Alex Jones may have taken a fall, but back in 2015, Infowars was reporting that Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015) had been banned by amazon.com after having been on sale less than a month and selling nearly 500 copies. Given what we have learned in the meanwhile about the man who calls himself “Lenny Pozner” and his HONR Network, it would not surprise me if HONR had played a role in getting the book banned. He has boasted of having taken down “tens of thousands” of content items for the Internet, where the book would count as only one! It was designed to be a best seller, which the Deep State could not afford. It thus appears one or more of its assets was deployed to contain the threat.
The photo Infowars featured was perfect: Exhibit 26 from Chapter 8, which captures what we initially thought was a SWAT team vehicle, but which I have been told is instead a Crime Scene Investigations van. You can tell this was taken before the event, because the string of four windows of Classroom 10 are visible above the front roof–and they are not damaged. After the event, they would be shot out, especially the second pane, as you can see below (undamaged on the top-left, as shown above; damaged after the event, as shown on the top-right). Notice there is crime scene tape up for a crime that has yet to be committed, which is already conclusive proof that Sandy Hook was no child massacre.
When amazon.com banned the book, I immediately released it to the public as a PDF for free. An expert who follows these things had told me he estimates that it has been downloaded at least 10,000,000 times, reflecting the public’s interest in knowing the truth about Sandy Hook. (Those who prefer a physical copy to have and to hold can obtain the 2nd edition (2016) from moonrockbooks.com.) Apparently not satisfied with banning the book, taking down blogs and removing YouTubes that reveal what really happened on 14 December 2012, “Lenny” filed a lawsuit against me, Mike Palecek and moonrockbooks.com for defamation, not because we defamed him–truth is an absolute defense–but to punish us for publishing it.
30 April 2019 was “crunch time” for Motions for Summary Judgment to be submitted to the Court. These are requests with supporting evidence that the Judge rule prior to trial that there is sufficient evidence to decide the case without having to put it before a jury. While the Plaintiff (“Lenny”) has submitted an MSJ of his own, I believe that ours will prevail. Here it is for you to evaluate for yourselves. We continued to press forward with discovery and research, hoping our motion will be granted but preparing for a vigorous and aggressive defense at trial. The Court has ruled that both parties must focus on the narrowly-defined authenticity of the death certificate, which we have done here. May truth and justice prevail!
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY
LEONARD POZNER, CASE TYPE: DEFAMATION
and WRONGS WITHOUT WREMEDIES, LLC,
Defendants. CASE NO. 2018-CV-003122
Defendant James Fetzer, pro se (and hereafter in the first person), pursuant to Wis. Stat. 802.08, respectfully moves for summary judgment on the Complaint. Defendants Mike Palecek and Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC, join in this motion. My attestation to the truth of the factual statements herein appears by verification at the foot of this motion, and attached is the affidavit of Kelley Watt, establishing that the death certificate I had addressed and described as a fake, a fraud, or a fabrication in my publications, came from Plaintiff Leonard Pozner.
Plaintiff complains that I have published false statements about the document he has included in his Complaint as Attachment A, which he claims is the official death certificate of his deceased son, to whom he refers as “N.P”. A copy of that document (virtually illegible in the version with which I was served) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges, at Complaint ¶18:
There, Defendant Fetzer made the following false statement: “It [N.P.’s death certificate] turned out to be a fabrication, with the bottom half of a real death certificate and the top half of a fake, with no file number and the wrong estimated time of death at 11 AM, when ‘officially’ the shooting took place between 9:35-9:40 that morning.” That statement is false, both in its particular fact and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in which it was made, because N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery or fake. [Emphasis added]
And at Complaint ¶19:
The Connecticut Department of Public Heath maintains official death records for the State of Connecticut. The Connecticut Department of Public Heath, Vital Records Division, issued an official death certificate for N.P. A true and correct copy of that death certificate (sensitive information redacted) is attached hereto as Attachment A. The official death certificate attached hereto does not differ in any material respect from the one released publicly by Plaintiff.[Emphasis added]
Referring to Exhibit A, Plaintiff further says, at Complaint ¶23 and ¶32, “N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery.”
