Tag: defamation

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Pro Se Defendant, Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Recuse Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington

James Fetzerblog

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.…

Mary Maxwell, The Real Sandy Hook Tragedy Begins Now: Arrests Called For

James Fetzerblog

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB The day of the Sandy Hook school massacre — December 14, 2012 — is not a tragic day, as there were no deaths. There was no shooter. There weren’t six staff members who tried valiantly to save the 20 children. It was an ordinary Friday. The massacre story is fiction. There have been many false flag events in the US and elsewhere. Some are pure fiction, such as the crash of Flight UA93 in Shanksville Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. No plane fell to…

APPEAL BRIEF in the Dane County, WI, Sandy Hook Defamation Lawsuit: Pozner v. Fetzer

James Fetzerblog

[Editor’s note: This was a classic SLAPP suit masquerading as a defamation. For background, see “Why the Sandy Hook ‘Pozner v. Fetzer’ Lawsuit Matters: What’s Really at Stake” (18 January 2020). For a downloadable copy of the brief, click here. I am profoundly indebted to Richard Bolton, Attorney-at-Law, both literally and figuratively, for representing me post-verdict. Anyone who would like to support our efforts on behalf of the First Amendment is welcome to contribute to James Fetzer Legal Defense Fund, 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, WI 53575. The appeal has been…

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…