JIM FETZER "The Raw Deal" (6-19-19) Jim discusses his loss in Dane County Circuit Court

Video Transcript:

Hey Jim, my computer sees stuff are back now. So okay, okay, great. Mitchell glad. Okay. I think this is going to be a standard situation. We encountered lettered posner. Who've launched a lawsuit against me for describing the desert advocate that he had given to Kelly what in 2014 as a fabrication, which turns out to have been a fabrication. Nevertheless, the court ruled in his favor after excluding my most important evidence to forensic document experts. The judge in this case had narrowed the range of evidence I was allowed to permit. So I couldn't bring in proof that Sandy Hook had been a female exercise where in that case any desert certificates for purported victims would be fabrications. That was indirect evidence. I wanted to bring to bear as I explained in my answer to the initial complaint. Restricted only to direct evidence when we discuss the desert certificate Kelly had been given in chapter 11 of the book. Nobody died at Sandy Hook, which was initially published 2015. Then in a second edition in 2016. I offered a variety of reasons for drawing the conclusion that it was a fabrication, including that it had no file number that it had the wrong estimated time of death in 11 a.m. when the shooting officially took place between 93940 or 941. So the estimated time of death was wildly off. Well, it had a dark texture and roughly the bottom two thirds versus the top one third. It appeared to me to have been a that the bottom two thirds was from a real desert certificate combined with the top one third of a fake. In addition, there were many typographical or font size differences and variations throughout the document leading me to believe again that it was fabricated. The location of the burial of the decedent was redacted as was the social security number. I explained in the book that Dennis Camino, who was a Navy's top electronic troubleshooter until he left an avian went to work for Raytheon, who is an expert on Photoshop research where he's done absolutely brilliant stuff on this most famous photograph of the JFK assassination. Taken by AP photographer James Eich, Alchons, it's known as the Alchons six. It may be the one familiar photograph to most of the members of the audience. It's quite a panoramic view of the Lincoln right in front of the book deposit or a JFK is already clutching his throat. If you were to look carefully at the windshield where his left ear would be if his left ear were visible, you'd see there's a small white spiral nebula with a dark hole at the center indicative of a through and through shot which had hit him in the throat. He's clutching his throat. In the background you can see the Dow tax building. There's in fact the broom closet of a uranium mining company that was a CIA asset that is framed by the fire escape from which three shots appear to have been fired by an anti-castro Cuban by the name of Nestor Tony a scaid row using a man liquor carcano as the only unsilent weapon that was used during the assassination is set up the acoustical impression of only three shots having been fired. Even though we have now identified eight different shooters, I've identified six in the past, only Domagard is seven with which I agree and there turns out to be yet an eight that what you might call the south and no. There's a single tree there in the opposite side from the grassy no where I've now seen two photographs of a rifleman standing up from behind the tree. These are different photographs, not two replications of the same one from Rick Russo the other from Ed Taitro. So we have actually eight shooters for J.F.K. the government would have us believe there was only one Lee Oswald interestingly enough he was captured in that very same photographs peering out from the doorway. Harold Weisberg in his whitewash series in the second volume also known as photographic whitewash spends the last several pages explaining how the Warren commission staff had had a terrible time trying to suppress the information that Lee Oswald was actually in the doorway of the book depository when the motorcade passed by meaning he not only cannot have been the lone gunman he cannot have even been one of the shooters and yet. Google Facebook and other of the social media are now going to reject any posts or blogs or videos that dispute well documented violent events since we have the Warren report it would follow that the J.F.K. assassination was well documented in the year therefore required to accept that Lee Oswald was a lone-demanded gunman you know to allow to challenge it by this new policy just to get the justice in relation to 9-11 if you dispute the 9-11 commission report which blames it all on 19 islamic terrorists who are alleged to have common dear those for commercial carriers and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan that then which are more absurd story or fantasy could hardly be envisioned and you're going to be censored to I mean you talk about the death of America we have we're now living in a censorship society where the deep state is intent on controlling everything we hear everything we see Dennis Camino discovered many Photoshop images in the Alchund six so that when he suggested parts of this that certificate were Photoshopped I had reason to take him at his word when Bob Sims wrote and pointed out all these typographical have normalities with different fonts and different spaces I could verify that for myself by looking at the document so I included those as reasons for concluding that this appeared to be a fabricated that certificate. Now it would turn out during the course of research in relation to the lawsuit that I learned that many of my reasons for having believed that the death certificate was a fabrication were wrong but the fact of the matter is my conclusion that it was a fabrication is right and has indeed been vindicated by