The first problem with Plaintiff’s contentions is that, prior to being served with Plaintiff’s Complaint on 29 November 2018, I had never even seen Exhibit A, much less addressed its authenticity in any forum. Exhibit B, attached—not Exhibit A—is the document I have asserted, in my books, videos, and blogs, to be a fabricated death certificate of “Noah Pozner”. Exhibit B was provided me by a person named Kelley Watt, who obtained it from Plaintiff, as she attests in her affidavit. Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Mr. Zimmerman’s assertion that these two documents “do not differ in any material respect” is wrong. There are several material differences between Exhibit A and Exhibit B, as follows:
- The version attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Exhibit A, bears a file number (handwritten 2012-07-078033) in a box at top right, and the signature of Debbie Aurelia, Town Clerk and Registrar for the Town of Newtown, certifying to the authenticity of the copy on its left-hand side. While it is a copy so poor as to be nearly illegible, there is no evidence of a seal over Debbie Aurelia’s signature on the left. (Her signature appears twice, at the bottom of the document and down the left-hand side.) If there were a seal on the original, then the certified copy should have shown that important feature.) On Exhibit A, there is also a certification by, and stamp of, the Connecticut State Registrar of Vital Records, one Elizabeth Frugale, attesting to the authenticity of the copy. Thus, there are two certifications on Exhibit A. Exhibit B, by contrast, bears no signature or seal of either the state or town registrar certifying to authenticity of the copy. There is a faint dashed arc in the bottom-left corner of Exhibit B, which does not appear on Exhibit A.
- Exhibit A bears a handwritten note across the top, saying “boxes 12 & 22 corrected as per Father 6-14-13 Leonard Pozner.” (Also, the handwritten reference to “Father . . . Leonard Pozner” does not correspond to the father’s name as printed on Exhibit A, which is “Lenny”) Box 12 (decedent’s residence) and box 22 (decedent’s mailing address) then have the address “37 Alpine Circle” struck through, and “3 Kale Davis Road” typed in. Exhibit B does not bear these changes.
- Exhibit B has, in its bottommost portion on the right, a box for the Social Security number, which is blacked out. This box appears blank on Exhibit A,
- Exhibit B displays darkness gradients missing from Exhibit A. I have suggested it was created by combining the bottom portion of a real death certificate with the top portion of a fake (which appears to have been smoothed out digitally in Exhibit A).
The foregoing differences between the document that Plaintiff is suing me over, which he alleges to be the actual death certificate (Exhibit A), and the document I have alleged is fabricated (Exhibit B), are material. In addition, on its face, Exhibit B reveals the violation of several Connecticut laws, which means that Plaintiff’s claim for defamation fails. Exhibit B is a forgery, as I have maintained. I have made no statements whatsoever about Exhibit A, other than in the context of this suit, but will discuss it in this pleading, since it, too, is a fabrication.
BOTH VIOLATE CONNECTICUT LAW
A. Because Exhibit B is uncertified, it is a fake.
The most obvious difference between the two documents is that Exhibit A is apparently certified (twice), while Exhibit B is uncertified.
In Connecticut, a certified copy of a death certificate may be issued at either the town or the state level. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-36(5). The Town Clerk is the Registrar of Vital Statistics within the town, Sec. 7-37(a), in this case, Debbie Aurelia. The Town Registrar registers the original record and submits a certified copy to the State Department of Public Health and Vital Statistics, which then can also issue certified copies itself. Sec. 7-40 says, “The registrar of vital statistics in each town shall have an official seal that shall be provided by the town and shall be used to authenticate certificates and copies of record. . . . ” [Emphasis added] Also, Sec. 7-36(7) says:
“Authenticate” or “authenticated” means to affix to a vital record in paper format the official seal, or to affix to a vital record in electronic format the user identification, password, or other means of electronic identification, as approved by the department, of the creator of the vital record, or the creator’s designee, by which affixing the creator of such paper or electronic vital record, or the creator’s designee, affirms the integrity of such vital record[.][Emphasis added]
Debbie Aurelia’s signature at the bottom of the document is not the required certification of authenticity of the copy, but is rather her statement of when the certificate was received by her for recording, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-42. There is nocertification of authenticity of the copyon Exhibit B: no attestation it is authentic by any official, town or state, and no official town seal.
