Kevin Barrett, The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial

By Kevin Barrett

Stalinist show trials were conducted in front of rousing images. Jim Fetzer’s trial featured a tear-jerking backdrop image of Noah Pozner

Tuesday was the final day of Jim Fetzer’ defense against Lenny Pozner’s libel lawsuit. I attended and wrote up a “just the facts” report that evening. At almost the same moment I published my report, the jury came back with a verdict awarding close to half a million dollars to Lenny “Jim Fetzer gave me PTSD” Pozner.

Now it’s time for an opinion piece. And as much as I sympathize with Mr. Pozner, assuming his account is accurate, my opinion is that Jim Fetzer got a raw deal…and that the reverberations of this case will be disastrous unless it is overturned.

The whole courtroom drama was carefully scripted and controlled to ensure that the jury, as well as onlookers and reporters, got to hear only one side of the story. Fetzer was never allowed to present his defense.

Jim Fetzer’s defense is simple: Truth is an absolute defense against libel, and Fetzer published statements alleged by Posner to be libelous because he believed them to be true. What’s more, he still believes them to be true. Whether he is right I do not know. But I do know he is sincere in his beliefs.

I watched Jim Fetzer take the stand, swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”—and then watched him silenced and admonished, and the jury hurriedly chased out of the room, when he tried to speak the truth as he saw it.  Jim merely said he still believed his “libelous” statements were true. Asserting the contrary would be a lie. Not saying anything would be a lie by omission. So he was admonished and threatened by the court for the sin of not lying on the witness stand!

As I understand it, at no point during the two phases of the trial was Jim Fetzer ever allowed to present to a jury the evidence that led him to believe that Sandy Hook was an Operation Gladio style psy-op (which those who have read Daniel Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies know is entirely plausible) and that there was no actual school shooting (which does seem farfetched, but stranger things have happened). How could he present a truth defense without showing the evidence that led him to believe his allegedly libelous statements were in fact truthful?

According to the 7th Amendment of the Constitution:

IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED…

Yet as I understand it—and perhaps someone can correct me in the comments if I am wrong—Jim Fetzer was never given the right of trial by jury to determine whether he had or had not committed libel. Instead, an obviously biased judge presided over that crucial first phase of the case, denying Jim’s Constitutionally-guaranteed right to a trial by jury. The same judge prevented Jim from presenting his truth defense, which would have entailed giving Jim full scope to present the evidence that led him to believe his statements were truthful and therefore not libelous.

It was only in the second, penalty phase of the trial that a jury was convened. And during that phase, not only was Jim prevented from presenting his truth defense to the jury, he was prohibited from even mentioning it, or from telling the truth about his beliefs.

Meanwhile the Pozner team was allowed to engage in shameless emotional manipulation of the jury. They even projected a huge adorable picture of Noah Pozner on the screen as the backdrop to the crucial back-to-back testimony of Lenny Pozner and Jim Fetzer! (Jim Fetzer, of course, was not allowed to use the big screen to project images that raise questions about the official story of Sandy Hook—images that can be found in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, but which were, along with all other evidence supporting Fetzer’s truth defense, in essence banned from the courtroom.)

Chilling Effect?

One of the most dangerous repercussions of Pozner-vs.-Fetzer is its potential chilling effect on free speech. The decision awarded more than half a million dollars in “damages” based on the premise that a book presenting an alternative interpretation of a historical event hurt someone’s feelings. There was no tangible connection between the “libelous” statements in the book and any actual damages—loss of income, medical bills, etc. It was all about emotions: “This tearjerking Hollywood-style courtroom spectacle has whipped us into tearful sympathy with Pozner and two minutes of hate for Fetzer. Let’s express our emotions with a damage award.”

Following the court’s logic, if a German-American’s feelings are hurt by a book portraying Germans as villains in World War II, why not sue the author for libel and ban the book? Why not drag the author into court—and refuse to allow him to present the reasons he thinks his anti-German interpretation of World War II is truthful? Of course that would never happen, since popular prejudices are in sync with hatred of Germany’s mythic villainy; the court would find ways to rig the process to support the popular prejudice.

So how about these more plausible examples: African-American plaintiffs sue publishers for hurting their feelings by publishing 19th-century texts that include libelous portrayals of blacks; the grandson of Lyndon Johnson sues authors who have hurt his feelings by arguing that LBJ participated in the JFK assassination coup; a father who lost a son in Iraq sues an antiwar author for hurting his feelings by asserting that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal war based on lies and that his dead son was a war criminal.

One can imagine an almost infinite number of possible “libel” cases along these lines. And while only a few are likely to actually happen, that is a few too many—because the chilling effect of such lawsuits will terrorize authors and publishers into avoiding controversial or unpopular historiography. This is precisely what the Bill of Rights, whose purpose is to protect controversial and disturbing speech about matters of public import, is supposed to prevent.