the two document documents examiners who who whose reports were excluded by the judge on Monday during the the formal hearing on what are known as motions for summary and judgment I was fairly floored when it happened because the judge just said rather casually that those are just opinions as though all opinions are on a par. Of course there are opinions the point being in this instance they're expert opinions they're coming from persons who are highly qualified at the study of documents it turns out we have four different versions of the no oppositor death certificate we have the one that Lenny put up on a blog in 2014 and invited Kelly want to obtain it which he did and subsequently shared with me. Where when I edited the book nobody died at Sandy Hook in 2015 she and I co authored chapter 11 in which we talked about that document downloaded from a blog where Lenny was posting documents that were formally acknowledged there as having come from Leonard Posner but where when I was subjected to the lawsuit on the 29th of November after it had been filed here. In filed here in Dane County on the 27th of November of 2018 the death certificate attached was different it was one that had the forms of certification that were not present on the one Kelly had downloaded it also showed changes to the address of the decedent made by the father Leonard Posner in 2013 to which I shall return the specific. The copy that was attached to the complaint was so poor as to be virtually illegible such that when the plaintiffs attorney Jake Zimmerman called me I said to him and Jake do you know anything about Sandy Hook do you have any idea what you're getting into and I said that that certificate the copy attached to the complaint is virtually eligible and legally useless to which he replied that if I wanted a better copy than I said. Then I could write to the state of Connecticut and obtain one for $20 which I thought was a very peculiar attitude for someone who's basing a lawsuit on a death certificate attached to the complaint now in the complaint it claimed that the death certificate I described as a fabrication was in no material respect is different than the death certificate that was attached to the complaint itself that had been served. It was certified by the state of Connecticut to which I replied that if indeed it were the case that the death certificate certified by the state of Connecticut was in no material respect is different than the death certificate that I had characterizes a fabrication then the state of Connecticut had certified a fabricated death certificate which is a crime. When turnout I was right about that again to other death certificates to other copies or versions of Noah's death certificate would surface where the first two I've described had in the first instance redaction of the location of the burial and of the social security number. The second had a redaction of the location of the burial but no redaction of the social security number the box for which was empty. Dave Geherry would subsequently obtain a copy of Noah's death certificate from Debbie or Raylia who is the town clerk for new town in the custodian of vital records. What's interesting about the copy that Dave got which had the Debbie or Raylia certification on the left hand side but no state certification at the bottom by Elizabeth Fugali which merely certifies it's a true copy of the death certificate on record because he was obtaining it directly from the town clerk. It had a partial printed file number on the first of the four digits of which was rather obscure but the other three differed from the handwritten file number on the copy attached to the complaint I mean what more blatant evidence could you have that something is going on that's wrong obviously they could both be authentic but they could both be fake I would subsequently reach the state to the death certificate. The department of vital statistics and obtained five death certificates one from Noah which would turn out to have the handwritten file number that wasn't redacted regarding the location of burial and also however had a white social security box but for others in addition one for Adam Launze that were purported shooter at Sandy Hook one for Nancy Launze his supposed mother another for an April Richmond who was supposed to have a mother to be another of the children at Sandy Hook whose father was recently reported to have committed suicide which I find highly unlikely those who played Sandy Hook parents in this elaborate charade split between 20 37 27 and 130 million dollars contributed by sympathetic but gullible Americans in the false police they'd actually lost children or loved ones at Sandy Hook divided by 20 6 for the 20 children at 6 adults that works out to between one and five million dollars of ease for pretending to have lost someone at Sandy Hook most unlikely that someone is a millionaire is going to commit suicide and whose daughter didn't in fact even die there because April Richmond wasn't her real name it was like a urban who actually sang at the Super Bowl which of course occurred 51 days after the event at Sandy Hook we know it's her because she had an unusual birthmark across the right temple of her forehead it was rather like the leathery surface of a football you know kind of like a tanning line very distinctive well little girl looking strikingly like April Richmond with a same distinctive tanning line across her forehead saying at the Super Bowl the fifth and final was for a dear friend of mine William Brandon Shanley who in fact had died of natural causes and where all four of these other desert advocates had printed file numbers where Noah's is the only one with a hand written it turns out now that as in the case of the death certificate that Dave attained from Debbie or Alia mine had both Debbie or Alia's certification but also the state certification and had no redactions of either the location of the burial or