The absence of certification on Exhibit B is a key feature that this death certificate was forged, since by law no one but an approved genealogical researcher or state or federal agency can obtain an uncertified copy. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-51a (2012)states:
Copies of vital records. Access to vital records by members of genealogical societies. Marriage and civil union licenses. Death certificates. Issuance of certified copies of electronically filed certificates.(a) Any person eighteen years of age or older may certified copies of marriage and death records, and certified copies of records of births or fetal deaths which are at least one hundred years old, in the custody of any registrar of vital statistics. The department may issue uncertified copies of death certificates for deaths occurring less than one hundred years ago, and uncertified copies of birth, marriage, death and fetal death certificates for births, marriages, deaths and fetal deaths that occurred at least one hundred years ago, to researchers approved by the department pursuant to section 19a-25, and to state and federal agencies approved by the department.During all normal business hours, members of genealogical societies incorporated or authorized by the Secretary of the State to do business or conduct affairs in this state shall (1) have full access to all vital records in the custody of any registrar of vital statistics, including certificates, ledgers, record books, card files, indexes and database printouts, except for those records containing Social Security numbers protected pursuant to 42 USC 405 (c)(2)(C), and confidential files on adoptions, gender change, gestational agreements and paternity, (2) be permitted to make notes from such records, (3) be permitted to purchase certified copies of such records, and (4) be permitted to incorporate statistics derived from such records in the publications of such genealogical societies. For all vital records containing Social Security numbers that are protected from disclosure pursuant to federal law, the Social Security numbers contained on such records shall be redacted from any certified copy of such records issued to a genealogist by a registrar of vital statistics. [Emphasis added]
Thus, by law, not even a parent can obtain an uncertified copy of a death certificate.An uncertified copy is illegal, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-62a, which says:
Illegal issuance of death certificates. No person other than a registrar of vital statistics or the commissioner shall issue or cause to be issued an uncertified copyof a certificate of birth, death, fetal death or marriage, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of section 7-51a. Any person who violates this section shall be fined not more than one hundred fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. [Emphasis added]
Exhibit B, because it is uncertified, is a fake; and whoever created it or caused it to be created has committed a crime, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
B. Exhibit B says no autopsy was performed, yet Plaintiff has submitted an autopsy report to the Court.
Exhibit B has been falsified in another respect—and probably Exhibit A has, as well, although the entry cannot be read in my copy—which is that Box 39asks, “Was an autopsy performed?” and “No” is checked. Yet, according to Plaintiff’s own submissions, then-Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver II M.D. did perform an autopsy. This is the post-mortem examination report accompanying Plaintiff’s MOTION FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT. § 885.23—for genetic tests to establish paternity—a copy of which is attached here as Exhibit C.
Since Dr. Carver signed both on the same day, 15 December 2012, he is presumptively responsible for a material misrepresentation on the death certificate, a crime. The autopsy report was undoubtedly fabricated, too, but it suffices for this point that Plaintiff’s own evidence puts the lie to Exhibit B.
C. The 26 December 2012 date of the town registrar’s receipt of the death certificate—on both Exhibit A and Exhibit B—is not legally compliant, meaning the child was buried without a permit, and that both death certificates are fake.
