’s name, someone added it after the fact. It was first uploaded in 2009 with just FEMA Representative. In January ’13 someone added Eugene Rosen to the the text. It went back and forth with people adding Rosen’s name and others removing it. Rosen’s name was last added Aug 9th 2013. By December it went back to just saying FEMA Representative, which is what it still says. So whoever was adding Rosen to the text just gave up.

        The hand and ear do not match anyway.

      3. And do you also believe that a bus driver let off 4, 5 o 6 kids (depending on the telling) at Gene Rosen’s house, when he was neither their parent nor their guardian? Why do you come here and insult us with rubbish? The only folks pushing the Sandy Hook narrative these days are either fakes and frauds (including purveyors of disinformation) or those who cannot add “2” and “2”.

      4. Actually, the official story is different but just as ludicrous. Apparently the children ran right past the firehouse where helper adult men in uniforms work and only then decided to plop down on Gene’s lawn next door to cry. The bus driver was off shift in his/her POV running errands when he/she and (redacted) happened to chance upon the kids. Nobody calls the cops, mystery passenger in the story (the angry man “yelling at the kids”?) just drops out of the narrative and disappears, and bus driver goes into Gene’s house for hours with the children while Command Central is stood up next door. Sirens, what sirens?
        It makes perfect sense…. in clown world.

      5. The alleged photo showing Rosen as a FEMA employee has been around 6 1/2 years, in that time have you investigated that claim more?

        You have not answered this question depite it being asked many times. Who is the boy in the Spider Man video on Pozner’s Youtube channel? You and “anonymous 2′ think it’s a 4 year old in the video, so who is it ?

      6. My bad – the super cop writing the Bus Driver witness statement redacted the sex of the witness only to turn around and write “her” and “she” in the body of the text.
        We knew that anyway because of Gene…it just took the cops 3 weeks to “find” the woman.

      7. https://youtu.be/4tiEGwhyjLg

        Here’s Gene’s rehearsing his story on camera for the news media. He even almost knows the cameraman’s name….”Matt”.

        Can it get any weirder?

        There are also photos of him at the firehouse getting coffee at the same time he was supposedly hosting the kids with cookies and juice.

        Hey Gene, you’re supposed to know your lines *before* you go on camera….even as an amateur actor you should know that.

  5. Dr. Fetzer…Excellent program last evening on The Real Deal. Is it tomorrow that ‘Dr.’ Carver will be deposed and do you sill intend to participate via telephone? In which case, I wish you the best outcome.

    Anyhow, here’s is a recent video from one of my favorite commentators regarding ‘conspiracy theories’ and false flags…short and sweet…James Corbett is known for that: …

    Top 5 “Conspiracy Theories” That Turned Out To Be True

    https://tinyurl.com/yycp7z46

    Report comment

  6. Don, I understand the DS’s need to perpetuate this myth but at some point the truth may overwhelm the ‘narrative’. “Lenny” may have been a tad to aggressive with this lawsuit and could’ve set himself up to expose his real identity. After all that’s why he dropped the suit against Halbig, he would’ve been deposed, in person . Can’t have that. I bet the other crisis actors. Parker, etc are a tad nervous as Lenny has the appearance of a loose cannon whose facing real research and facts

    Report comment

    1. R. S. yes, “Lenny” is always a ‘no-show’ in Court when he might be cross-examined concerning who he is and the true facts of Sandy Hook. That’s one of the reasons there have been no successful wrongful death lawsuits. *Discovery* in a courtroom could destroy the Sandy Hook myth.

      The truth and facts concerning Sandy Hook are so devastating to the myth that the world’s largest book distributor Amazon rushed to ban Jim Fetzer’s book about Sandy Hook. In the process of their banning, they stomped all over the First Amendment.

      Report comment

  8. “Of course you feel confident about your submission.
    But I don’t have one bit of confidence in the judiciary.”
    This comment recalled for me Your, Gordon Duff’s and a third VT Senior’s three-way discussion a couple of years ago. G. said something like: There’s not an honest court left in the United States!
    A bit harsh, but gird yourself. If I can at all manage, I will write briefly to the Court as amicus.

    moderated

    2. Paul, simply out of curiosity, is it possible for anyone to write to the court as amicus or amicus curiae? Is there a form or proper language to use to be recognized? Just makes me wonder why this is not done in many cases in which the general public would like to have a say in a proceeding that would be of interest, the outcome of which
      could be beneficial the average ‘citizen’. Or am I being far too naive?

