Jim Fetzer, Why the Sandy Hook “Pozner v. Fetzer” Lawsuit Matters

Jim Fetzer

[Editor’s note: My dear friend, Dr. Katherine Horton, has made some of the key documents in this case available on her website. But her description of the case is flawed and I have written to ask her to correct it to read as follows:

On 17th June 2019, a Dane County Judge, the Honorable Frank Remington (Branch 8 of the Court), decided that Prof. James Fetzer and Mike Palecek had defamed Leonard Pozner by claiming that the death certificate for his son, Noah Pozner, who has been alleged to have died at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on 14th December 2012, which Pozner had posted on a blog, is a fabrication. They did not claim that Leonard Pozner himself forged the death certificate, but were found guilty of defamation in spite of obvious proof that the document is, in fact, a fabrication, which the Defendants believe was wrongly rendered and which was contrary to the reports of two expert document examiners that all four of the death certificates that have surfaced in this case are fake. The outcome of the trial was reported by the Wisconsin State Journal on 18th June 2019.

So while the documents she has posted are correct and accurate and in the public domain, her first-paragraph summary is wrong and stands in need of correction, which I anticipate will occur at her earliest opportunity.] 

The Dane County Court has ruled (in our opinion, improperly) deciding the case of “Pozner v. Fetzer” and the international  mainstream media  has run with a grossly distorted report of the key issue, where the Plaintiff’s Attorney, Jake Zimmerman, claimed that we, Mike Palecek and I,  had found the document that was the subject of the lawsuit by an Internet search, when it was publicly posted by the Plaintiff for Kelley Watt.

So I wrote to the Wisconsin State Journal, which, like the rest of the mainstream media worldwide, has been covering this wrongful decision with all of the enthusiasm it ought to have shown when we first published, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015), but which, instead, like amazon.com in banning the book, has refused to inform the public of this elaborate ruse and  scam.

Letter to the Wisconsin State Journal (unpublished, of course):

A Sandy Hook Skeptic Replies

NOTE: I realize this is longer than normal, but the case is more important than usual. Let me know if I have to shorten it down.


As a former Marine Corps officer and Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus, I probably don’t fit most preconceptions of a “conspiracy theorist”. The phrase was introduced by the CIA to trivialize efforts to debunk The Warren Report (1964), which claimed JFK was shot by a “lone gunman”. The skeptics were right.


Since my retirement from the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota in 2006, I have been devoting myself to research on politically significant events, including 9/11, Sandy Hook, and the Boston bombing, where the government might have reasons to conceal the truth or even orchestrate the event itself.


Mike Palecek and I were troubled by reports coming from Newtown that day and thought it would be worth investigating on behalf of the American public to sort out truth from fiction. We brought together 13 experts, including 6 current or retired Ph.D. professors, in our book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015; 2nd ed., 2016).


We discovered that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there and that it was organized by the Obama administration  to promote gun control, as members of the Obama Department of Eduction admitted to Paul Preston, one of our contributors, when he contacted them.


That means any death certificates for decedents from Sandy Hook have to be fabrications. But the Court ruled that I could not introduce any of that evidence but only the authenticity of the death certificate published in the book, which I described as a fabrication. Some of my reasons were wrong, but I was right.


It is uncertified and, in Connecticut, not even parents are allowed to have copies of uncertified death certificates. Mr. Zimmerman introduced copies of certified death certificates he claimed were in the Plaintiff’s possession, but they were not the certificate published in the book, which I had accurately faulted.


You quote him as saying that we relied upon “copies of copies of copies” of the death certificate “that we found somewhere on the internet”, as though the copy we published had not been provided to Kelley Watt by the Plaintiff himself and as though digital technology does not preserve exact reproduction.


I had never seen the certified copy of the death certificate attached to the complaint when I was served on 29 November 2018. And I cannot believe that I now face a possible $1,000,000 liability based upon a death certificate that I had never before seen or commented upon before I was served in this case.


Not only is the death certificate discussed in the book bogus on its face–because it does not have the certification of the Town Registrar on its left-hand side–but the law is being used to punish those who are exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about what happened at Sandy Hook. The public deserves better.


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
800 Violet Lane
Oregon, WI 53575


As with so much in life and politics, things are not quite as they seem to be, where this was not a suit about defamation (for which truth is an absolute defend) but about suppressing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Deep State does not want the American people to grasp the extent to which they have been bamboozled by their own government. I submitted this to the Court, but he admitted that he did not read it.





Defendant James Fetzer, pro se and in the first person henceforth, pursuant to Wis. Stat.

804.01(2) and 885.14 respectfully asks this court to reconsider its order issued during the phone

conference of May 16, 2019 compelling production of my emails, and grant a protective order

establishing that the discovery cannot be had, as grounds therefor stating as follows.


With the emergence of the Internet, the role of citizen-journalists has increased and grown even

as the role of professional investigative journalism was waned. Operation Mockingbird, which

was initiated by the CIA in the 1950s, was so successful that William Colby, then its Director,

testified under oath to Congress in 1975 that the agency owned everyone of any significance in

the media. Carl Bernstein followed with an article in Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media”

(1977), in which high officials of the agency boasted that their greatest success has been with

TIME/Life, The New York Timesand CBS. And the situation has only grown worse over the

years, where, in my talks, interviews and radio programs, I often cite three panels of 100 execs

from CNN, another 100 from NBC and another 100 from The New York Times, all of whom are

dual US-Israeli citizens. A foreign power has been interfering with our elections, but it has not

been Russia but Israel, as many commentators, including Paul Craig Roberts, have observed.


Investigative journalists undertake research of complex and controversial events, such as the

assassination of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, the moon landing and (what has now become) many

occurrences where the government may have motives for concealing the truth from the American

people. Because of my background in epistemology, methodology and the philosophy of science,

I have an ability to sort things out more methodically and systematically than most other students

of these events, where I bring together the best experts on different aspects and publish our work,

where my initial research on JFK led to my chairing or co-chairing five national conferences in

Minneapolis 1999, Dallas 2000, Dallas 2001, Duluth 2003 and Santa Barbara 2013, publishing

four edited volumes (the most recent in 2017) and many blogs, lectures, YouTube videos and the

like to disseminate research by the best experts to undertake their study. I lay out my approach

in taking “conspiracy theories” from “theories” in the weak sense of guesses, speculations and

rumors to “theories” in the strong sense of empirically-testable explanatory hypotheses in my

“Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, which is available on-line by its title.

                                                     SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

Having been dumbfounded by the “collapse” of the Twin Towers on 9/11 (but not imaging I

would ever be in the position to do anything about it), I found myself in a lengthy discussion

thread of experts from diverse disciplines in December 2005, when it occurred to me that an

organization that brought together experts from around the world in collaborative research on

9/11 would be a good idea; and I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, inviting the physicist Steve

Jones from BYU to be my co-chair. I created a web site, (now) 911scholars.org,to publish

research, feature videos, sponsor conferences and press releases, of which I was the principal ‘

author and which can be found archived at that site. Scholars was such a success that it took off

like a rocket and had around 800 members in four different categories of membership by late

2006. When Alex Jones organized his “American Scholars Conference” in Los Angeles, June

2006, he invited me to be the keynote speaker. When C-SPAN videotaped the panel discussion

on Sunday, which was moderated by Alex Jones, all four of the panelists were from Scholars.


My first television interview was on “Hannity & Colmes”, where Ollie North was stilling in for

Sean Hannity. I had been informed by the producer that they wanted to learn the results of our

Collaborative research; but in the waiting room before the show, I watched as Alan Colmes said,

“You won’t believe what your students are being taught by their professors”, and I knew it was a

set-up. I knew they didn’t know enough about my courses to have it right and was able to take

control of the show from the beginning. In many ways, it may have been my most important

appearance on television. I would subsequently be interviewed by Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly

and by Donnie Deutsch, all of whom were out to discredit me (with scant success). O’Reilly was

the most difficult to deal with, launching one ad hominemafter another and barely allowing me

to speak. I thought it had been a complete disaster until years later, in New York for 9/11 events,

after I had spoken at Cooper Union in the Great Hall where Abraham Lincoln had presented one

of his celebrated speeches, I attended an Alex Jones event and was honored to be seated with the

first responders, one of whom leaned over to me and said, “It was watching you on O’Reilly that

convinced me 9/11 had been an inside job”, at which I felt it had been worth the effort, after all.