The date on which Newtown Registrar, Debbie Aurelia, has written that she obtained the death certificate (her signature at the bottom), 26 December 2012, also violates the law. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-62b(a) provides that a funeral director must complete and file a death certificate with the registrar no more than five business days after death, if filing a paper certificate, or three business days after death, if filed electronically, in order to obtain a burial permit. Death reportedly occurred on Friday, 14 December 2012, and five business days later is 21 December, not 26 December 2012. “Noah Pozner” was reported to have been buried on 17 December 2012. Thus, the death certificate was not registered as of 17 December 2012, and therefore there could not have been a burial permit when the boy, “N.P.”, was buried.
The responsibility of filing the death certificate with the Registrar is taken over by the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office, if he is conducting an inquiry, per Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-62b(b) and Sec. 19a-409. The latter, “Issuance of Death Certificates,” says, “Upon completion of the investigation the [medical examiner] shall file a death certificate, or a certificate supplementing that already filed, with the registrar of vital statistics for the town in which the death occurred . . .” Dr. Carver had 30 days to file a supplement, if he needed to, but both Exhibits A and B show that he did not need to. He completed his investigation approximately 24 hours after the putative homicide at 8:30 AM, insofar as his signature is on the death certificate and dated 15 December 2012, which jibes with the date of his post-mortem examination. But Debbie Aurelia attested that she did not receive the death certificate until 26 December 2012, 11 days later. Without that registration, the boy “N.P.” has to have been buried without a burial permit.
For these reasons, too, not only is Exhibit B a presumptive forgery, but so is Exhibit A.
D.The time of death does not comport with the official narrative, and no declaration of death was made at that time (or ever).
Both exhibits state the time death was pronounced as 11 AM. While Dr. Carver’s autopsy report also says death was determined by “paramedic” (unnamed) at 11 AM, as well as “All victims were pronounced at the scene on 12/14/12 at 1100 hours by EMS,” the official narrative says the shooting took place between 9:30 and 9:40 AM.
More importantly, the paramedic who declared “N.P.” dead at 11 AM is unnamed, because there is no such person. The 7,000-page “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Reports” of the Connecticut State Police on Sandy Hook contains an investigator’s interview with an EMT, Karin M. Halstead, a Captain at the Fire Department, saying that neither she nor any of her crew—the Search and Rescue Team—went inside Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012. This means that no paramedic ever declared anyone dead inside the school. Exhibit D. Bodies were not brought out of the school, according to Dr. Carver’s public statements, until sometime that night, under cover of darkness.
There was no pronouncement of “Noah Pozner’s” death at 11 AM on 14 December 2012, so this statement on the death certificate is also false. And it is false on the autopsy report.
E. Exhibit A is not a certified copy, since it is illegible and bears no raised seal.
“Certified copy” is defined at Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-36(5) to mean:
. . . a copy of a birth, death, fetal death or marriage certificate that (A) includes all information on the certificate except such information that is non-disclosable by law, (B) is issued or transmitted by any registrar of vital statistics, (C) includes an attested signature and the raised seal of an authorized person, and (D) if submitted to the department, includes all information required by the commissioner[.] [Emphasis added]
Although, as noted, both state and town certifications of the copy appear on Exhibit A, there is no evidence of a raised seal accompanying either, and the signatures are not attested to. That means that not even this version—Exhibit A—putatively certified by the state, comports with the state’s own legal requirements of authenticity.
F. Both Exhibits display typographical inconsistencies suggesting they are both fake.
To the extent to which they appear to be similar, the differences in font types, styles and sizes support my additional allegations of fabrication, which are presented in Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (Second Edition—Expanded and Revised; 2016). The verbatim text published on pages 182-183 of the 2nd edition of the book, for example, offers the following observations of Bob Sims:
(1) I am rather surprised, according to the copy you posted, that any branch of government was still using typewriters at all, when computers can do it so much better. However, the use of a typewriter in this case makes it much easier to spot fraud.
(2) For starters, can you see any reason for the government typist to change the ball back and forth on the IBM machine I must assume was being used, because I cannot think of a reason to go to the extra trouble, and what for?