      Report comment

      1. Will, I can write citizenly, not yet again lawerly, counsel; here: you can petition Government for a redress of grievances. This Right looks, to me, to entail also a Duty. That is my personal view it is borne a) of the following counsel given me and others years ago: “Read the Constitution. Read it constantly.” and b) of need.

        Further personal citizenly view here: If you petition Government write carefully strongly and respectfully. Be brief.

      2. Paul…Sounds like you’ve been to the BAR and back. If so, you are in a better place now….for We the People.

        The NEED is to be free, eh? We are 327,000,000 souls who ancestors started with that dream.

        One soul with a grievance would be less than a gnat to be flicked away. 5,000,000 MIGHT peak their interest….these pseudo gods in their BLACK robes.

  9. Who is this little boy from the Spider Man video?

    For that boy to be Michael Vabner, he would have to be at least 7. That Spider man movie came out May/June 2002, Vabner was born April ’95. that boy does not look or sound 7.

    Attachment

    moderated

      1. The video is on Pozner’s YouTube channel or just search “Noah Pozner Spider man”. The boy in the video does not look or sound 7.

      5. 4 or 5, which would put the video being made in 2011.

        Fetzer mentioned the video in an April 2019 blog:

        jamesfetzer.org/2019/04/sandy-hook-pozner-v-fetzer-lawsuit-defendants-motion-for-expansion-of-dna-testing/

        He relied on someone named “anonymous2” for the video.

        “Here we have a frame from a video of Noah talking about a scene from “Spiderman” (2002). You can watch the video by clicking Noah and Spiderman. From the vivid details of his recollection, Anonymous2 infers that Noah had just seen the movie, which would make him around 4 years old in 2002.

        At the time of the event at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012, however, Noah was supposed to be 6 years old. He cannot have been 4 years old in 2002 and only 2 years older in 2012. He would have been around 14 at the time of the alleged shooting, which would better fit Michael Vabner, not Noah.”

        What “anonymous2” is saying is that Noah, born in 2006, could not have seen a movie made in 2002. Why would Fetzer put that in his blog? Common sense would tell you Noah, in 2011, watched Spider man on TV or DVD or Blu-ray.

      6. If I did not believe Noah exists….as does the Dr……I see no reason that image could not come from 2002 and that image be of a young Vabner at 7.
        IF Leonard Pozner (if he exists) is so intent on telling the truth, seems he could provide a date on the video…..what would keep him from doing so. OR, has he?

      7. Why do you think Fetzer posted that on his blog? Wouldn’t it occur to him that Noah could have watched the movie on TV? Fetzer says that “anonymous2” infers Noah had just seen the movie.

        From that blog, Fetzer wrote “Anonymous2 infers that Noah had just seen the movie, which would make him around 4 years old in 2002.” So Fetzer believes the boy in that video is 4. Since he believes Noah is really Michael, why didn’t Fetzer say it’s 7 yo Michael in the video?

      8. I would prefer you answer my question instead of presenting me with another question instead of an answwer…then we can go from there.

      9. You/Fetzer do not believe the death certificate is real, why would you believe him if he said when the video was recorded?

      10. You’re speculating as to his motives. From the link you sent, that video was presented in 2014. He would not have any motive NOT to publish the date at that time. If I was trying to prove beyond a doubt that someone existed and the date of video proof could do that, it would certainly behoove me to make sure that date was published AND certifiable.

      11. And if someone as yourself was actually sincerely interested in getting to the bottom of things, it would seem to me that would be the first thing you would question and the most easily answered.

      12. What does uploaded it in 2014 have to do with it? he could have just wanted to put it out there as a tribute. He also has a video of Noah and Arielle’s 4th birthday

        youtube.com/watch?v=JhPnALtRFjw

        Looks about the same as he does in the Spider man video.

      13. What does uploaded it in 2014 have to do with it?

        If you can’t figure that out..well, what can I say.

        Without verifiable dates on those vids, they mean zip….AND absolutely nothing proves they are the fictional Noah.

        Does not the remarkable resemblance between Michael Vabner and the supposed Noah Pozner at least give you some pause?

      14. They had the same mother, so of course they would look a like. Michael and Danielle Vabner look a like too. But Noah and his twin Arielle, look exactly a like. So is Arielle really Danielle?

        The boy in the 4th Bday video and the Spider Man video look about the same age. There certainly does not look like a three year difference in them.

      17. They do not look the same age to me.

        AND, how do you know it’s his (their) 4th birthday…whomever they are?

        AND, at this time stamp, does the name sound like ‘Noah’ or ‘Arielle’?…even when slowed down: (sound garbled or interfered with to me)

        https://youtu.be/JhPnALtRFjw?t=15

      18. The candle on the cake is a 4, can see it clearly at the :17 mark.

        At :18 you can hear the people say Noah & Arielle, all the voices blend together, but you can hear it. Certainly do not hear the name Michael said.

      19. Slow the video to 0.75, you can hear them say Noah at the :16 mark.

        Also, watch in 1080p, full screen and look at the ears. Fetzer says all the Noah photos have been phtoshopped. Since Noah and Michael’s ears do not match, Fetzer says Noah’s ears had to be photoshopped. You can see Noah ears in the video. they do not match Michael’s.

      20. Try using that as evidence in a court and see how far you get.
        I’ll give you the 4…as for the rest…no way would it stand up without a date and some kind of sworn testimony by several witnesses as to their identity and the date of the video.

      21. Ah yes, but those witnesses could be brought forward if needed. On the other, hand you think Fetzer would bring up the Spider man video and tell the court a boy born in 2006 could not have seen a movie made in 2002? That would be hilarious if he tried that.

        Those videos are a big problem for the Michael is Noah theory.

      22. He would not have to bring that up, as there is such a preponderance of evidence in the motion he presented to the court, there will be no need.

        With that, I bid you good day.

      23. There was and is a lot of confusion about the characters that ”participated” in the Sandy Hook Hoax. Several have been proven to be totally nonexistent people….Adam Lanza is one.
        In plain language, there was no ”Adam Lanza” in real life. All of the photos of ”Adam” are actually a real person named Ryan Lanza. You can check this on google but remember that google reports that all of the hoaxes were real events and than 26 people were really killed at Sandy Hook school. Can we trust google? Never.

        I have a little rule of thumb in all of these hundreds of hoaxes….if there is even one fictional non-person in the scenario, there are usually many.

      24. Of course these hoaxers were playing switcheroo with family photos, names of their real and fake kids, their ages and anything else to confuse and befuddle investigators.

        Several of the ”dead” kids attended their own funerals. Many of the ”dead” were kids from other families, relatives, neighbors, etc.

        Photos were flipped, photo-shopped, reversed and any other contrivance to confuse the situation…therefore its almost impossible to discuss the evidence as its presented.

    2. Bob, unless you have not been following my blog (which is obviously untrue), you know that (in my opinion) there is no “Noah Pozner”, who is a fiction made up out of photos of his (ostensibly) older step-brother, Michael Vabner, when he was a child. Since this boy looks like “Noah” and Noah is a fiction made up out of photos of Michael, it has to be Michael Vabner. Not too difficult to figure oui.

      Report comment

      1. You and “anonymous 2” say the boy in the video is four. You both conclude that the boy just saw the 2002 Spider man movie and say it can’t be Noah since he was born in 2006. Michael Vabner was born in April 1995, for it to be him in the video, the boy needs to be over seven.

        So will you now change your story and say the boy in the video is seven, since you can’t admit that it’s Noah and the video was recorded in 2011, after he saw the movie on TV or DVD or Blu-Ray.

  10. Eustace Mullins represented himself countless times in court and prevailed often without an attorney. He always advocated immediately counter suing no matter the situation. He said lawyers never want to do this because they make more money with two separate cases. Hmmm. Or suing first and making the other guy the defendant. This whole shabang sure sends a message, the “just us” system will make you want to just go hang yourself. I could not even bring myself to read more than 20 of the 90 items. This trip to crazy town happened 7 years ago. This new school shooting du jour here in Colorado, it’s Sandy Hoax 5.0 all over again for high schoolers. It’s driving me over the edge how much they will leverage this Stem School shooting to the hilt. They already agreed to spend 10 million more on “security” in Douglas County. One kid said he thought it was drill. People are interviewed laughing about a mass shooting. I attached another one here. You got the hero hosting rallies that sound like victory laps for a quarterback at the state championship. You got parents giving interviews before there’s even time for a funeral. And not crying! You got a kid getting shot three times and they are being released from the hospital like it’s three mosquito bites. You got the wounded kids father giving TV interviews instead of being at the hospital. He appears completely at ease and composed considering there’s three bullet holes in his boy. None of it makes sense, no one questions the absurdity. The mocking of this hero’s handler grinning ear to ear. You’ve seldom seen people this happy since the Miracle on Ice happened. It’s so in your face I am beside myself at the zombie trance all of Colorado is in over this contrived event. Brain dead beyond all reason. I posted this picture and the reaction was unbelievable. The gaps in logic are filled in with silly putty

    Attachment

    Report comment

    1. dk….I feel your frustration. Mine is the same. Unfortunately, we have not enough behind us to make a difference and no one on the inside that could stand up for sanity. These people and all the others involved in ALL these false flags or hoaxes have sold their souls and since they have very likely signed NDAs, I see no way back for them. But, I have said it before and will continue to say there must be someone out there who will take a stand for We the People and expose these treacherous bastardz at whatever cost. It only takes ONE…JUST ONE on the inside to blow the whole damn thing wide open.

      If you are reading this, do it and take a stand for what is right and honorable.

      Report comment

      1. I’m guessing with Jim’s current kangaroo kourt proceedings, he is not weighing in on Stem School Scam… nice alliterative title for the latest school shooting du jour and please be generous to the poor, they aren’t coming to disarm us no they would never harm us, what about above ground nuclear tests? We survived their very best, attempts to kill us all in one fell swoop or slowly one by one, we got quiet weapons for a silent war on humanity and the tragedy… no one seems to notice. There’s lines in the sky, no need to wonder why, just take your ambient tab and your flu shot jab, it goes right over most people’s heads until grandpa drops dead of dementia, they are dropping aluminum by the ton, pilots must be having some fun. Excerpts from my latest song F#m, D,A,E

      2. nice alliterative title for the latest school shooting du jour

        and please be generous to the poor,

        they aren’t coming to disarm us no they would never harm us,

        what about above ground nuclear tests? We survived their very best,

        attempts to kill us all in one fell swoop or slowly one by one,

        we got quiet weapons for a silent war on humanity and the tragedy…

        no one seems to notice.

        There’s lines in the sky,

        no need to wonder why,

        just take your ambient tab and your flu shot jab,

        it goes right over most people’s heads until grandpa drops dead of dementia,

        they are dropping aluminum by the ton, pilots must be having some fun.

        Attachment

    2. These hoaxes will continue for the next 100+ years because the MSM is controlled by a rogue CIA and its Operation Mockingbird.

      JFK tried to challenge and decimate the CIA and look what happened to him. His AG brother tried to throttle the Mafia. Same for M L King. Politics in the US is a blood sport…..typical of banana republics.

      If some brave high ranking politician speaks out about these frauds, their life is in grave danger.

      I don’t understand how US citizens can be proud of America, its near the top of the inventory of corrupt nations.

      Report comment

  13. Dr…So the original document had to be altered and /or supplemented so it does not look as if you are acting as a lawyer for your co-defendents….but basically, the facts have not changed,…..they have only been put under a different name so the court will hear them…is this sort of correct?

    Report comment

    1. Not quite. Technically, I cannot speak for my co-defendants, so my Motion for Summary Judgment had to be for me as one defendant rather than all three of us as defendants; hence, change from “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” to “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment”. The arguments and claims are all the same.

      But for the convenience of the Court, motions for summary judgment must be accompanied by claims that the party claims to be “undisputed”, which are intended to be sufficient for the Court to render a verdict without having to go to trial, because there are no “issues of fact” for the jury to decide. I feel very confident about my submission.

      Report comment

      1. Dr. Fetzer, does a Summary Judgement in your favor end it for Mike as well, or would he still need to petition?

      2. Yes, if the Court rules in favor of my Motion for Summary Judgment, the case is done for all parties–but we have filed counterclaiims, so there would now be a new case with roles reversed, where the man who calls himself “Leonard Pozner” is now the Defendant and we become the Plaintiffs against him. Stand by!

      3. Jim, I understand the wheels of justice can turn slow. What kind of time frame would be reasonable for the court to rule on your Motion for Summary Judgment. This debacle of lies and deception called Sandy Hook has gone on far too long. Thanks

      4. R. S.: The Sandy Hook Debacle is going to be around for a long time because the CT Governor, CT State Police, Eric Holder and Obama and many others are deeply involved in it.

        It could all change in one day if some high government official has the nerve to blow the proverbial whistle. But this is not likely to happen.

        The last President that dared to speak up against the US Government intelligence community had his brains blown out on a street in Dallas.

        Check Google about Sandy Hook. It says that everything about Sandy Hook is exactly as it was reported by ALL of the TV and radio network news agencies.

Leave a Reply