I have had my differences with Jim Fetzer on many issues, including Sandy Hook. Specifically, I think we should be very careful about asserting or insinuating “nobody died” theories about suspected false flag events, for reasons that should by now be obvious.

But this is bigger than Jim Fetzer and Sandy Hook. This is about saving the Bill of Rights, which is under attack today as never before. Regardless of whether Jim is right or wrong about Sandy Hook, regardless of how mistaken some of his approaches may have been, the outcome of Pozner v. Fetzer presents a clear and present danger to freedom of expression in the United States.

The process of Pozner v. Fetzer appears to have been rigged precisely for the purpose of engineering this controlled demolition of our Constitutional rights. It must be appealed and overturned.

CONTRIBUTE TO JIM FETZER’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Please follow and like us:
error20

20 thoughts on “Kevin Barrett, The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial”

  1. Pingback: The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial | Thought Crime Radio
  2. Shame on you Kevin Barrett. James was 100% behind you on Charlie Hebdo. But you cant reciprocate on Sandy Hook, because you have an inflated ego.

    As Vivian says; “your support is back-handed and, while seemingly beneficial, actually serves to undercut Fetzer and the legitimacy of the truth movement.”

    You have your differences with Fetzer for what happened at “Veterans today” 2 years ago. I know the story.

    But reporting on this in the way you have makes you a complete hypocrite. In the 1st article: “leaving the courtroom because you had to drive your wife to a dental appointment”…. have lost all respect for you.

    Hope you have enough insight to retract/ repent.

    Inch’allah

  3. Commentary from Robert David Steele at phibetaiota:
    https://phibetaiota.net/2019/10/special-the-legal-lynching-stalinst-show-trial-of-dr-james-fetzer-usmc-by-a-crooked-judge-in-wisconsin/

    And Kevin Barrett writes in a comment on Veterans Today:

    Robert David Steele thinks there’s still hope. He writes:

    “This case is far from over. The evidence of judicial misconduct is clear and if the Wisconsin appeals court does not direct a retrial with a jury to consider all facts in dispute, then this case could and should go to the US Supreme Court. We are years away from resolution.

    “There is no question but that this trial was rigged from day one, and a proper investigation is likely to quickly produce evidence of collusion between the judge and plaintiff’s attorney. There is a Catholic mafia in Wisconsin that controls the courts, and there is also a Mossad mafia — I believe both came into play behind the scenes.

    “At root this trial is about two things: whether government false flag operations can be exposed through public investigation; and about freedom of speech. The evidence that Sandy Hook was a false flag is incontrovertible. Once President Trump does full disclosure of the 9/11 false flag event planned and executed b the Zionists with the complicity of Dick Cheney and and Donald Rumseld, there is going to be a nation-wide clamor to expose all false flag operations starting with Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing.”

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/10/17/legal-lynching/#comment-755365

  4. When I was still active as a health practitioner, I fought too many battles in courts. When chastised by a judge who felt I was filthy rich and should just drop my suit, I quoted the booklet that listed all the rules of the court. Essentially, a plaintiff could sue for a handful of dollars. I followed this up by writing the state complaint division for judges. The next session, the judge, in a soft voice, asked what he had done wrong to draw my ire. I laid my cards on the table by quoting the bylaws and never had trouble with the judge again. Likewise, Jim Fetzer is ballsy, to say the least. He felt the facts were enough and since the judge could not afford to take one on his chin, he whitewashed Jim by taking his rights from him, notably the right to have a jury trial, not an arbitrary trial by judge. Some day, justice will be meted out and that judge will be made to look like a toad. You can’t cheat an honest man……
    Kevin Barrett has had his own legal problems, he was sh—–tcanned by the Univ. of Wisconsin for “unruly discourse” regarding a certain ethnic group or some such manifestation. Ditto the shaft job bestowed on James Tracy, PhD. Cowards tend to not follow the rules of American society, notice? If an authority can blindside a defendant once, they can do it over and over. We, collectively, have to stop this nasty erosion of the First Amendment before it retrogresses out of control.

    1. I agree with most of Kevin Barrett excellent article. However, I strongly disagree with ” I think we should be very careful about asserting or insinuating “nobody died” theories about suspected false flag events, for reasons that should by now be obvious.” Dr. James Fetzer did not only assert or insinuate “nobody died” he produced a 446 page full color investigative documentation that makes not only a compelling case but I would say an air tight case that Nobody Died At Sandy Hook. Kevin’s disagreement seems counter to his whole article and seems to encourage cowardice and silence in the face of tyranny. When a group of people led by Obama and Eric Holder decide to terrorize America by faking a massacre of children to weaken the 2nd Amendment and then engage in $millions in ongoing charity fraud it is noble, brave and heroic to say the emperor has no cloths and Nobody Died At Sandy Hoax. Dr. Fetzer took the heroic path and Alex Jones did not. Perhaps if Alex Jones had joined forces instead of surrendering, he, James Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbig could have blown this fraud wide open.