(3) For example, look at the very top in Box 3, where the date is posted. Why is that type clearly smaller than the rest of the page? You would have to change the ball for this, but for what reason?
(4) Now look at the capital “A” in Box 12 for Residence (Alpine). It is identical to the capital “A” in Box 22 for Mailing Address (Alpine). It is also identical to the capital “A” in Box 33 for Funeral Home. This is totally as expected, is it not? Read on.
(5) Note that the capital “A” in question above in three different boxes has a small flag at its pinnacle. Compare that to the capital “A”, without the small flag in Box 4, Time of Death, Box 26, City or Town, Box 27, County of Death, and Box 39 [sic: 38], Time Pronounced, and in Box 46, Time of Injury.
(6) Compare Box 1, “Noah,” with Box 7, “November,” and you will clearly see that the spacing between the “N” and the “o” is quite different.
(7) Compare Box 1, the “N” in “Noah,” with Box 26, the “N” in “SANDY.” They are clearly different.
(8) Compare Box 1, “Samuel,” with Box 11, “Sandy,” and again, the spacing between the “S” and the “a” is clearly not the same.
(9) In fact, the entire spacing in Box 1 is unlike any other in the forged document.as reported on pages 182-183 of our book, the spacing between “N” and “o” in Box 1 and Box 7 is clearly different, which indicates fabrication and fakery.
(10) Compare the name “Pozner” in Box 1 with “Pozner” in Box 20, clearly not the same.
Because of the variation in spacing and fonts in the copy of Exhibit B, and the copy said to be certified by the State of Connecticut—Exhibit A—if the latter is the same as the former, then the latter is most likely inauthentic, too, and a fake prepared as such by the State of Connecticut.
Plaintiff’s first two counts are for defamation, Count One against all Defendants and Count Two against only me. The analysis of defamation in Wisconsin jurisprudence is as stated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 210 Wis. 2d 524, 534-35, 563 N.W.2d 472 (1997):
The elements of a common law action for defamation are: (1) a false statement; (2) communicated by speech, conduct, or in writing to a person other than the one defamed [referred to here as “publication”]; and (3) the communication is unprivileged and tends to harm one’s reputation, lowering him or her in the estimation of the community or deterring third persons from dealing with him or her.
. . . If the challenged statements as a whole are not capable of a false and defamatory meaning, or are substantially true, a libel action will fail. Meier v. Meurer,8 Wis. 2d 24, 29, 98 N.W.2d 411 (1959).
In Meier, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said, “In this state, if a statement be substantially true it cannot be the basis for a civil action for libel.” Meier, 8 Wis. 2d at 29 (citations omitted).
For purposes of this motion only, I will hypothetically concede that the statements I made about Exhibit B might tend to harm Plaintiff’s reputation, lower him in the estimation of the community, and deter third persons from dealing with him. Thus, the analysis proceeds to examine whether the other elements of the claim of defamation are met. They are definitely not.
A. My statements were substantially true, so the claim of defamation cannot stand.
I have established that Exhibit B is a forgery as a matter of law, since Plaintiff cannot lawfully have an uncertified death certificate in his possession. That feature already establishes the truth of my assertions. Numerous other features of Exhibit B support that conclusion, as well, those being the 11 AM time of death, supported by no pronouncement of any medical professional inside the school and contrary to the official narrative; Debbie Aurelia’s receipt of the death certificate 11 days after the medical examiner dated it; the box for an autopsy checked “No”, when an autopsy report dated 15 December 2012 has been produced by Plaintiff himself; the apparent imitation of a circular seal on the bottom left of Exhibit B (which is not where the seal from the town should be placed, and no seal is required for the registrar’s statement of receipt of the record); and the numerous font, pitch, type-size variations, and overall patchwork nature of the document itself. The element of falsity required to support a claim for defamation has not been met, therefore. Should we have made minor errors, “[s]light inaccuracies of expression are immaterial provided that the defamatory charge is true in substance[,]” Fields Foundation, Ltd., v. Christensen, 103 Wis. 2d 465, 486, 309 N.W. 2d 125 (Wis. App. 1981) citing Lathan v. Journal Co., 30 Wis. 2d 146, 151, 140 N.W.2d 417, 420 (1966), quoting Restatement of Tortssec. 582 at 218 (1938). My statements about the fabrication of Exhibit B are true in substance, because forgery of it has been established as a matter of law. Truth is a complete defense to defamation. Torgerson, supra. Plaintiff’s first two counts, therefore, fail on this element alone.
