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.
The suit was filed by Pozner in county court in Lake County, Florida, case 15 CA 001693. Lenny pled that he was the father of Noah Pozner, a child who had been killed at the Sandy Hook shooting on Dec. 14, 2012. His complaint was that Wolf had “intercepted” and published on his website correspondence between Lenny and the Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, which contained Lenny’s address and other personal information. Lenny said he had suffered impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering as a result of the publication. He sought attorney’s fees, costs, and an injunction.
Wolf showed the court more than once not only that he had obtained Lenny’s correspondence from Bondi through Florida’s Open Records Act (See Doc. 39), but that Lenny’s address was stated in Lenny’s own suit against gun manufacturers in Connecticut, which is also online. Pozner’s suit against Wolf did not even state a cognizable claim for relief, such as defamation.
The suit appears to have been a mechanism to conduct a fishing expedition, since Lenny used it to demand production of all correspondence and “emails, instant messages, text messages, voicemails,” and more, relating in any way to the “Dec. 14, 2012, Sandy Hook shooting,” proving that Noah Pozner did not die, there was no investigation or the investigation was corrupt, the death certificate was forged, and the like (see Doc. 16). In other words, he wanted to see what Wolf had. He also wanted to know about Wolf’s prior testimony as an expert witness in school safety. Wolf, by that time representing himself, in error did not respond to the discovery requests, so the plaintiff filed am motion to compel. Wolf did file a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the motion to dismiss (Doc. 21) which stated in the body of the motion that it, along with the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses, were “Special Set” for hearing on Nov. 9, 2016. Wolf (luckily) saw this hearing notice for the motion to compel buried in this other motion that had nothing to do with it, and appeared in court on Nov. 9, 2016, but neither the plaintiff nor his lawyer did, so Lenny’s motion to compel was denied (Doc. 28).
Lenny’s attorney argued later (Doc. 29) that the Nov. 9 hearing was set without notice to him, accusing Wolf of “underhanded maneuvering” and arguing with the judge about whether his motion could have been denied, since he had had no notice of the hearing–when he set it, himself! It appears this man even grieved the judge over this (Doc. 96).
Wolf served requests for production, asking for documents identifying Lenny himself, such as birth certificate, naturalization record, driver’s license, business licenses, and asking whether he was acting as an agent for any governmental entity and, if so, who he worked for and what his duties were. Wolf also asked for all documentary evidence related to the claims in Lenny’s complaint. Interestingly, he asked nothing directly about Noah! Lenny’s attorney, Alan Marcus, asked for an extension the day the responses were due (Doc. 36), saying he had been unable to confer with his client. He then responded with a pile of objections, signing that document himself. Wolf had also served requests for admissions–and the answers were, again, signed by Alan Marcus. Both the rules governing requests for admission as well as production say the answers are supposed to be made by the party. My interpretation of that requirement has always been that an attorney’s signature does not suffice. Marcus moved for an extension to respond to Wolf’s interrogatories in April 2017, saying again that he was unable to confer with his client (Doc 64).
The pièce de résistance is when Wolf noticed Lenny for deposition. Wolf had tried to confer about a date, and got no response, so set it unilaterally (Doc. 58); and Lenny’s attorney moved to strike the notice of deposition and moved for a protective order, asking that the deponent be allowed to appear by telephone (Docs. 60, 61), and purporting to impose numerous conditions on Wolf’s being able to take the deposition, at all. On Aug. 22, 2017, the court finally ordered Leonard Pozner to appear in person for his deposition, and permitted it to be videotaped (Doc. 86). It granted Pozner a delay of three months based on “medical evidence” that he was unable to attend until November 15, 2017. On Nov. 13, 2017, two days before the deposition was supposed to take place Pozner dismissed the lawsuit (Doc. 92).
Wolf had another attorney for a limited period, who moved for $3,373.73 in costs after the dismissal, which did not not even include attorney fees. The claim was denied (Doc. 100).
Throughout this 2-1/2-year ordeal, both Wolf and his wife were subjected to a shocking barrage of profane and threatening emails from Pozner (Doc. 44) saying such things as “Go fuck yourself,” wishing Wolf a “nice day and a stroke,” calling him a loser and a pedophile, threatening him with harassment charges for communicating with Pozner’s attorney, threatening Wolf’s wife, and more. Wolf uncovered multiple aliases, phone numbers, and email addresses used by Pozner, in addition to evidence that he is using the Social Security number of a deceased woman named Anna M. McGuire and owns two handguns, including a Glock with a laser sight (registered under one of the aliases). Leonard Pozner and his former wife Véronique have a pile of judgments against them, too. Wolf has further suffered the hijacking of his identity prior to the lawsuit, by means of packages containing noxious and even dangerous items sent to various people using Wolf’s return address. He has had serious reason to be concerned about this goon–or spook–Pozner, therefore.
It also bears mention that Florida Atlantic University’s dismissal of Dr. James Tracy, a tenured professor, began with Pozner, who complained that Tracy had “harassed” him by sending a letter asking for proof that his son died in the shooting. Pozner’s frivolous charge led the University to develop its pretext for dismissing this tenured professor: that he had failed to fill out forms identifying his extracurricular activities.