the social security box which was once again blank well in fact I obtained studies from two document examiners one of whom Larry Wittstrom is from Minneapolis and who was said to me during one of several conversations he found it mind boggling that the state of Connecticut was issuing fabricated death certificates and indeed was issuing different fabricated death certificates to different parties to the same litigation which would be Dave and me in addition though I had him backstopped by an even more highly qualified document examiner AP Robertson from Los Angeles California where Robertson not only confirmed that Wittstrom was correct that all four of the death certificates were fabrications but that he also had examined the the no-oppositor social security card and that it too was fake we already knew from a study done by Mona Alexis Presley that the passport the image of which Lenny Posner had put up on the same blog was highly irregular it showed a snapshot for the photograph when the passport instructions are very strict about having a photograph looking directly at the camera this one is not it has very specific proportions for the size of which the photograph the face takes up in the allotted space this one takes up much more so it doesn't even require an expert to determine that the passport itself is a counterfeit where you combine the fabricated death certificates with a fake social security card with a counterfeit passport and you have a lot of evidence that there is no no a Samuel Posner which was confirmed by another affidavit a study done by Larry Rovira who had in fact contributed to identifying Lee in the doorway in Dallas from the 22nd of November 1963 by following up on research that was pioneered by Ralph Sin Kay who organized the Oswald innocence campaign which you can find out about the find online where Ralph is a chiropractor is used to dealing with people who want to get their physics into shapes a little better fit into their clothing and who had suggested to me long before that the way to identify Lee in the dark doorway was on the basis of his height his weight his build his shirt and his t shirt in fact he's wearing a long sleeve and he's wearing a red shirt that's originally textured shirt that's rather tattered and torn Marina would later tell Ed Taitro that she remembered laundering that shirt which Lee appears to have obtained in Russia when he was arrested he had the same height weight build shirt and t shirt as on the man in the doorway in the famous Alchons 6 photograph so we already knew this had to be Lee the government has insisted instead that it's actually Billy Lovillady who in fact said he thought it was odd they'd be confused because he was two to three inches shorter 15 to 20 pounds heavier and incidentally he was called in by the FBI on the 29th of February 1964 wearing the shirt you wore on the day of the assassination which turned out to be a short sleeve vertically striped red and white very different shirt than the man in the doorway we know therefore the man in the doorway had to be Lee Oswald not Billy Lovillady in fact Larry would add the final kude grott of the theory that it was Billy Lovillady by finding suitable facial images for both Billy and Lee to do super positions on the facial features of the man in the doorway which is accomplished by setting their interpupillary distance between the pupils identical and then you can do assuming the faces in the same perspective as the photograph you're super imposing determined whether or not they are the same person where when he conducted this this empirical on the man in the doorway it turned out that the image of Lee Oswald fit the man in the doorway's features hand in glove but when he did it with Billy Lovillady it was all wrong the ears were too low the nose was too large the jaw extended beyond the jaw of the man in the doorway clearly confirming that it was indeed Lee Oswald in the doorway and not Billy Lovillady knowing of Larry's expertise in this area of photogrammetry which is the application of mathematics to the study of photographs I sent Larry to images which the plaintiff has actually himself confirmed our respectively of Noah Posner and of his purport an older step brother Michael Wagner that was all confirmed during his time in the doorway that was all confirmed during his answers to my second set of requests for admissions Larry did not know who these parts are I simply ask Larry are these two photographs of the same person at different ages Larry undertook a comparison and sent back a gift confirming that they have the same eyes they have the same eyebrows they have the same nose they have the same mouth they have the same ears they have the same shape of skull many properties of which are inviolable and remain constant during a person's lifetime although you can break your nose or have a nose job for example ears in the shape of your skull are properties that remain invariant during the lifetime which is why incidentally oddly enough the man who replace Paul McCartney has been known to wear a fake earpiece that's very very strange you're not going to hear of anyone else you know of who wears a fake earpiece because his ears are distinctly different than those of the original Paul McCartney whom he replaced if you want more you can check out the second edition of my favorite book in all of moon rock books where we have a dozen and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either we find four chapters on the moon landing four chapters on Paul and Paul two chapters on the first death of Saddam Hussein two chapters on the second death of Osama bin Laden and four chapters on the end of world war two the holocaust mythology to which I've now in the second edition added at least five more appendices including on all of the above and where two of the chapter is about the moon landing have been expanded and revised it's a completely sensational book I would say if