B. I made no statements about Exhibit A, so the element of publication is not met.
The defamation claim also fails on the element of publication, because the statements excerpted from in Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control(Second Edition—Expanded and Revised; 2016)and others on my blog about the death certificate of “N.P.” refer to a document which even Plaintiff does not identify as the death certificate and never mentions in his Complaint. There is no issue of material fact that I have ever published any statements whatsoever about Exhibit A, other than since I received the Complaint, since I had never seen it until I was sued. I made statements only about Exhibit B, which is materially different, the most significant reason being the absence of any certification whatsoever; but all the more given the plenitude of reasons recited here.
Although I do not need to address any claim of defamation occasioned by my comments about Exhibit A—since I have made none and the case must be dismissed already for that reason alone—I have gone further in this motion and established that Exhibit A is also a fabrication.
C. Defendants’ statements are privileged under the First Amendment, since Plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure.
Although the analysis of the element of falsity ends with the conclusion that my statements are true, such that summary judgment must be granted, an additional defense to defamation is my First Amendment privilege. In a case alleging defamation of a public figure by a news media outlet, the plaintiff must show malice. “Where the defamation plaintiff is a public figure, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution mandate that the plaintiff prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.” Torgerson, 210 Wis. 2nd at 535, citing Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.501 U.S. 496, 510 (1991) citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964). The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Company v. Sullivan set the bar extremely high for those public figures wishing to prove they have been defamed, as they must prove “actual malice” to recover for claims based on speech, and that a defendant was operating with knowledge that what he or she was saying was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. In fact, the primary holding of New York Times Company v. Sullivan is that “to sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), added to a plaintiff’s burden in proving defamation, ruling that plaintiffs must prove that a defendant “acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea,” meaning that a defendant actually knewhe or she would be committing defamation.
“Leonard Pozner” is a public figure, as he admits to in his Complaint, where he states, “Prior to undertaking such responses, Plaintiff had no meaningful public presence.” Pozner goes on to admit that he has undertaken efforts to raise his public profile: “Plaintiff has undertaken efforts to respond to and debunk false statements and denigration of the memory of his murdered son.” Out of all the parents who claim to have lost children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School event, Pozner is arguably the most recognizable, as he has pushed his way onto the public stage, securing opinion pieces in some of the nation’s largest newspapers, and air time in front of the nation’s largest broadcasters. As part of his campaign, Pozner initiated and instigated a battle to get Professor James Tracy fired from his tenured teaching position at Florida Atlantic University, simply for publicly sharing his doubts and concerns about the official narrative of the Sandy Hook Elementary School event. This successful venture of his was extensively covered by the world’s print, broadcast and digital media. In many ways, Pozner is the face of the Sandy Hook Elementary School event.
While courts have ruled that there are two types of public figures recognized under defamation law—“all-purpose” and “limited-purpose”—Pozner clearly falls into the latter category, which is defined as individuals who “have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345. Pozner is a textbook example of a “limited-purpose” public figure, as these are “individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.” As the courts have ruled that a limited-purpose public figure is “one who voluntarily becomes a key figure in a particular controversy,” Pozner’s actions since the Sandy Hook Elementary School event have established his limited-purpose public figure status. Additionally, insofar as the courts have ruled that public figures “who seek damages for defamatory statements must show that the statements were made with actual malice—that is, with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard as to their falsity”—Plaintiff must establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
He will be unable to do so. Malice cannot be shown, as a matter of law, because the statements are true. Even if there are minor errors, any inquiry into whether they were published with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity is obviated by the fact that Exhibit B is a forgery due to the violations of Connecticut law revealed on its face.