In December 2006, my wife and I were flown to Athens (all expenses paid) to appear on a TV

program hosted by the leading muck-racking journalist in Greece, who had been responsible for

the downfall of corrupt administrations there. They had a panel of 12 other journalists who asked

question while I addressed what had happened (illustrated by sensational video clips his staff

had prepared). I was told going in that only a few would ask questions, to which I replied, “Not

this time!” And, indeed, I was right: All 12 asked questions. The program was extended from 3

to 3.5 hours and broadcast worldwide by satellite. It was met with a sensational response from

the 9/11 research community and was certainly a high-water mark for the 9/11 Truth movement.


I would subsequently organize the first 9/11 conference sponsored by Scholars in Madison in

2007 on “The Science and the Politics of 9/11”. I would be flown to Buenos Aires in 2008 to

present lectures on JFK and 9/11; and then flown back the following year to be the keynote

speaker at an International Symposium on 9/11 Truth and Justice held at The National Library of

the Republic of Argentina. In 2010, I would organize a conference at Friends’ House in London,

“Debunking the War on Terror”; and in 2012, I would organize The Vancouver Hearings held in

June with a dozen speakers on diverse aspects of 9/11.  I have edited and published two books on

9/11, The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America(2007)—where the conspiracy theory of

the government has proven to be completely indefensible—and (more recently) America Nuked

on 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD, and the Mossad(2017), revealing

how it was done and by whom, a tale that illustrates how much truth can be stranger than fiction.

                                                             THE DEATH OF JFK

Thus, I had already become deeply involved in collaborative research on the assassination of

JFK and had published three volumes of expert studies—Assassination Science(1998), Murder

in Dealey Plaza(2000), andThe Great Zapruder Film Hoax(2003), which Vincent Bugliosi

would describe as the only exclusively scientific books ever published on the assassination—it

was inevitable that I would continue my investigations, which occurred with the plane crash that

killed Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife and daughter, three aides and two pilots on 22 October

2002, which took place in close proximity to the Evelyth-Virginia Airport, 60 miles north of my

office. I would publish 10 articles about the crash in the local alternative media and subsequently

publish, American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone(2005) with Don

“Four Arrows” Jacobs, a Native American scholar then at Norther Arizona University. Wellstone

was then widely regarded as “The Conscience of the Senate” and his death appears to have been

in retaliation for his opposition to the Bush/Cheney war with Iraq, where Iraq had nothing to do

with 9/11, as even Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged at the time. My research on Wellstone has

been substantiated by witness interviews in “They Killed Wellstone”, from Snowshoe Films.

                                                                MOON ROCK BOOKS

A partial list of (what could be called) my conspiracy research appears on my curriculum vitae at

www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzerwhich I classify as “Applied Philosophical Research” (here, Exhibit A).

Having offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I have

felt an obligation to contribute to the public welfare by investigating these events in order for the

American people to have access to the truth about their own history. After Nobody Died at Sandy

Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015) was banned by amazon.com after

selling nearly 500 copies in less than a month, we knew that we had to find a new, reliable venue

for our research and founded Moon Rock Books (moonrockbooks.com). Our list has now grown

from one book to a dozen, including research on the moon landing, the Boston bombing, Orlando

and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland and more, with several new volumes yet to be released. We

also have monographs on JFK (by Larry Rivera), European “false flags” (by Nick Kollerstom,

the leading expert on the London 7/7 subway attacks) and on the threat posed to the Deep State

by the emergence of the Internet as the new Gutenberg press (by Preston James). See our covers:

                                                              ABUSE OF PROCESS

The case before the Court represents a gross abuse of process, because its underling motivation

has nothing to do with defamation but with the First Amendment, our freedom of speech and

freedom of the press, in the absence of which the United States Constitution is meaningless—a

relic of ages past, in which Americans had the right to speak their minds and to publish opinions

without interference from institutions acting as surrogates of the government. Preston James has

it right when he explains that the Internet has become an enormous threat to the Deep State and a

source of anxiety to those whose interests are adversely affected by those who expose falsehoods

and reveal truths, which has always been the motto of my websites (today, see jamesfetzer.org).

I had published 770 blogs before my earlier website (jamesfetzer.blogspot.com) was taken down,

But not before I had made the transition to a new and more secure site to withstand intervention.

The Plaintiff, who calls himself “Leonard Pozner”, launched a very carefully crafted lawsuit that

alleges defamation the basis of my having described the death certificate he shared with Kelley

Watt a “fabrication”. The true purpose, however, was not to complain about an actual case of

defamation but to punish me, as a student of Sandy Hook, for exposing what happened there as a

FEMA mass casualty exercise involving children, which was presented to the public as a child-

shooting massacre to promote gun control. He has undertaken other lawsuits and efforts of this

kind, where the recent past is littered with the debris of the destruction of the First Amendment

wrought by “Leonard Pozner”, which includes his campaign to have tenured associate professor

James Tracy, who wanted to make sure that the public was not being subjected to an elaborate

scam and theft by deception, fired by Florida Atlantic University; and an ongoing assault upon

Wolfgang Halbig, a retired Florida Stater Trooper, a former US Customs Agent, a past school

principal and a nationally-recognized school-safety expert, who wanted to find out what had

happened there in order to advise other school systems on the steps they should take to make

sure something like that didn’t happen to them. I know them both. They are honorable men.


The Plaintiff has used his “HONR Network”, ostensibly created to protect the parents and the

relatives of children and adults from harassment by skeptics about Sandy Hook, to take down

blogs, videos and web sites that present the outcomes of research. He has boasted of having been

responsible for having removed “tens of thousands” of content items from the Internet, where a

YouTube video or an Internet blog would count as only one item. He has taken down “tens of

thousands”, where, to my astonishment, I even received three strikes against my research since

this case began. What the Court needs to understand is that the Plaintiff has been very open about

his objectives in bringing these lawsuits, even when he has abandoned them when directed by the

Judge to sit for a video deposition, as occurred in his lawsuit against Wolfgang Halbig. Consider:

There are four motives for punishment: toremove a threat; to set an example; retribution; and

rehabilitation.By undertaking these lawsuits, the Plaintiff accomplished his goal of punishing

those who dare to expose corrupt acts of the Deep State—especially in relation to Sandy Hook—

where, in this case, he not only succeeded in having Wolfgang take down sandyhookjustice.com,

where he was publishing the results of his research, but “to show other Hoaxers that they will be

taken to court and it will drag on for a long time”, his true motive in his own words. Mike Adams

(Exhibit B) and Sarah Westall (Exhibit C) are especially perceptive of the threat thereby posed.

The Plaintiff thereby admits that these lawsuits are improper, intended to censor, intimidate and

silence critics with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition—a

practice that is being defined within the context of the law as SLAPP suits impeding free speech:

The Social Media Giants are engaged in even more direct forms of suppression by taking down

YouTubes and blogs that violate their “community standards”, which have now been expanded

to include denials of “well-documented violent events”, no doubt including the death of JFK, the

atrocities of 9/11 and (even) the Sandy Hook school shooting, which they explicitly cite. After

all, the “official narratives” of these events are copiously documented, such as by The Warren

Report(1964), The 9/11 Commission Report(2003) and the Report of the State’s Attorney on

Sandy Hook by Stephen Sedensky III(2013), even though (as the book explains), it fails to

establish a causal nexus connecting the alleged shooter (Adam Lanza) with the weapons he is

supposed to have used and the victims he is alleged to have killed. If there is a more complete

forensic failure in the history of criminology, I would love to see it. His fingerprints were not on

the rifle with which he is said to have shot his mother and none of the 150 slugs reported to have

been gathered from the scene could be connected with the weapon he is supposed to have used.


By any appropriate measure, I have been an active and public investigative journalist at least

since I became seriously engaged in research on the assassination of JFK in 1992. I have done

research on a wide array of events of great importance to the American people, including JFK,

9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, and

more. I have been published widely and been interviewed both nationally and internationally,

including by NBC, the BBC (twice), Fox News (thrice), Showtime (for “Dark Net”, pitting me

against the Plaintiff on Sandy Hook), but also by RT, Al Jazeera, Sputnik News, Russian State

Television and Press TV (100+ times). In some cases, I received honoraria for my contributions.

Conducting research, doing interviews, creating videos, writing blogs and publishing books are

among the most important efforts of an investigative journalist, of which I am proud to be one.


In this capacity, I have acquired hundreds of sources across a wide range of investigations, not

least of which are those related to Sandy Hook. The Plaintiff wants me to reveal my sources so

he can replenish his efforts to destroy freedom of speech and freedom of the press and have new

targets for harassment and lawsuits. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning

have set a high bar for defending their sources from punishment. I can do no less. Allowing

access to my sources in this case would be to compound one abuse of process with another.

WHEREFORE, the Court’s order compelling production having been in error for the reasons

adduced, it must be reconsidered and vacated, in the interest of justice.


Dated:     14 June 2019                                                            Signed:    /s/ James Fetzer

James Fetzer

                                                     EXHIBIT A

NOTE: Insofar as my academic website was last updated 31 March 2009, my more recent activities can be ascertained from an Internet search and from my blog (at least to the extent they have not been taken down and deleted by the Deep State).

Applied Philosophical Research

Co-Authored Books:

AMERICAN ASSASSINATION:  The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone (with Don “Four Arrows” Jacobs) (Brooklyn, NY: Voxpop, 2004), xviii + 188 pp.

Edited Books:

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 1998), xvi + 464 pp.

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA: What We Know Now that We Didn’t Know Then (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2000), xii + 468 pp. + 16 pp. Color Insert Section

THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2003), xx + 496 pp.

THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: The Scamming of America (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2007), xxii + 322 pp.

General Articles:

“A Piece of My Mind: Lundberg, JFK and JAMA”, The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 35-40.

Reprinted in Harrison E. Livingstone, Killing the Truth (New York, NY: Carroll & Graf, 1993), pp. 635-641.

Reprinted in J. H. Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 1998), pp. 27-36.

“JFK’s Assassination: Conspiracy, Forensic Science, and Common Sense”, in Harrison E. Livingstone, Killing the Truth (New York, NY: Carroll & Graf, 1993), pp. 642-648.

Reprinted under the title, “Thinking Critically about JFK’s Assassination”, in J. H. Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 1998), pp. 85-92.

“The Zapruder Film and the Language of Proof”, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 40-42.

“The Death of JFK”, in J. H. Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 1998), pp. 1-22.

“Assassination Science and the Language of Proof”, in J. H. Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 1998), pp. 349-371.

“Artful Deceptions and Other Fallacies: A Page from Posner”, The Fourth Decade (January 1998), pp. 8-12.

“Three Shots in Three Seconds: How the Nation’s Press Misleads the American People”, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles (Spring 1998), pp. 24-29.

“A Reply to Hal Verb”, The Fourth Decade 5 (May 1998), pp. 13-17.

“Where were You when JFK was Shot?”, The Dealey Plaza Echo (United Kingdom, November 1999), pp. 26-29.

“‘Smoking Guns’ in the Death of JFK”, in J. H. Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2000), pp. 1-15.

“Jesse Curry’s JFK Assassination File: Could Oswald Have Been Convicted?”, in J. H. Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2000), pp. 361-370.

“Preface”, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2003), pp. ix-xx.

“Prologue: Fraud and Fabrication in the Death of JFK”, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2003), pp. 1-28.

“Which Film is ‘The Zapruder Film’?” (with Scott A. Lederer), The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2003), pp. 29-44.

Reprinted in assassinationresearch.com 2/2 (2003).

Distorting the Photographic Record: ‘Death in Dealey Plaza'”, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2003), pp. 427-436.

Reprinted in assassinationresearch.com 2/2 (2003).

“Reasoning about Assassinations: Critical Thinking in Political Contexts”, International Journal of the Humanities, Vol. 3 (2005/2006), pp. 1447-9508.

“Preface: The 9/11 Conspiracy (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2007), pp. ix-xix.

“Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, The 9/11 Conspiracy (Chicago, IL: Open Court/Catfeet Press, 2007), pp. 43-74.

“Moorman/Zapruder Revisited”, DEALEY PLAZA ECHO 13/1 (2009), pp. 6-33.

Electronic Publications:

“The Lone-Nutter Refutation”, assassinationresearch.com 1/1 (2002)

Reprinted in assassinationscience.com (2004);

“On the Origins of the Assassination of JFK”, assassinationresearch.com 1/1 (2002)

“Mrs. Paine’s Garage: A Work of Deception from Beginning to End”, assassinationresearch.com 1/1 (2002)

Reprinted in The Dealey Plaza Echo 6/2 (2002), pp. 26-32

Reprinted in Kennedy Assassination Chronicles 8/1 (2002)

“Editor’s Preface: Gregory Douglas and Regicide: Both Fascinating and Frustrating”,assassinationresearch.com 1/2 (2002)

“Regicide: Are We Closing in on the Whole Truth about JFK?”, assassinationresearch.com 1/2 (2002)

“Reflections on Madeleine”, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles 8/2 (2002), http://www.jfklancer.com/kSum02.html

“Editor’s Preface: Ira David Wood III: The Assassination Chronology”, assassinationresearch.com2/1 (2003)

“Editor’s Preface: The Zapruder Film: Recent Research and Legal Issues”,assassinationresearch.com 2/2 (2003)

“The NTSB Failed Wellstone” (with John P. Costella), fromthewilderness.com (6 July 2005)

Reprinted in From the Wilderness 8/5 (31 July 2005), pp. 15-22

“Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public”,assassinationresearch.com 5/1 (2007), 11 pp.

Reprinted in Paris Flammonde, Indices of the Assassination of
America, Book 4 (Stroudsburg, PA; Scanuscryption, 2007), pp. 1743-1756

Reprinted in The Dealey Plaza Echo (November 2007), pp. 35-45.

“New Proof of JFK Film Fakery”, OpEdNews, (5 February 2008).

“Another Attempted Reenactment of the Death of JFK”, with David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., OpEdNews (21 November 2008).

“Moorman in the Street”, http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman, (January 2009).

“Tink Rolls the Dice”, http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman2, (March 2009).

“Zapruder JFK Film Impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid”, OpEdNews, (28 March 2009).

“What Didn’t Happen at the Pentagon”, (11 June 2009).

Reprinted (with edits) as “What Didn’t Happen at the Pentagon”, (25 January 2010).

“False Flag Attacks in Argentina: 1992 and 1994” (with Adrian Salbuchi), (11 June 2009).

“The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco” (with Jim Moor), (11 June 2009).

Reprinted as “JFK Assassination. How ‘Patsies’ Are Framed. The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald” (with Jim Moor), (11 December 2009).

“American Assassination: What Happened to Paul Wellstone? Part I”, (9 December 2009).

“American Assassination? What Happened to Paul Wellstone? Part II”, (11 December 2009).

“American Assassination? What Happened to Paul Wellstone? Part III”, (17 December 2009).

“Conspiracy Theories: A Triple-Header”, (21 December 2009).

“Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?”, in John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy, edited by John Williams et al. (2010), (19 November 2009).

Reprinted as “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?”, (19 November 2009).

“Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an ‘Inside Job’?”, (7 January 2010).

“Blowing the Whistle on Dartmouth: Hany Farid ‘in the nation’s service'”, (27 January 2010).

“New 9/11 Photos Released”, (10 February 2010).

“Predator Drones: The Immoral Use of Autonomous Machines”, (18 March 2010).

“US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication”, Online Journal, (7 April 2010).

“JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t”, voltairenet.com, (13 June 2010).

“Conspiracies and Conspiracism”, Online Journal, (28 June 2010).

“Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op”, Online Journal, (6 July 2010).


“JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond”, a 7-part lecture series. Written and Directed by James H. Fetzer. 4:25:20. (1994)

“The Zapruder Film Symposium”, a 6-part public presentation organized and moderated by James H. Fetzer. Produced by JFK Lancer Productions & Publications. 2 Videotapes. 4:12:00. (1996)

“Dallas Before 22 November 1963”, A Conversation between Madeleine Duncan Brown and James H. Fetzer. Produced by JFK Lancer Productions & Publications. 0:30:00. (1998)

“The Death of JFK”, A Professional Conference held at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 14-16 May 1999, organized and moderated by James H. Fetzer. 14 Videotapes. 15:49:00. (1999)

“The Zapruder Film Symposium”, A Professional Conference held at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, 9-11 May 2003, organized and moderated by James H. Fetzer. Forthcoming.

“The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not”, A Professional Conference held at the Radisson Madison, Madison, WI, 3-5 August 2007, organized and moderated by James H. Fetzer. 2 DVD-9s. 13:14:00. (2007)

Web Sites:

Public Issues: http://assassinationscience.com

JFK Research: http://assassinationresearch.com

Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://911scholars.org

New Blog: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/

Radio Blog: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/

                                                                  EXHIBIT B

NOTE: As Mike Adams, who has been ranked as the second most influential figure on the Internet, has observed, not only have my own videos and blogs been taken down but those of others who interview me have as well. Here’s an article he didafter having had his entire web site taken down for an interview with me in 2015.

“The Most Dangerous Mind in America” interviewed about false flags and extreme censorship

Sunday, May 06, 2018 by: Mike Adams
Tags: Amazonbook bansBook BurningCensorshipconspiraciesconspiracy analystDangerousfake newsfake swatFalse flagshoaxinterviewJim FetzerMandalay Bay shootingSandy Hook


(Natural News) When YouTube banned my entire channel two months ago, they were putting strikes on my account for years-old interviews I had conducted with a conspiracy analyst and author named “Jim Fetzer.”

Fetzer, who I’m now calling, “The Most Dangerous Mind in America,” is the author of a book that was literally banned by Amazon.com. Yes, the some e-commerce retailer that gladly sells books promoting Nazi fascism, deadly communism and weird sex indoctrination of children went out of its way to ban a book about Sandy Hook.

His book is entitled, “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook,” and it lays out the case for why Fetzer believes the entire Sandy Hook shooting was a staged false flag event held in an abandoned school that had no real teachers or students at the time of the shooting. (You can download the entire book at this link if you’re curious.) Notably, I disagree with many of Fetzer’s conclusions, but I agree with the right of people like Fetzer to be able to speak.

Fetzer also believes that nobody was actually shot at the Mandalay Bay event in Las Vegas. He says it was all “crowds for hire” and fake blood theatrics. I find that conclusion to be bizarre and inaccurate, but even as much as I disagree with Fetzer’s conclusions, I believe Fetzer has a right to be heard so that others can decide for themselves whether the things he says make sense. I also find it highly suspicious that companies like Amazon would go out of their way to ban Fetzer’s books when so many other obviously false books aren’t banned at all (such as books espousing the Flat Earth theory).

In an age where Pulitzer prizes are handed out to fake news media for publishing blatantly fake stories, I find it highly suspicious that Fetzer is being singled out for “extreme censorship.”

The fact that Fetzer is being banned and censored everywhere shows the authoritarianism of modern society

Even if you think Fetzer’s conclusions are nonsense, the banning of his books is nothing sort of authoritarian. It’s also fairly obvious that if his books were filled with total nonsense, they wouldn’t have to be banned at all because their lack of credibility would be self-evident. Yet the banning of Fetzer’s books and videos has been coordinated, aggressive and merciless.

That’s probably because his book contains a vast array of photographic evidence that many people find convincing enough to at least start questioning the official narrative we’ve all been fed on events like Sandy Hook. Perhaps Fetzer isn’t 100% correct, people might say, but he does raise some very big questions the media has been glossing over. (For example: Why is one of the supposed SWAT team police officers later interviewed as one of the parents of a Sandy Hook shooting victim? And if he’s really a SWAT guy, why was he photographed carrying his sniper rifle by the ammo magazine? No legitimate rifleman would ever carry a rifle that way…)

Here’s a popular video meme that highlights some of the huge, gaping mistakes of this “fake SWAT” actor who was widely publicized by CNN during the Sandy Hook video coverage. No legitimate SWAT member walks around slinging a rifle like this (the guy is obviously an actor):

Here’s another video that fully covers the total fakery of the SWAT team actor, who has since been identified as David Wheeler:

I believe in free speech, and “free speech” includes unpopular speech. So I’ve posted Fetzer’s entire book as a PDF document so that you can read it for yourself. I don’t endorse all the findings in the book, but I do think the public shouldn’t be told what they can and cannot read. Thus, I’m posting this mostly as an act of rebellion against censorship.

Remember, the entire establishment says Fetzer is so dangerous that all his books and videos MUST be censored by everyone, from Amazon to YouTube. Don’t you find that intriguing? What information in his books is so “dangerous” that the public must not even be allowed to see what Fetzer wrote for themselves?

Download the book for yourself right here (PDF).

Note that I don’t endorse all the views and opinions of Jim Fetzer found in his videos, books and articles, but I do agree with his right to speak. Do we really live in a society where Amazon.com engages in online book burnings? The answer is, “Yes!”

Now YouTube is banning ANYONE who talks to Fetzer

Fast forwarding to today, YouTube is rapidly banning all accounts of anyone who dares talk to Jim Fetzer. In fact, YouTube is going back in time and finding videos posted years ago that might involve Fetzer, and they are banning all videos that provide Fetzer any sort of voice whatsoever.

That’s why I recently reached out to Fetzer to have a conversation about censorship, false flags and the banning of his books and videos. Here’s our lengthy conversation, which has been slightly edited for length and clarity:

You may find Fetzer’s conclusions to be bizarre, but don’t you have a right to hear him speak and decide for yourself?

I’m listing a few links to more of Fetzer’s videos below. This is not an endorsement of these videos but rather an invitation to explore the “most dangerous mind in America” and see why the establishment thinks he’s so dangerous.

Like I said earlier, if Fetzer’s conclusions were obviously total nonsense, why wouldn’t the establishment simply ignore him and allow his own words to prove how wrong he is? Instead, they ban his books, his videos and his speech, then they tell us, “There’s nothing to see here.” So why ban Fetzer in the first place, then?

To see more of Fetzer’s work, take a look at “The Parkland Puzzle: How the Pieces Fit Together” https://d.tube/#!/v/monaalexis27/lvkflnbp

“Sandy Hook Update: Tracy Loses, Wolfgang Wins. The Deep State Strikes Back”https://www.bitchute.com/video/H8pLy2RiSAgC/

“False Flags on Five Fronts” https://d.tube/#!/v/monaalexis27/v9he2ql5

                                                            EXHIBIT C 

Sarah Westall, who also has a background as an investigative journalist, has more recently interviewed me and explained why my case is about the First Amendment and not about a purported act of defamation, in interviews she has done with me, where she has been among the best at recognizing the threat to freedom of speech and to freedom of the press, where the mainstream media refuses to cover what the skeptics have to say and only present information supportive of official narratives:




Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota and co-founder (with Mike Palecek) of moonrockbooks.com.