you were to buy one book from moon rock books I'd highly recommend you pick up and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either which Mike Palachek had suggested as a title someone might respond in that vein after hearing the title of what was intended to be our first book nobody died at Sandy Hook they might say and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either and indeed we did not go to the moon I elaborate and strengthen the arguments for that conclusion in the in the second edition but meanwhile back at the ranch Larry establishing that in fact Noah was made up out of photographs of Michael van der as a child explains why we have a fake social security card we have fabricated death certificates and we have a counterfeit passport because Noah Posner was a fiction who was made up out of photographs of his older step brother Michael van der now the judge sought to keep all of this proof of the case he wanted to focus exclusively on the death certificate and not on whether or not Sandy Hook was real at one point even said he didn't care if Sandy Hook was real or not he didn't even care how Noah Posner had died he just wanted to know whether or not the death certificate were offending well it turns out that even though some of my reasons at the time were mistaken those are the premises of an argument the conclusion of which is the death certificate is a fabrication over which I was being sued even though some of my premises were wrong my conclusion was right and indeed the proof is very simple it does not have the certification of the town registrar Debbie Raylia on the left side it's a law in Connecticut that states not even parents are allowed to have uncertified death certificates in their possession so the argument is actually very very elegant it came after a great deal of research learning a whole lot more about death certificates than I would have preferred to know I was prepared to present that argument at the hearing on Monday but was preceded by sorting out a series of motions including two that I had submitted to strike the affidavit of one Samuel Green who was supposed to be the funeral director for the burial of Noah Posner would have turned out not to be licensed as a funeral director but only as an embalmer and also to strike the affidavit of an egg that was being made by the mayor and also the expert on DNA because there was a problem with the chain of custody of the DNA I have explained to the court it appeared to me that in fact the Leonard Posner and Noah Posner had real names of Michael Vabner and Ruben Vabner in other words that there was a parental relationship between the party known as Noah who was actually Michael Vabner and he was actually known as Leonard or Lenny Posner and Ruben Vabner such that if you only tested you get a positive result that you weren't actually testing the DNA of Noah Posner you were testing the DNA of Michael Vabner I proposed expanding the DNA to include Michael Vabner Noah Posner Leonard Posner Ruben Vabner and Verenik Delaroza the mother the judge however did not approve my motion for expansion of DNA which would have allowed this case to be settled in a retro-specced that would have been such an obvious thing to do to lay to rest many of these questions the fact that the judge did not appear to me to be a major error on his part it was far from the only what I hope not to be reversible errors on his part because the decision he made in favor of the plaintiff was utterly irresponsible and ill-founded and I am shocked actually completely shocked by what happened he not only vetoed the two motions would not approve the two motions to strike but he ruled out the reports by my two document examiner saying they were only opinions when of course they were only opinions but then too in the book I was only offering an opinion so why ought I to have been subject to a lawsuit for offering my opinion about a death certificate that certainly appeared to be a fabrication indeed as a forensic document examiner Robertson from Los Angeles observed a reasonable person looking at that death certificate published in the book would have on the grounds that I cited reasonably inferred that the document was a fabrication and therefore it would be indefensible to suggest there was any malice on my part which are most certainly was not I've simply been seeking to get to the bottom of the matter to expose the truth about Sandy Huck which turns out to be a completely elaborate sham event designed by the Obama administration to deprive the American people of their access to weapons under the Second Amendment have no doubt that Obama was behind it he modified the Smith-Mutt Act of 1948 which precluded the use of the same techniques of propaganda and disinformation within the United States that were used with the United States that were used without by the Smith-Mutt Modernization Act of 2012 just prior to Sandy Huck and in the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2013 this was all set up to legitimize Sandy Huck as a legally operated operation even though it was perpetrating a fraud on the American people we know it went from Obama to Biden to Holder then Attorney General who went to Connecticut and met with a governor on the 27th of November to discuss with him the Obama administration's gun control agenda where the government on the occasion of a press conference following the purported shooting at Sandy Huck explained that he and the lieutenant governor had been spoken to that something like this might happen leading me to speculate spoken to my whom and something like this what he could he possibly have met there are really only two alternatives it might he might have been told that someone would go berserk and come back and say someone would go berserk and come into Connecticut public school and shoot up a bunch of kids in which case he obviously had the obligation to notify the school districts of the threat that