There being no issue of material fact, the first two counts against the Defendants must be dismissed. As for Count Three, conspiracy, conspiracy is not a separate cause of action but a theory of liability predicated on the commission of the underlying tort. Ferris v. Sauer et al., 2011 Wis.App. 134; Segall v. Hurwitz, 114 Wis. 2d 471, 482, 339 N.W.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1983). Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants acted together, as a cabal, to accomplish their defamation” and had a “meeting of the minds on the object or course of action underlying their recklessly defamatory publication.” Complaint ¶41. Since there was no defamation, let alone “recklessly defamatory publication,” this claim fails, too.
There being no material fact in issue as to any of the three claims for relief, judgment must be rendered for the Defendants as a matter of law.
 The italicized heading provided here came from the 2018 version; otherwise, the 2012 and 2018 versions of the statute are the same. All of the other statutes quoted from in this motion are the same in 2018 as they were in 2012, as well, unless a date is given in the citation.
VERIFICATION OF JAMES FETZER
I, James Fetzer, of age and duly sworn, state under oath that I have read the foregoing, and the factual statements made therein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
STATE OF WISCONSIN )
COUNTY OF DANE )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of April, 2019, by James Fetzer.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL:
My commission expires:
AFFIDAVIT OF KELLEY WATT
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY
LEONARD POZNER, CASE TYPE: DEFAMATION
and WRONGS WITHOUT WREMEDIES, LLC,
CASE NO. 2018-CV-003122
AFFIDAVIT OF KELLEY WATT
Kelley Watt, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows:
- I make this Affidavit of my own personal knowledge.
- I became interested in Sandy Hook from the beginning. Because of my background as the owner of a commercial and home cleaning service, I was aware that blood is a bio-hazard that has to be properly handled with chain-of-custody records from scene to disposal.
- It was I who called several state agencies without success asking the simple question, “Who cleaned up the blood?” Nobody knew. I was eventually directed to make contact with Lt. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police, who responded to my query with, “What blood?” This heightened my suspicions that nobody knew because there had been no blood.
- My account of my pursuit of the answer to this question has been published in Ch. 5, “Top Ten Reasons Sandy Hook was a Hoax” by Vivian Lee, Ph.D., on page 63, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control(2015; 2nd ed., 2016), where the author also reports that I discussed my experience with Defendant Fetzer on his radio program, “The Real Deal” (December 9, 2013).
- I also explain what happened in “Kelley Watt: Nobody Knows Who Cleaned Up the Blood—No Blood to Clean Up?”, a Sandy Hook memorandum published in Sandy Hook Truth: Citizens Intelligence Briefing for Donald J. Trump, President, United States of America, Robert David Steele, editor (2018), pp. 47-48, which was published free online and can be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/SH-POTUSand is included here as Exhibit 1.
- Defendant Fetzer has asked me to confirm the contents of the Editor’s note of Exhibit C concerning my conjecture that “Noah Pozner” is a fiction made up out of photographs of Michael Vabner as a child or, putting it the other way around, that Michael Vabner is “Noah Pozner” all grown up.
- My thoughts about this were originally published as Appendix D, “Is Noah’s older step-brother, Michael Vabner, Noah ‘all grown up’? or is Noah simply Michael as a child?”, to the Second Edition of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook(2015; 2nd ed., 2016), pp. 381-386.
- A copy of Appendix D, “Is Noah’s older step-brother, Michael Vabner, Noah ‘all grown up’? or is Noah simply Michael as a child?”, is included here as Exhibit 2.
- As it happened, I would have around 100 hours of conversation with the man identified to me as “Lenny Pozner”, whom I understand to be the same person who is suing Defendant Fetzer for defamation for having described the death certificate he sent to me as a fabrication.