      1. I think you may be onto something here. Alex Jones, as an entertainer, would have been a powerful conduit of crucial information to the world. He has, on occasion, featured Wolfgang on his show, but me, not even once. And he emphasized during his video deposition in the Connecticut case that he had not read NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK. (Neither, of course, claims Lenny Pozner!) Curious that this most serious, comprehensive and scholarly study of what really happened should have remained beyond their grasp. Feigned, no doubt. The book was just too good to allow.

        1. A while back I posted this on InfoWars:
          Dr. James Fetzer published the book “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” which Alex admits he has seen but never touched or read. Now isn’t that special. Alex who claims people died at Sandy Hook never bothered to read the most authoritative investigation documentation in the world on the 2 day FEMA drill that Obama and Eric Holder tried to use to terrorize America into gun control. So Alex Jones is on the same side as  Obama and Eric Holder in allowing the false flag of Sandy Hoax to persist. Thanks Alex we can really trust you.

        2. I’d be a bit careful with Alex Jones. He’s been in the Zio thrall for some time and that has tended to make me very leery of him. Would you confide in Lindsay Graham? Same rationale here, he’s been to the circus and has seen the duck. Beware!

          1. Sadly Alex has capitulate on Sandy Hoax. However, he did yell thru bull horns that “9/11 was an inside job”. He has educated people about false flags, he has been exposing international pedophilia, he has great supplements, all and all I believe he is one of the greatest Americans alive and I also put Dr. James Fetzer in this category.

      2. Alex Jones is a scatter brain who cannot conduct a coherent conversation. He always sounds like he’s had way too much coffee. There’s something wrong with this man.

  5. I read the book, and saw multiple vids on the Sandy Hook hoax. It was a closed school. During the whole drill there were less than 20 kids the whole time. Not an entire school. There is no proof that it was an open school for years, due to mold and asbestos, it was closed. So, many crisis actors played a part, in a political effort to get gun control laws passed. In hindsight, gun sales soared after all the hoaxes being put on. If any of the jury actually reads the book, they are going to feel like idiots who have been played. Or if they just watch a few of the vids, they will see it was a drill. God will judge the liars, eventually.

  6. Well, I guess I’ll be the most unpopular poster. As much as I have tremendous respect for Dr. Fetzer and his beyond courageous actions, I cannot imagine this verdict being set aside. It may be reduced with the right lawyer and legaleeze, but a reversal of the judgment would open up a can or worms the Empire would never let happen.

    That is my pragmatic opinion even though my heart and spirit cries out for justice.

    I would love to be wrong and eat the biggest slice of humble pie ever cut off.

  7. It’s the “just-us” system in spades. Did any of us really think Jim would get a fair shake? Only thing missing was the Kangaroo. How is a pensioner going to pay hundreds of thousands? Who said that the more corrupt a society becomes, the more they will despise people that speak the truth? One of my pals said to me “so you don’t believe in any kind of gun control?… what about Sandy Hook?” I said the whole thing was a put up job and no one died. Of course he could not comprehend skullduggery at such a high level. I asked how much time he spent digging into Sandy Hook? He admitted it was less than zero. There’s your problem in a nut shell. People don’t dig like us one percenters. I still think the best single piece of evidence is the FBI’s own crime stats for Newtown showing zero murders for 2012. Had they chosen Hartford for instance, zero murders recorded for the school shooting would be swallowed by actual murders and not hit you in the eye. I am certain Jim will appeal this case, what other choice is there?

  8. Dear Kevin,
    I quite agree with the sum and substance of your editorial. But if you still think people were killed at Sandy Hook you must be daft. Worse yet, this position places you among the vast majority of the duped American public.

    1. Hey Kevin:

      I have to agree with Ralph.

      Why is asserting or insinuating “nobody died” theories about suspected false flag events is somehow bad?

      Why is it ”far fetched” that there was no shooting at that school?

      There’s a lot of evidence that Pozner’s position is an act. He repeats this in many forums as a form of drama.

      Basically your essay is on target…that courtroom was an offensive show trial.

      Yes, this verdict needs to be appealed and overturned.

      1. Hey Kevin:

        I have to agree with Ralph and Don.

        You don’t understand that nobody died at Sandy Hook? You should sit down with that book and really look at the mountains of evidence presented.

        While it is great that you have offered your support to Jim Fetzer, and you rightly point out the corrupt nature of this show trial, your support is back-handed and, while seemingly beneficial, actually serves to undercut Fetzer and the legitimacy of the truth movement.

Leave a Reply