they increase their security and sure it did not happen which the governor did not do alternatively even informed they were going to take an abandoned school conduct a drill and present it as a live event of a gun control which is exactly what happened Eric Holder we know as a gun control zealot we have video of him addressing a national democratic women's conference in Washington DC back in 1995 where he's telling the women that we have to brainwash the American people in order to change their attitude toward guns as old guns weren't keeping us safe as old guns weren't guaranteed under the second amendment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Eric Holder obviously doesn't feel that way he's taking a completely different attitude he wants there to be gun control and he was a willing participant we know Biden was also involved in this scurrilous effort because the Thomas Manino who is the mayor of Boston at the time appeared on the show greater Boston which was hosted by Andy Rooney's daughter who was astonished when the mayor said that he was close friends of Joe Biden and that the vice president had assured him that gun control would be a done deal by January of 2013 which led Emily very reasonably to ask what in the world could happen to cause legislation to pass that fast Biden wouldn't say but obviously it was Sandy Hook or just a month and two days after the event on the 16th of January Barack Obama would sign no less than 23 executive orders to constrain our access to weapons under the second amendment now this continues to be a major plank in the democratic party platform which is based on the false premise just as I had false premises and in inferring that the death certificate was a fabrication or my conclusion turned out to be true but where the democrats promote the false belief that the more guns the more deaths from guns and the more gun violence which turns out to be false in fact they're inversely related we know a worldwide the greater the gun ownership the lower the homicide rate in North America United States and Canada have the highest gun ownership in the world and also the lowest homicide rate if you look at South America say for example Brazil low gun ownership high homicide rate look at Africa low gun ownership high homicide rate look at Russia low gun ownership high homicide rate so you can have high gun ownership and low homicide rates or low gun ownership and high homicide rates which has now been confirmed by additional studies of the defensive use of guns right here in the USA which turns out to occur between a half a million and three million times every single year where Americans have defending themselves from criminals are saving between 150 to 200,000 American lives every year so if the democrats are successful in taking away our guns we're going to add a minimum of 150 to 200,000 lives lost every year because of democratic ideological commitments that have no empirical or scientific foundation mind you because of my background as a philosopher of science of course I've looked for scientific and objective evidence in relation to the Sandy Hook event and found quite a lot of it around including of course Larry Rivera study which could be replicated by anyone else where they so inclined to do so now not only did the court do not have the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right to do the right by my my motions to strike the unlicensed funeral director, Yok日 and the improper DNA study from exclusion of buddy also just tossed aside my expert document examiner is even though you would have thought he would have had a keen interest. Because after all is that we had a focus on the authenticity or lack. Bar of the d<|ro|> Bar of the d genetics certificate who better to offer higher adherents public recreate excher to combined bone ext Alors to avoir am argument or material certificate who better to offer educated expert opinions on this matter than document examiners themselves. By one point, and this just dumbfounded me, the lead counsel for the plaintiff whose name is Jacob or Jake Zimmerman, offered the court to death certificates that the plaintiff had obtained from the state that were both properly certified by both the town registrar and the state, but which he never even showed me they were immaterial and irrelevant because they were not the death certificate that was published in the book. That was a subject of the lawsuit. None of my protestor complaints were responded to favorably by the court. I felt as though I'd been run over by a steamroller by the time the hearing was complete. Indeed, I did not even have the opportunity to speak until the judge and the plaintiff's counsel had had a conversation about the forthcoming trial in October during which a jury would deliberate over how much of an award to hold against Mike Palachek and me and whether or not Mike Palachek and I would even be allowed to speak during the jury trial. I mean, this is absolutely stunning stuff. When I spoke and you can find my presentation absent a few additional elaborations I made next, temperaneously as I read the document on my blog, Sandy Hook, Posner versus Fetzer lawsuit judge rules against Sandy Hook denier. You can see the four versions of the death certificate. You can see where I'd go through and explain that although some of my original reasons turned out to have been wrong, nevertheless my conclusion was right that the death certificate is a fabrication and it's very simple because it does not have a certification from the town registrar and the law in Connecticut holds that not even parents can have death certificates that are not certified. So the case was actually closed, stunningly however, the judge disregarded all of my evidence and ruled in favor of the plaintiff and I've got to say in retrospect I should have seen it coming. I'm very sorry to say my confidence in the courts of law in the United States, the ability of anyone to secure justice has been gravely shaken admittedly because Mike Palachek and I were representing our self-procé because we didn't have the benefit of an attorney. I have no doubt that we would have been better off had we been represented by one particularly during the hearing but we've run through about 20 efforts to locate attorneys and no one wants to touch the case. It's too much of a political hot potato. In addition by the way to that blog, there's a second most recent blog by Mike Palachek. We seek the truth. Mike makes many very appropriate points here. I'm very fond of this guy. He's a super human being. He made me the most honorable man I have ever known. He was an anti-war conscientious objector who actually went to jail for his beliefs. He actually served time in a federal penitentiary. Here's what he wrote in part. Monday's ruling in Wisconsin against Jim Fetzer and me was a substantial blow. We are still reeling. We asked for an attorney to come forward to represent us. Our book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook has now been banned for the second time. Jim and I are both facing one million dollars in damages. I think it turns out actually one million against the two of us. So perhaps only a half a mill of peace. However, it is true. There are vast lies being perpetrated upon the American people. We are trying to fight for the truth for the people because this is important. It is everything you have been taught to laugh at conspiracy theorists, a term introduced by the CIA in the 60s to cover up the JFK murder. The government has been lying for years, decades, the government and media. By now we should be able to look at these events with a critical eye and we should be allowed to question the American people or the victims of this, not knowing that their real history is the American tragedy. We don't know exactly how the different players are involved. The investigation would certainly profit from the work of someone with more resources available to them. We believe a knowledge of the facts and anomalies surrounding the case would lead any person to question whether anybody could have died at Sandy Hook. There's a lot more to the case if there's any journalists out there who really honestly wants to explore and we're very close to the break. But I have one more blog, the most recent, where the New York Times knowing better, nevertheless published a false depiction of these events, which may in fact actually qualify defamation by the New York Times against me, Jim Fetzer and Mike Palachat. Meanwhile I'm willing to take phone calls here. This is not going to be a usual Wednesday show. So if you want to call in, Mitchell will take your call, the number 5403524452, 5403524452, as we proceed toward the break, I'll introduce my most recent blog, Jim Fetzer, more propaganda from the New York Times. What else would we expect? For good reasons, have I described the New York Times as the Langley newsletter, which has been powerfully confirmed by their most recent story about the Sandy Hook Posner versus Fetzer lawsuit, where they claim that Mike Palachek and I asserted that Lenny had faked his son's death certificate when what we inserted instead was that the death certificate was fake, not that he had faked it. We had to read the time story, however, it would appear that we committed the stronger offense, which makes for more effective propaganda. Here's a title in the New York Times. Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists loses to father of six-year-old victim over hoax, a Wisconsin judge ruled that it was defamatory to publish a book that said Leonard Posner faked his son's death certificate, which we did not do. And indeed, the claim we actually made that it was fake is when we substantiated in the course of our evidence, the presentation of which we were able to introduce to the court, where the judge clearly committed a wrongful decision that I believe was not in accord with proper judicial practice, and which I hope to be the basis for an appeal or emotion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, we're here at the break. Again, I repeat, if you want to call in the number 540-352-4452-540-352-4452, please call Mitchell, well, handle your call and get you on the air with me today. Jim Fetzer, this is the raw deal, and I look forward to your calls. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on the raw deal, where the New York Times publishes article today. You're getting the latest, the most current developments, where it claimed that we had committed the stronger offence of claiming that Lenny had faked his son's death certificate when what we asserted instead was that the death certificate was fake, not that he had faked it. Why are liar pants on fire does not quite capture the egregious insult to the American public perpetrated by the New York Times? As the author Sharon Ottoman contacted me and Dave Gehary yesterday for comments about the lawsuit, Brian explained to her in clear and unmistakable language that the case had been wrongly decided that we had proven the death certificate. We addressed in the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook 2015, second edition 2016, was in fact the fabrication as we had proven in our pleadings. I wrote her in email James Fetzer Tuesday June 18, 505 PM to Sharon. Sharon, thanks for reaching out to me. Yes, there is no doubt about it. Two document experts concluded that all four of the death certificates in this case available at my latest blog are fabricated. Larry Wicks from a Minnesota found it mind boggling that Connecticut would be fabricating death certificates and sending out different death certificates to different parties to litigation. His report and affidavit are attached. The second AP Robertson use credentials are even more imposing, not only backed him up but reviewed the no-oppositor's Social Security card and found that it too is a fake. His affidavit is also attached. Although some of my reasons for having concluded that the death certificate was fake as published in our book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook 2015, second edition 2016, were mistaken. My conclusion for which I was sued was correct. In Connecticut, not even parents are allowed to possess an uncertified death certificate. This death certificate was uncertified. I laid out the case in court in very precise language where you can find my statement here alluding to the earlier blog I've been talking about. It was wrongly decided I'm going to do what I can to reverse the result. The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. Now, interestingly of everything I wrote to her, she used one sentence, which was that final sentence. The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history, which of course proves that she got the email that she had it, that she'd read it, and that she knew better. What that means is that this woman has actually deliberately made a false report about what I had informed her notice. I even attached reports of two forensic document examiners, Larry Wixstrom of Minnesota, and AP Robertson of California, to substantiate my assertion that these death certificates, including of course, the one that Lenny gave to Kelly, which was published in the book, our fabrications read that again. Not only is the death certificate we published in the book of fake, but all of the others in this case are fakes as well, and the proof is straightforward and simple, but the times like the court could care less. The times went on to report the following in this article you can find today. In a dozen chapters of book professors, among other things, that the school in Newtown Connecticut have been abandoned years before a gunman killed 21st graders and six staff members. Why does she need a dozen chapters when there are 13 contributors, some of whom had more than one chapter? We had I think 16 chapters. I'm pulling up the book right now to take a look, but I mean, she even says a dozen chapters. Let me look. We have the preface in the prologue, then part one, four, part two, four, part three, four, that's already 12, then part four, four, four, more, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. So there were 16 chapters anyway. You cut it more reasonably. You'd caught 20 and then there are four appendices, including the FEMA manual for the event at Sandy Hork. So she can't even get right how many chapters are on the book. The federal emergency management agency had claimed his state's event to promote gun control measures, which is true and Leonard posited the father of the youngest child to die that they had taked his six-year-old's death certificate in service of the conspiracy acclaim, which is false. No. He didn't fake it, but he had a fake death certificate. It was uncertified. On Monday, Mr. Posner, who has made his life's work to stop those who would seek to deny the December 14, 2012 school shooting, won a key challenge. A judge ruled for the first time that Mr. Posner had been defamed by the publication of nobody died at Sandy Hork. It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control. So where would we learn that the book had 13 contributors, including six-curring or retired PhD professors, and that we had established that the school had been abandoned by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it had been a FEMA drill presented as though it had been mass murder to promote gun control. Or one of the other contributors, Paul Preston, who was a school administrator, was so troubled by what he saw broadcast from Newtown that day, that he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, all of whom confirmed that it had been a drill, that no children had died, and that it was done to promote gun control. It's in the book, which you can download for free as a PDF. If you haven't already, do yourself a favor. That's what the title nobody died at Sandy Hork and your browser and download the PDF. One of the advantages you'd have over the first printing, by the way, is that it was only done in black and white, whereas you'll have all the images in color in the PDF. Here is more from the New York Times. This is a victory for myself and my family, Mr. Posner, set in an interview on Tuesday. This also a victory for the survivors and victims, families of all mass casual events who've been targeted by these people. The advocacy of the group, Mr. Posner, founded the Honor Network, has helped push corporations like YouTube and Facebook to remove thousands of false posts about the mass occurred and to provide new ways for users to report hateful content. But they don't know the difference between the truth and the false. This is the absurdity here, as though these Facebook, these social media giants, that some special access to truth, which they obviously do not. Other family members of victims and survivors of the attack have also been involved in recent years in taking on conspiracy theorists on a variety of fronts, including through legal action. Judge Frank Remington of the Dane County Circuit Point in Wisconsin ruled on Monday that the co-editors of the book. James Fetzer and Mike Palachek had defamed Mr. Posner in their book by alleging multiple times that Mr. Posner had faked his son's death certificate to promote the conspiracy, which is false. We claim that Mr. Posner had distributed a fake death certificate, not that Mr. Posner had faked his son's death certificate. How bad is that? This is a New York Times. This is a New York Times. As I repeat, I refer to this as the Langley newsletter. For good reasons, have I described in New York Times as the Langley newsletter, which have been powerfully confirmed by the most recent story about the Sandy Hook Posner versus Fetzer Lawsouwer. They claim that Mike Palachek and I assert that when he had faked his son's death certificate, when we asserted