On Elizabeth Williamson’s Verbal Assault on Sandy Hook Skeptics

Jim and all,

It is noted and agreed that no party has been allowed to challenge the mass media cartel narrative on Sandy Hook in any court of law.

But one thing sticks out in my mind after working with a AAA trial lawyer for over 10 years. And I’m sure all lawyers learn that a cause of action is lost if only one element is missing, like a chain pulling a wagon, it stops. If a cause of action requires proof of 6 elements, one need not prove 5 or 6 are missing, but only one. Often defendants take the opposite approach and try to prove a complicated defense rather than disproving a simple claim and many times they are led down that path by the plaintiff who complicates the fact that they have no claim. The Pozner vs. Fetzer case involves facts so emotional and international that people get lost in the notoriety and fail to consider the simple elements of this case. This case covers up the simplicity of it with mountains of irrelevant emotionalism on both sides. I maintain the following:

• That there is only one death certificate of relevance (not the five different version of the same in the court record);
• There are only four written statements of relevance (not Dr. Fetzer’s book or any other thing he ever wrote);
• That the complaint is that Dr. Fetzer said the one and only incomplete death certificate of relevance was “a forgery, fake, and fabricated.”
• The only relevant incomplete death certificate emailed to Dr. Fetzer’s friend by Mr. Pozner is not a death certificate and was not even a full copy of a completed death certificate with all the seals and signatures of required officials. Therefore, the Death Certificate was indeed fake even if Dr. Fetzer concluded the same by other less applicable means. In libel, it matters not how you arrived at the printing of the truth.

We need not go any further to review what happened at Sandy Hook or get Noah’s blood samples and compare DNA. This is a mountain built on nothing.

One of the elements of libel is that it must be directed against the plaintiff not just anybody or everybody. But the four statements printed by Dr. Fetzer do not name or suggest that Mr. Pozner was the one who faked, forged or fabricated the death certificate therefore Pozner could not prove he was the target of the libel. So even if the Death Certificate had been complete and perfect the libel case would still fail as Dr. Fetzer never accused Pozner of faking, forging or fabricating the relevant death certificate similitude, only publishing it.

And further, this article by Elizabeth Williamson shows that these relatives of Sandy Hook victims are on a mission to alter the law using the harm done by another, whether the event be real or entirely pretended, it is irrelevant. These relatives have become disarmament terrorists as they are using that harm, real or pretended, even if directed at themselves, to alter the law of the land. And since they are all working and “planning” and making “strategies” to “break the code,” they are all involved in a conspiracy to commit disarmament terrorism against the 2nd Amendment. It is against the law of the land to disarm the American people and this law should never be changed or infringed as it is the only defense the people have against tyranny and the police it uses and the military it can command.

Of course, we all agree that the summary judgment was completely erroneous. The lawyer’s statement in the article that they had to prove Noah was a real boy and that Leonard was his dad and that he was born and died to win the Summary Judgment proves it to be erroneous. That is not the proper use of a summary judgment! A summary judgment does not prove or disprove or seek proof of facts on one side or both. The lawyer by admitting such a course of action on the summary judgment reveals the misuse of the summary judgment to deny Dr. Fetzer a fair trial. So Williamson, the lawyer and the judges and justices so far have proven their gross ignorance of what summary judgments are and the only way in which they can be employed justly.

A summary judgment by a judge alone must find agreement to facts, not proof on one side over the other. If the court seeks facts concerning the truth of one side or the other THEY ARE REQUIRED to call in the fact finder, THE JURY!

So when the Williamson article said “Fetzer produced no evidence to support his false claims, and lost the summary judgement” they too neither understand what a summary judgment is nor what happened in court. No facts are proven by either side in a summary judgment. To grant a summary judgment, the judge must find agreement on the facts, not prove them! And if the facts don’t agree completely, any doubt on any of them, must be resolved in favor of the non-movant before a summary judgment can be granted against them then the application of the law to that agreement or resolution of facts in the non-movant’s favor, Dr. Fetzer.

Regardless of the confusion of Dr. Fetzer in how to defend himself without an attorney on a the summary judgment, the judge should have denied the summary judgment as there were facts in dispute and the facts could not have been resolved in Dr. Fetzer’s favor without finding that Sandy Hook didn’t happen and that the death certificates were fake. Denial of the summary judgment was the only course for the judge that would be harmless to both sides. But not only did the judge grant an erroneous groundless summary judgment, the 4th Court of Appeals in Wisconsin affirmed it and a week ago the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied a Petition for Review after waiting almost 9 months.

We cannot let this stand.

Sincerely,

Ron