Please follow and like us:

134 thoughts on “Jim Fetzer, Why the Sandy Hook “Pozner v. Fetzer” Lawsuit Matters”

          1. Hey, Keefer…I just noticed the Raw deal from 6/26 and 6/19 is up on 153news.org….apologies for my error. So I guess one does not have to subscribe to listen to or watch shows that are not live

    1. This is the discussion portion of the article, no? I would imagine you’re calling me a troll because I’m asking questions about certain things. I’ve been polite about it, and I feel my questions are valid, so why can’t anyone answer them? A healthy debate has two sides of an argument.

  1. Keefer..In case you missed this reply:

    June 23, 2019 at 6:53 pm

    Keefer…If I understand your question…click on the bars above and it will open up choices on the left. Scroll down to the Raw Deal and it will link to Revolution Radio Studio A….it’s just about going off now, but he is normally on Wed, Fri and Sunday at 6 PM to 8 PM Eastern. Pretty good show tonight, …had a guest on who has himself written a book about false flags….Apparently (I have yet to join) you can join for 5.95/mo and have access to the archives.

  2. I deliberated for awhile before posting this comment because I thought it may be tangential to the seriousness of the situation. But the more I think about it, the more central to the subject it appears to be.



    I need to insert a parenthetical here for those still struggling through the fog of Holocaustianity, as Sarah Westall appears to be in the above video. Dr. Fetzer may appreciate Ms. Westall’s support, but her rallying cry is made from the grip of the same kind of invidious social psyop that drives the Sandy Hook players to try to destroy people like himself.

    Skokie was a staged event. The “Nazi leader” who wanted to march was a Jew, the son of “Survivors.” His lawyer was a Jew, along with their co-religionists at the ACLU. Ms. Westall allows as much, and not seeing a problem, goes on to fall for the other side of this theatre, that the Jewsish lawyers who insisted on Freedom of Speech “even for Nazis,” were noble. Undisclosed is the fact that throughout the 20th century, KKK and Nazi events were organized by the ADL and B’nai B’rith. The same characters involved in Skokie were discovered a year later, as reported in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, in a hoax to put on a “Klan” rally In Philadelphia. They were not responding to a social crisis; they were engineering one.

    Besides tarring the majority of Americans with “white power” slander, the lauded Free Speech lawyers from the ACLU spread paranoia of America in their own Jewish community. They claimed they were shunned by other Jews, as they brutalized the already traumatized Jewish war refugees of Skokie with unfounded scare tactics, the very refugees later sanctified as “Holocaust Survivors.”

    In the 19070s, “The Holocaust” had not yet become the dominant theme of the 20th century; no one thought of it that way. In many ways, the event in Skokie, Illinois was the beginning of the explosion of the Holocaust mythos. Through dramatic depictions in film and on the new cable television channels, indoctrination in a false history of WWII influenced not just non-Jews; it was instrumental in persuading rich American Jews to support efforts to establish museums pushing the teaching of Tolerance with a capital T, which is true Newspeak for what is not to be tolerated. In 1990, Illinois became the first state in the U.S. to require Holocaust education included in all public elementary and high school curricula.

    I know everyone gets tense when Jews are mentioned. Many who would venture to criticize, go out of their way to explain that they’re not talking about all Jews. But coddling does them no favors. It’s up to individual Jews themselves, to reflect on these matters and decide if they are complicit. It would be of enormous benefit to everyone if they would do so.

    I misspoke when I said this was parenthetical. It is, instead, the main through line penetrating the tragic and outrageous events of our most recent past, from the world wars to JFK and 9/11, from Sandy Hook-style events, right on down to these trials.

    I mean to include our Jewish friends when I say that the face of our oppressor is Jewish.


    1. ……Further…..Even though (and it could be my analysis is incorrect) the main theme behind Westphal’s ‘mini doc’ is freedom of speech (certainly in support of Fetzer’s right to publish his book without fear of being sued for defamation), do you see something hidden and nefarious behind her video? OR, are you just bring forward that her facts are quite skewed….possibly because she’s Jewish?

      1. Please, no! I don’t think Sarah Westall is nefarious. I don’t know if she’s Jewish. It matters not to my analysis of her rhetoric; people, both Jew and non, accept the official stories with the frames intact. Her defense of Free Speech against censorship is admirable, and perhaps I should have dwelt on that more, but to me her argument is negated when it substantiates a false history, especially when it proceeds from one. If there is a “hidden and nefarious” aspect to it, it’s that it appears to be hidden to her.

        1. Thank you. Now I get it.
          Can’t blame her tho…..I would guess 99% of the populace are just as clueless.
          So it has to be brought into the classrooms to get our children at an early age.
          What other race, nationality, religion has that privilege? The privilege of flaunting and capitalizing on their victim hood. Hell, not even the Native Americans who were virtually wiped out and got a few casinos, eh?
          Well, after all, they are the chosen. Chosen to rule over us cattle.
          How does one change 80 some odd years of indoctrination?
          Not quickly.

          1. Toni, you and I have had our differences, but we do seem to agree on the fact that Zionists rule this world through an incredibly orchestrated process that has been going on for God knows how long. You prefer to call them Jews…I call them Zionists.
            My contention is that the average Jew knows as much as what is going on as the average (not us, as we do not represent the majority) American knows what goes on within the Deep State (which is likely Zionist controlled, but who really knows). I don’t think we can blame the common Jew or the common American for a system as covert under which we exist any more than we can blame Dr. Fetzer and Mike Palecek for trusting in in and becoming a victim of a diabolic judicial system.

  3. So what have people here concluded after going through the transcript of the hearings? It seems to me the Jim failed to read the rules of evidence for Wisconsin, so the information he found so damning was not included for further proceedings. Do the defendants have a lawyer now? It seems like they should get one soon and the judge mentioned this a few times. Finally, why weren’t Jim’s experts called for a deposition to discuss the discrepancy of the death certificate(s)? Expert depositions are standard practice in cases, and their testimony could have led to a different outcome here.

        1. I don’t necessarily disagree, but all the advice AFTER and during the fact, was about as useful as telling a life long smoker to stop smoking after terminal lung cancer has set. Yeah…likely a bad example, but I have become quite cynical as I grow younger every day. He may have spoken a good case, but yielded NOTHING to the good Dr.and Palecek.
          Fetzer had no choice but to do this pro se and for that, I label any lawyer who knew of this case and its importance to We the People and failed to represent them pro bono as cowards. BUT, I guess that;s only something you see in Hollyweird movies.

    1. Hi 1bighawk,

      What have *you* concluded from going through the court files ?

      In regard to Dr James Fetzer’s expert witness testimony :

      « I [judge] don’t think they [Dr Fetzer’s expert witnesses) were persuasive even above all the evidentiary problems they present. […] they come late and provide a post hoc rationale perhaps of a justification that doesn’t directly address the falsity of the statement at the time it was made. So for this reasons, I am going to grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement as to liability. »
      (Court transcript, p. 165)

      The typographic discrepencies and shading contrast in the death certficate printed in Dr Fetzer’s book was answered by the opposing party with convincing and legitimate arguments and with admissable evidence. The next problem with Dr Fetzer’s expert witnesses is these witnesses never offered evidence to demonstrate how and in what way these discrepencies proved forgery. For example, you could bring in a proven, forged document, and say : look, it is similar to the death certificate provided by Lenny Pozner through Kelly Watt. Just saying it appears incoherent is not evidence it is forged.

      1. Noah’s birth certificate is barely mentioned in the book. A photo of it is shown but whether it’s, forged or faked in anyway isn’t discussed. If the state created a real birth certificate for Noah, then why would a death certificate need to be forged?