- I have discussed my conversations with the Plaintiff on many occasions, including in Ch. 11, “Are Sandy Hook Skeptics Delusional with ‘Twisted Minds’”, which I co-authored with Defendant Fetzer and published in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook(2015; 2nd ed., 2016), pp. 177-186, which is included here as Exhibit 3.
- I did not reach out to him, he contacted me. This email from Google Plus pops up, and it says “Lenny Pozner follows you on Google Plus.” I didn’t even know I had Google Plus. So, I just hit the “reply” button, and I said “Why are you following me on Google Plus? Is it because I don’t believe a word of what you’re saying, that you had a son [who] died at Sandy Hook?”
- And so, then we started typing back and forth . . . until like three in the morning. And he said, “I’m really getting tired of typing. Could you call me?” And I said, “No, I don’t wanna be sued, so if you want to talk to me, here’s my number, you can call me.” So, he proceeded to call me. And then, after that, we did call each other, and I actually kind of got to like him; he was really a nice guy, he was funny.
- One day he said, “I sent you something.” And I said, “What did you send me?” He said, “Just go to your email, you’ll see it.” And it was a copy of Mel Gibson’s movie Conspiracy Theory. So, I said, “Well I just sent you something, too.” And he goes, “What?” And I said, “Go to your email.” And it was a copy of the movie Big Fat Liar, to which he laughed.
- So, every day, we talked until the wee hours of the morning; we talked several times throughout the night. I would say we became friends. All the time I said, “Lenny, you’re lying.” One time I heard some noise in the morning in the background, and I said, “What’s that noise?” And he said he’s making pancakes for the kids. And I said, “Well, make some for Noah, because if you have a son, he’s not dead, he’s probably sitting right there at the breakfast table.” And those were the types of comments that I would make to him on a daily basis, telling him that he did not have a son that died.
- We talked for about six months—email and phone calls and texting—and then we ended it because I asked him what the name of his organization was. I said, “Is it NoahsArk.com, or .org, or what?” He said, “Why do you wanna know? You’re not gonna make a donation. You don’t even think I had a son that died.” And I said, “I’m not gonna make a donation, but there’s gonna be a major lawsuit against you fraudsters someday, and I wanna make a donation so that I can be part of the group that sues you.” And he said, “Fuck you, bitch,” and that was the end after six months. Those were his parting words to me after six months of friendship.
- Nobody in their right mind would talk to a housekeeper from Tulsa, who’s saying that their son didn’t die. You’d hang up and say, “Go to hell. I don’t want anything to do with you,” if your son really did die. I don’t think he would continue to talk to a stranger who is calling you a liar. Nobody on Earth would do that.
- Thinking about it, I now believe Lenny was talking with me to get information, to see what we knew. But instead I got information from him. I told him, I said, “Here’s what I want from you. I want a death certificate, a copy of his report card, and a picture of Veronique in the hospital with Noah.”
- And then the very next day, he said, “Go check your email.” And I said, “Why?” And he said, “There’s something that you asked for.” And I said, “What?” And he said, “It’s the death certificate, a report card and a picture of Veronique.” But she wasn’t in the hospital.
- It’s a small thing, but I noticed immediately that the kindergarten report card Lenny sent to me had the address of Sandy Hook Elementary School misspelled as “Dickenson Drive”—when it’s actually “Dickinson Drive”—which made me suspicious that something was wrong.
- Defendant Fetzer asked me to listen to an interview that Lenny gave, a link to which and transcript of which appears as Exhibit Y, “How to Fight Conspiracy Theories” (audio interview: 21 minutes, 38 seconds), to Defendant Fetzer’s Answer to Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admissions. Richard Gutjahr interviews Lenny Pozner. After listening to parts of that audio interview, I can attest that that voice is the voice of the same person with whom I had 100 hours of conversation over the phone. That is absolutely the same person.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT