[Editor’s note: As a form of punishment for exposing Sandy Hook, I was the target of a classic SLAPP suit masquerading as a defamation. For background, see “Why the Sandy Hook ‘Pozner v. Fetzer’ Lawsuit Matters: What’s Really at Stake” (18 January 2020). For a downloadable copy of the brief, click here. My legal fees have run over $70,000 to date, of which I have been able (with a little help from my friends) to cover $30,000, where I need to raise an additional $40,000. Anyone who would like to support our efforts on behalf of the First Amendment is welcome to contribute to James Fetzer Legal Defense Fund, 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, WI 53575. The appeal has been submitted but the Court of Appeals may take as long as a year to rule. All donations will be promptly acknowledged with thanks.]
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into United States Copyright law in 1998. It was to implement two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. The DMCA also heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the internet. Another major design of the DMCA is to protect internet service providers and web hosts from copyright infringement liability of their users.
I first learned of this DMCA when I posted an exhibit accepted by a trial court and placed into an open record in the Pozner versus Fetzer lawsuit which is on appeal to the Wisconsin Appeals Court at this time. The judge granted an unusual motion for summary judgment finding Fetzer guilty of libel in four sentences he wrote, three of which were in a book he edited entitled Nobody Died At Sandy Hook, It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control, and the last in a blog he published online. All four statements asserted that the death certificates that Leonard Pozner posted on line were fraudulent or fake.
During the hearing on Pozner’s motion for summary judgment, Fetzer submitted the afore mentioned book he edited containing 426 pages as Exhibit 10. This book was not sealed by the judge and is part of the open court records. However, when I uploaded that book in a pdf file to my website I built with all the court documents that are part of the open record, Pozner filed a DMCA complaint with my website host, WEB.com, against my website. I was told by WEB.com that Pozner asked only that two pages of the book be removed which I complied with. Then I was later asked to remove a video which I also complied with. Even though the content was not a repeat of or restatement of the four statements found to be libelous in a summary judgment on appeal at this time. Then after I complied with that, WEB.com notified me that I need to remove the whole book or have my website shut down completely. Most of my website has little to do with this particular case. I have several other cases on the same site with all kinds of issues that have been litigated or in the process.
I am always suspicious and angered when I am not shown complaints that are made by those against me. In real courts you get to see your accuser and hear what the complaints are. In these DMCA legal complaints you only hear from the legal team of the web host. So you really don’t know how to respond to what is going on or what is being used against you and your content. You are simply told what to do or have your website shut down. This is another case of the tyrannical power exerted by those who provide utilities to a person. This is like the city telling you what not to bring up at city council meetings unless you want your water and power cut off. Do we allow those utility providers to have that kind of power? Should we let internet providers and web hosts have that kind of power?
The DMCA complaint used against the mentioned book I uploaded could not have been a copyright infringement as Pozner did not have the copyright to the book as it was published by another party. However, Pozner had sued the publisher as well and the publisher settled out of court with the condition they would not sell that book any longer. But what does that settlement between Pozner and the publisher have to do with an open court record with the book in it? The entire book was not found to be libelous but merely three sentences in it written by Fetzer. So how does Pozner obtain control over the other 424 pages of evidence regarding Sandy Hook? Is this the web host acting in fear that Pozner will sue WEB.com for posting libelous material because I posted an open court record that is on appeal and has an excellent chance of being overturned? This level of fear is excessive. This seems to be the mark of our society today ̶ excessive fear is exhibited by individuals and corporations alike. From libel to the flu, our society’s knees are knocking.
But the effect of this excessive fear is that the public is prevented from seeing the evidence resulting from the investigations of six PhDs and others with experience in their area of inquiry regarding Sandy Hook. The following is an outline of some of the evidence that has been removed from public view on the internet by the removal of the book Nobody Died At Sandy Hook based upon excessive fear honoring a faulty summary judgment on appeal:
- Based upon the Wayback Machine, Sandy Hook Elementary School ceased using the internet and email in 2008 and did not resume until the middle of 2013. The alleged shooting took place on 14 December 2012.
- There was no photographic evidence from many pictures taken that day of steam from furnaces being on which would be required on that cold December morning, indicating the school was not occupied.
- Emergency Medical Service was not employed and was all held up at the fire station.
- The fire station was used as a staging point where signs out front said that people should “check in” and they were given lanyards, drinks, and pizza. It was like a seminar or drill.
- Parents were not allowed to see their dead children in person but only by photographs with no known complaints about that from parents.
- Even though there are two or three pictures of about 20 of the same children all lined up with the same police lady there is not a single picture of other 469 students that should have been evacuated that day with about 70 teachers and staff.
- The dash cams of police cars show no evacuation that day.
- A 20 page document appearing to be a FEMA manual was found and printed in the book showing the date of the Mass Casualty Drill Involving Children – Exercise Plan on the same day as the alleged shooting of 14 December 2012.
- The annual FBI publication of Crime in The US for 2012 shows that no one was killed in Newtown Connecticut in the year 2012. Sandy Hook is a village in the town of Newtown, Connecticut.
These facts and many more were discovered by various chapter authors in the said book. Only two pages of this 426 page book were challenged and found to be libelous by a summary judgment which is on appeal at this time, yet I was instructed by my web host to remove the entire book or have my entire website shut down completely. I am amazed that we have so much individual technological potential but that it is controlled to the point of almost being useless.
Society cannot continue to function in any beneficial way unless the people can gain not only the freedom to express themselves but the ability to be heard when they do. We have allowed powerful people to take over our economy and the utilities that spring from economic control which includes all kinds of technological utilities and platforms.
[Editor’s note: You can hear Ron Avery and 20 other speakers on this and many other issues at the Question Everything Conference. It is time to expose the censorship and economic Covid-Coercion to force the whole population to submit to vaccines, digital currency and data chip implants. All this and much more will be put under the spotlight live in Austin, Texas 6 – 7 November 2020 at the Question Everything Conference 2020. You can attend in person or purchase Pay Per View tickets at https://MixNstream.com.]