      2. I stated my comments already. Jim should have hired an attorney and realize the serious nature of this lawsuit. There are specific rules for each state’s court and a set of rules for federal procedure. Each state works a little differently, but the core set of rules are generally the same, particularly with evidence. If the defendants wanted to clear their name, they should have subpoenaed witnesses for depositions, whether expert of lay witnesses. It was also noted in the transcript that the defendants missed a deposition of the funeral director, Samuel Green, but later defendants filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Green. The deposition would have been a prime opportunity for the defendants to prove whatever evidence they had suggesting the death certificate was fraudulent. It’s difficult for me to side with the defendants if they cannot provide factual evidence, or at the very least, evidence that could counter whatever the plaintiff provided. But, this all goes back to my point that the defendants should have hired an attorney.

  4. SO, I am still reading the transcript. 177 pages. I have been taking frequent breaks, as it’s so frustrating to listen to the judge’s bias (imo, of course), that I have to stop to gather energy to continue.
    On page 85, the Dr. is strongly objecting to the DNA test. He mentions to the judge that if he had ruled to allow a test of Vabner’s DNA, all this would have been resolved. The Judge’s answer was…”well, what’s done is done on that”. Now, to me, that is KIND of an admission that he was sorry for that decision. Disgusting! He just brushes it off like a fly on his face. The one proof that could have stopped this case cold and he threw it aside.

      1. Please try. I am struggling; not because of the legalize…but because it has become obvious to me that if the Dr. had been properly represented by an attorney, he would not find himself in this position. No offense to the Dr….but courts use language that is not common (as in COMMON LAW) and no one but someone who knows his way inside this language can come out on top.
        AS far as I can tell, short of an appeal, the jury trial will only be to decide the amount. From what I have read, up to page 110, it seems doubtful Fetzer or Palecek will even be able to speak. At that point, the judge has sort of left it up in the air. In essence, the case has been decided and the jury is there to only determine the amount. Apparently there will be depositions, but only those that will benefit the plaintiff (who WILL apparently be allowed to speak).
        It’s a travesty.
        Where the hell is the lawyer that comes forth in the movies to save the day?
        Doing my best to finish, but taking another break.

        1. You Stated: “… because it has become obvious to me that if the Dr. had been properly represented by an attorney, he would not find himself in this position.”

          Unfortunately, this is not necessarily true. I don’t wish to get into all the falsehoods of the legal system. But, let me just say the entire legal system is highly “conflicted”. For example, did you know lawyers do not actually have a “license” to practice law? We have heard this your entire life. And lawyers openly make the case that they possess such a license. It’s a lie. The American Bar Association issue a membership. It is essentially a Union or Gild card.

          Another very important truth is that there is no such thing as “Justice” in American jurisprudence. There is however, the “appearance of justice”. I won’t go into the details of what this means. It, however, reflects the morality or lack thereof [morality] in society. The “appearance of justice” can mean truth or it may be a fraud of justice. I suggest reading about the ancient School of Rhetoric and what Cato stated about its influence [lawyers] on Roman society. To the Romans, it was if Fraus, the two-faced goddess of deception, was released to destroy Rome itself.

          In legal terms, courts view “defendants” as ‘wards of the court’. You will never hear this in court though.

          The legal definition of “ward of the state” is:
          “infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian”.

          This why you are to be represented by the court officer; an attorney. Don’t be fooled, your attorney ultimately works for the judge in the court room. See Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & Client. Reading this will blow your mind to the absolute fraud perpetrated by lawyers to their client.

          The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called “wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of “regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules” Also Canons 1 through 9.

          Unfortunately, we live in a world of smoke and mirrors. It appears the majority of it is to deceive the greater public. Isn’t it ironic that this “show trial” against Dr. Fetzer, et al. is yet another example of it?

          1. Ed…I’m attempting to take a break from this insidious thing called the WEB (more lies or more truth?…I’m not sure) and was not going to comment further for reasons stated in a previous statement. But, this is an important issue (hinted at before by another poster). I am quite familiar of what you speak. I looked into it extensively (studied?…not sure) for a few years.You and I know it’s a lifetime of study to master what is left of common law and challenge the zoo we now have.
            This is not the time for Dr. Fetzer to take that course of action. I’m sure you know that. The case has already been adjudicated (on the sea and within the UCC) and all that remains is for the jury to determine how much money they intend to steal from the good Dr. and Mike. Fetzer needs an attorney (yes, one who has passed the BAR and does not spend too much time at the other bar) familiar with these type of cases to file a strong appeal AND to represent him at “the jury trial” IF necessary.
            No reply necessary as I will not be back caught in the web until Friday…or so.

      2. To possibly get the essence of what I am saying and why the Dr. needed a lawyer…start reading at page 110. Do not think I am being derogatory or disparaging the Dr….he had no choice and did his best…….and probably far better than most……in the situation.

        1. @will

          Yes ! The attorney I spoke with said he tells everyone to never go pro se. (although I know Fetzer wanted a lawyer) no matter how smart someone is and good their case they have to follow rules. The rules and procedures take years of study to learn .

          Like jeopardy. Even if the answer is right . If you don’t start with “what is” the answer doesn’t count .

          Hope abounds !

          Dr Fetzer if your reading this the attorney I spoke with suggested finding an “anti defamatory league” in your state !

          Their may be attorneys there for you !

        2. I certainly agree with you. As George Carlin rightly stated it, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You, and I are not in The Big Club.”

          I’m just stating this…. Now prepare yourself, a lawyer may not be helpful whatsoever in Dr. Fetzer’s case. If he can find one who has good standing and a national reputation it would be the best case scenario. But, this case looks to me more like the trial for the damned. How do you fight the political machine behind all of this? It reminds me of Henry Ford all over again.

          If there is a plus side, a registered lawyer will [perhaps] grease the skids so the Judge isn’t biased against you, ab initio. However, this is all water under the bridge at this point in time. Nevertheless, an attorney can still bring positive outcomes [i.e. damage control] to this case. And “Yes” it is perfectly legal to represent yourself whether it is “Pro Se” or in “Propria Persona”. What bothers me is that the courts more or less allow it, only to sucker punch those that fall for it. Indeed, the courts generally don’t like it when people [ergo, wards of the state] come into their courts and represent themselves. Again, they pretend to be a fair and righteous institution when in reality it is corrupt beyond measure. I have seen too many bad things that happen in courts. The courts are more of an extortion racket than one providing any justice. Of course, this also relates to Positive Law (also called Legal Positivism) versus Constitutional Law (i.e. Natural Law), which has long taken over American jurisprudence. No longer does the truth matter in court. It is public law and public policy that only matters. The Deep State narrative behind Sandy Hook appears to be that new public policy.

    1. “the judge’s bias (imo, of course)”

      Hi Will,

      You cannot expect a judge, conservative by nature, to entertain alternate ideas about highly political public events. Magistrates base their behavior on career choices and peer judgement. This is the reason why Dr Fetzer’s legal strategy, whereby he attempts to convince the court his interpretation of the event is true and correct, fails and will fail.

      1. @greg

        I agree fully . But I think where James success lies is in the masses .

        The more he gets his obvious truth on record through appeals and publishing court records the more people will see

        Than realize the real power to change things is within us .

        The fact that we’re here reading and studying proves . We’ve already won .

        Be blessed !

        1. @ bob

          It is not an odd claim as why would you video your child after watching a dvd ?

          Is that a hallmark or special occasion ?

          Look man I’ve mess with you before . My true suspicion is you are not even a real person .

          As you don’t answer questions and say things completely off topic.

          We will be discussing a court case on a death certificate.

          Than you will interject something about a home movie ?

          Home movies are proof of nothing my man . I have home movies from a movie called clover field . If that is admissible as evidence I could prove to you a giant monster attacked New York.

          I could easily print a paper with a seal on it and also prove the monster was born .

          The things you interject are not strong counter evidence .

          The only reason I respond to you is for the benefit of anyone who reads this forum. ( high probability you are here as well ) see @wills post about disinfo tactics .

          Please check all the links and evidence this case was a fraud .

          Read the ct report

          Listen to Halbig foia hearing

          It’s all posted on here in this forum download the book nobody died at sandy hook

          This case is significant to free speech and waking people ( most people are wise if they pay any attention at all)

          The efforts of characters like bob only further substantiate what is going on .

          ^ that’s for the reader not you bob

          1. Why wouldn’t you record you son telling the story of a movie he liked? Parents record their children doing just about everything. Fetzer saying Noah could not have seen a 2002 movie because he was born in 2006 is not just odd, it makes zero sense for a man with a PhD to say something like that. Fetzer has not claimed the video is fake, uuless he suddenly changes his story since his mistake has been pointed out. If Fetzer wants to prove it was fake, try to get the original recording from Pozner and get it analyzed.

            I have read the ct report.

            i have read Fetzer’s book and pointed out the many errors the book made. Like a condensation puddle being on the left side, when the car’s exhaust pipe is on the right. the book wondering why Adam Lanza had a “New England ID card”, when it was just an Amex prepaid card. Fetzer says an Obama official admitted Sandy hook was a false flag. that’s not true. the book has a transcript of a Pauo Preston interview, where preset claims a source in the White Hose told him it was a False Flag. that”s not a direct quote from the Obama admin. Preston should produce this source and let him/her.

      2. But the Court ruled early-on that I could not advance the defense that, because Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder, any death certificates for alleged “victims” would have to be fabrications and required that the only issue before the Court was the authenticity of the death certificate published in the book. Although some of my reasons for concluding that it was fake (as presented in the book) were mistaken, my conclusion–that it is a fabrication–was not, which was further supported by the reports of two expert document examiners, which the Judge set aside as “only opinions”, as though all opinions were on a par and experts would be the best positioned to determine whether or not the document in question is fake.

        1. Who the boy in the Spider man video on Pozner’s YouTube channel? If you are so sure Noah was really his half-brother Michael, then you should be able to answer the question.

          Your only explanation of the video so far is this. which makes zero sense:

          “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.”

          You agree the boy in the video is 4. Michael Vabner was born in 1995. His voter registration shows that, you can look that up for yourself. Pozner released part of Michael’s birth certificate a few years ago.


          1. Bob, it could be CGI since today it is proven CGI can fool viewers. When looking at the images frame by frame certain aspects of the video may indeed point to manipulation.

            But since you put the links forward and claim they are true and a correct reflexion of actual reality, the burden of proof is on you. Please liste names of people, besides Noah Posner and his twin sister, who were present in the video and who may authenticate the footage. For example, who is the women in the birthday video bringing in the cake ? What is her name ? Please list the names of the little children in the video. Can you please also list the name/names of any person, outside of the video frame, who could authenticate the videos ? for example any individuals present at the birthday party? What electronic device was used to make the video footage ?

          2. Here are screenshots:



            Noah’s ear matches all the photos we have seen of him. Fetzer says all the Noah photos were Photoshop to make his ear a different shape than Michael’s. You’d have to also prove the video was faked. Like just saying someone is a lookalike isn’t enough, just saying CGI isn’t either. you’d have to prove it.

            You’d have to ask the Pozner family all those questions. Fetzer should have tried to get the original videos and have them analyzed

          3. Hi Bob,

            You come onto this forum and paste links to videos purporting to show Noah Pozner.

            The burden of proof is on the party who advances a base claim. You must prove your assertion that the video is authentic.

            Bob, you surely understand that Lenny Pozner cannot be the one to authenticate these videos since he is presently involved in a lawsuit that contends he knowingly shared a fraudulent copy of a death certificate. He thus cannot be trusted in this particular context.

            I will not “ask the Pozner family all those questions.” You are advancing on this forum the claim the video is authentic, thus it is your responsibility to provide evidence.

            I will repeat the same questions above :

            Please liste names of people, besides Noah Posner and his twin sister, who were present in the video and who may authenticate the footage. For example, who is the women in the birthday video bringing in the cake ? What is her name ?

            Please list the names of the little children in the video.

            Can you please also list the name/names of any person, outside of the video frame, who could authenticate the videos ? for example any individuals present at the birthday party?

            What electronic device was used to make the video footage ?

            If you are not willing to answer these questions, or to providence evidence to support your claim that the video is authentic, please stop discussing or making comments about the videos.

          4. I have never made any more of the videos other than they are videos on Lenny Pozner’s Youtube channel. If you think I have some inside knowledge of the videos you are wrong,

            Fetzer made the odd claim that the boy in the video could not be Noah because the Spider Man move came out in 2002 and Noah was born in 2006. Why Fetzer made that claim I do not know. Was it a mistake? Does he really not understand what DVD is?

            Then he does the weird math to make Michael Vabner fourteen in 2012, which is three years off.

            He first wrote about the Spider man video in 2017, that’s the earliest i can find anything. Then he reposted it in April. Why would he post it again? He has to realize the mistake he made initially. He doesn’t even make the claim the video is fake, he just says Noah could not have seen the movie.

            He must now realize his error, since he never responds to questions about the video. I’d be embarrassed too if I got something like that so wrong.

  5. You’ve been Trolled!
    You’ve been Trolled!
    You have probably been told.
    Don’t reply, to this guy;
    he is just getting a rise,
    out of you! Yes it’s true,
    you respond and thats his cue
    to start trouble on the double
    while he strokes his manly stubble

    You’ve been Trolled!
    You’ve been Trolled!
    You should probably just fold
    When the only winning move is not to play
    And yet you keep on trying,
    Mindlessly Replying.
    You’ve been Trolled.
    You’ve been Trolled.
    Have a Nice Day!

        1. The fakers in these hoaxes include the entire USA Government, the State governments, the Police, the Judiciary and the Press, there is not a dam_ thing you can do about it. There is NO one to go to.

          If these continue, it will totally destroy what’s known as the U.S.A.

  6. In order to recoup the money he is going to lose to Pozner, perhaps Fetzer should sue this person:


    I don’t believe that theory at all, it’s just amusing that Fetzer is the subject of the same look a like theories that he uses.


  7. A bit long and broken into several parts, but appropriate at this point of this blog:
    Well worth a re-read and posted everywhere – “The Gentlemen’s guide to forum spies”
    Know your enemies by what they post and how it is posted.
    Technique #1 – ‘FORUM SLIDING’

    If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum – it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly pre-positioned on the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirecting forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’ The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then ‘replying’ to pre-positioned postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and un-useful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

    Technique #2 – ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’

    A second highly effective technique is ‘consensus cracking.’ To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made – but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favor is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger ‘evidence’ or disinformation in your favor is slowly ‘seeded in.’ Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then ‘abort’ the consensus cracking by initiating a ‘forum slide.’

    Technique #3 – ‘TOPIC DILUTION’

    Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

    1. Technique #4 – ‘INFORMATION COLLECTION’

      Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a ‘show you mine show me yours’ posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your ‘favorite weapon’ and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favorite ‘technique of operation.’ From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

      Technique #5 – ‘ANGER TROLLING’

      Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes – without the requirement to ‘stage’ a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to ‘lead’ the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you ‘do not care what the authorities think!!’ inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

      Technique #6 – ‘GAINING FULL CONTROL’

      It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavorable postings – and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the ‘ultimate victory’ as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a ‘honey pot’ gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.


      Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precedence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline.

  8. Hello Dr Fetzer,

    I am going through the court documents and am very impressed at their professionalism and that you are evidently receiving wise counsel.

    Please keep us updated on your appeal, which I am certain will follow.


  9. A lot of people were involved in this event. If just one breaks ranks they are all screwed.
    The odds of getting a fair ruling in any court is about slim and none. I’m sure they’ve assigned
    the right people.

    1. Aldenberg is part of the Jones/Halbig lawsuit, next hearing go talk to him or just call up the New Haven FBI office where he works.

      This another theory that makes no sense. Why use a parent to play an FBI agent? If the FBI was involved, like the theory goes, why not just an actual FBI for the sniper?

      1. Like I said, doodlebirdy Bob is always good for a smh knee slapper chortle. Ed also believes that the Smith Bros. of cough drops fame were both former US Presidents. Hey, I can see the connection……can you? Those beards don’t fool me.


          1. Not swat team though.

            The video of this supposed swat guy walking around is hilariously fake !

            Almost like he wanted to be noticed

          2. Why would they put a parent in that position? If the FBi was involved, just get an FBI agent to do it.

            The ears, nose and scar near lower right lip all match Aldenberg.

          3. The fake Swat guy in no way matches the facial appearance of Aldenberg.
            Saying its a match does not make it so. Its called ”disinformation”.

          4. If you have a problem with how Aldenberg was behaving that day, call the New Haven FBI office and talk to him. Or when the Jones/Halbig lawsuit starts, go and ask him there.

            If you want to prove that is Wheeler, you need better evidence. Meanwhile the evidence that it is Aldenberg is strong. The nose, ears, scar near lower right lip and the moles on the left side of the face match. Aldenberg was there at Sandy Hook that day, confirmed in the report.

            There are these photos of a large, bald man putting on his sniper gear




          5. If you’re going to just go by how the sniper looks in the helmet and sunglasses and say definitively that it’s Wheeler, than you can just as easily say the sniper looks like Aykroyd.


          6. Superb find, Keefer. And to think at one time I respected Moyer.
            If that’s not Wheeler, nothing is.

          7. Ears do not match.

            If you’re going to say it’s the helmet and chinstrap. Then you’re saying when Wheeler puts on the helmet, tightens the chinstrap. it causes his ears to change shape, a shape that perfectly matches a real FBI agent. A real FBI agent who was at Sandy Hook that day. that’s quite a coincidence.


          8. Keefer…Watch enough of Matt and Quantum of Conscience and you’ll get what that is about. They want you in that rabbit hole….to never emerge.

          9. I called the well respected New Haven Rent-a-Clown company. They told me it was not Aldenberg. I never question their authoritative advice. If someone knows a lot, its them clowns.

      1. I find the Plaintiff, through his attorney, offered a convincing and legitimate counter-argument to the issue of lookalikes :

        “The process she [Ms Watt] appears to have used, looking for resemblance between two people, is the same process that Wisconsin rejected more than a century ago, where the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that resemblance was “…too vague, uncertain, and fanciful a nature to be submitted to the consideration of a jury.” Hanawalt v. State, 64 Wis. 84, 24 N.W. 489, 490 (1885).”

        (Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s Motion for summary judgement, p. 9)

        Ressemblance is not a legal argument !

  10. Why the Sandy Hook “Pozner v. Fetzer” Lawsuit Matters

    This lawsuit matters because it is a real and legitimate fight against those who are corrupting and destroying our constitutional republic.

    We have freedom of speech not because it is “granted” by the Constitution or could be taken away from us by corrupt human operatives. Our freedoms are granted by God to us and are only enumerated in the Constitution.

    We still need to fight within the corrupt system to save our republic and to restore order in our once great nation.

    We still have a good fight to fight and a chance to obtain justice on the Sandy Hook false event. The reality is that we cannot lose this fight because we expose fact and truth and reality and that can only benefit our republic and every citizen thereof.

    It really is not a matter of having large amount of money to hire the best lawyers to fight in court. We have already been shown that expert witnesses and factual information about the relevant death certificates is not operative in this “court of law.” Facts and truth and substantiated real evidence is not even allowed to rear its “ugly head” by the judge and the plaintiff. The judge advised the defendants to focus on the death certificates and the defendants did that, and in the most straightforward way, but the judge then decided to summarily reject and not allow that evidence to even be placed into the record nor made a part of the judge’s consideration. That is the picture of utter corruption of a judge.

    So, if nothing else, in the conduct of this lawsuit and regardless of its outcome, we the people are getting a very clear picture of how a corrupt court works and what the real goals of our corrupt officers of the law really want for our citizens and our constitutional republic.

    The United States of America is worth saving and this is a worthy fight for every human being who is a lawful citizen of this great country, and for every soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice for it.

    We must have the rule of law. We must have the First Amendment. We must have honest voting. We must have the right to keep and bear arms and we will continue to fight for truth and righteousness.

    From my cold dead hands.

      1. Can see the holes even clearer. That is supposed to be Fetzer’s proof that the photos were taken before the morning of the 14th and he says they show the window undamaged. The photo proves the opposite, there are holes visible in the window.

          1. What after photos are you talking about ? Are you ballistics expert ?

            Exact same spot did you measure them ?

            Do you read anything I post ?

            Haven’t we established your a shill a multitude of times ?

    1. Absolute fact.
      And I would beg all here to read the transcript that the Dr. provided this AM on this site.
      Do not miss it if you really wish to know what went on. It’s 111 pages and I have yet to finish it myself, but to understand what actually went on in that court room, it is absolutely necessary.
      Now, I have yet to hear Fetzer’s evaluation of the transcript, since there was not an actual voice recording,
      as to the accuracy.

          1. And now I have to stop reading for a while because I just came across the judge’s decision and Jim’s concession that Pozner is NOT a limited public figure by definition. I find that decision to be outrageous and angering…but that’s just me. I may be speaking too soon, but you can bet the farm that Pozner is being advised by some deep state appointees that are coaching him every step of the way. The DS cannot afford to lose this case for more than obvious reasons. I pray to Gawd Dr. Fetzer gets some highly qualified professional help to see him through this…as much as I despise the BAR and all it stands for.It’s way, way past time to bring back Common Law and trash can the UCC. Corporations are not people and courts should NOT be
            corporations despite any past rulings to the contrary.

          2. Hi Will, yes you are absolutely correct concerning the court transcript, which is 171 pages long, however the total number of pages for all 15 documents uploaded is 445.

            I am about half way through.

            The filed court documents, minus the transcript (171 pages) and the oral minutes (2 pages) is 272 pages long.

            My first observation / question is the following : are 272 pages common for a Motion for summary judgement ?

            A Motion for summary judgement, to the best of my understanding, is a lawsuit filed by a party who purports the facts of the case to be undisputed / indisputable.

            Two hundred and seventy-two pages seem like a lot of paperwork for a motion that alleges the facts are not at issue !

          1. Keefer…If I understand your question…click on the bars above and it will open up choices on the left. Scroll down to the Raw Deal and it will link to Revolution Radio Studio A….it’s just about going off now, but he is normally on Wed, Fri and Sunday at 6 PM to 8 PM Eastern. Pretty good show tonight, …had a guest on who has himself written a book about false flags….Apparently (I have yet to join) you can join for 5.95/mo and have access to the archives.

          2. Even trolls, shills and dis-info agents have a right to free speech and the rest of us have a right to ignore them.

      1. All you have proved is that our previous exposure of your nonsense is spot on and you are just another moron trying to stop the truth.
        I might suggest that the Dr. must be incredibly close to the truth in regard to many topics on this blog because all the trolls, shills and dis-info agents are coming on strong.
        You are just wasting your time here..no one but another shill will take you seriously.
        Be gone or do not…makes no difference to me, as I will just add you to my list of those to IGNORE.
        Bye Bye

        1. @will

          Good choice man ! Literally just had half of my apartment complex laughing at the ridiculous illogical assertions that the bobs and mike lewis make .

          So many people know how fraudulent the mainstream narrative of sandy hook is .

          The more the false narrative is pushed . The more people realize it’s fake .

          In a way will we have to thank the disinformation agents like mike and bob the more irrational unfounded and felicitous statements they make. Ironically the more people they wake up

          1. Did you tell them how a man with a PhD doesn’t know how someone born in 2006 could watch a movie made in 2002?

Leave a Reply