instead, was that the death certificate was fake, not that he had faked it. And I'm pleased to say we have a caller here. I'm glad to take from the 179, the area code caller, please give us your name and state and join the conversation. Captain Kirk from Colorado, Jim. Hey, Captain Kirk. How are you doing, friend? Pretty good. I got to apologize from Colorado for George, what he said to you on Friday or whatever. That wasn't cool. You didn't need to be attacked as you're going to court on Monday. I'm glad you brought that up for the following reason. George wanted me not to talk too fast. And I assured him that wouldn't happen, but in the way it played out, because I was kept back and back and back because they basically already settled the case before I was even allowed to speak. I actually did talk too fast. So George was actually giving good advice. In fact, the judge asked me to slow down so the court reported could get every word right. She seemed comfortable, but I did speak too fast. So I wanted to say actually, George, if you're listening, I think you were spot on and under the circumstances, I talked faster than I ought to have. So you had it right. Captain Kirk, please do continue. Well, I kind of told you that the judge is, I felt like you were being set up. And now is when it really gets crooked. Because when a judge is out of line, and this is in Colorado, I'm speaking from experience of a judge, fleecing my mom's estate for $25,000. You write to a judicial review board. And one guy in Colorado, one guy determines if it's even a complaint of merit to give to the judicial review board who were like half of them are appointed by the governor and the other half. I mean, it's, there's not accountability. So now if you can appeal, appeals tend to be a good thing because it might be that instead of one judge, which is easy to get a judge to be one guy to be a crook. Because he obviously showed partiality against you and had already made his decision. By the way, you said he was talking to the plaintiff before you even said hello or whatever. So, but an appeals appeals court might be like three judges. Yeah. For my experience, that's your best hope, Jim. Captain Kirk, I think that's wise counsel. I do intend to make one or another or more moves about this or plotting it out. We have to have the transcript, however, before we move forward. And I will not have the transcript in hand until Friday. It turns out, however, that the plaintiffs requested the first copy of the transcript, it's mean I only have to pay the copy price, which turns out to be only $123 in this instance. It would have been, I'm sure, a couple grand because it was four hours long had I had to buy the first copy. So that's a minor benefit, but we have to go through the transcript to establish the case on the basis of the record required reflected by the transcript. Have you ever heard of Juris Dictionary? Is that online resource? Yeah, it's a class. I think it's like $400 or $500, maybe, but it covers civil lawsuits. And the guy that runs it, I talked to on the phone. He's really cool. He's kind of like you. You might take interest and help you out. It's just called Juris Dictionary. This was a couple years ago, and I'm sure he's still around. He sounded like he isn't great help. Well, that's very interesting, Captain Kirk. I'm glad you mentioned that. I'm glad you do. I'm getting good advice from the number of sources, and I'm very pleased to receive it. He might help you out if you just plugged his course, or something, maybe. He's someone that is into the truth. He wants the truth to get out just like all of us do. So that listen to you put out the truth. So well, Jim. It's crazy, Captain Kirk, how the court restricted the focus to the death certificate alone would not allow me to bring in the massive evidence that Sandy Hook was an elaborate charade so that any death certificate for a Sandy Hook victim would have to be a fabrication. And then when I obtain the results, the analysis of two expert document examiners, he dismisses it. In my opinion, that was a completely improper action. It led to the case being wrongly decided. I have no doubt it's appealable on that basis alone where he dismissed them saying they were only opinions as though all of our positions were only opinions except some opinions are better than others. And in the case of documents, what would be more appropriate than expert document examiners opinions? And I'm sure those two guys have testified in court before. Yeah, they have very impressive credentials. And it's interesting. I sent all of that to this New York Times reporter by the name of Sharon. I included their reports. I included their affidavits. I included their CV. So she would know that these were very imposing persons. Sharon Auderman, I mean, it's embarrassing what she has done here. And who knows how many people have ever ran, nobody died at Sandy Hooker would be aware of the allegation contained in chapter 11, which turns out to be well-founded that the desertific was a fabrication albeit not for all the reasons that I gave there. But the fact is lots of people read the New York Times. So there's a massive assault upon me being perpetrated by this article in the New York Times. I mean, I think it makes the purported defamation of mine against Lenny trivial and insignificant by comparison. This is a massive assault by what is supposed to be the nation's leading newspaper, even though I regarded as a propaganda organ, which it seems to be demonstrating quite conclusively in this instance, since it can't even get straight what it was that I was supposed to have been convicted of doing, which is describing a desertific as a fabrication and not for alladging that the man himself had faked it. I mean, a captain Kirk. Can't we see that? Say again. You should sue them because what you've just demonstrated is she responded to your email. So she intentionally wrote her, they wrote that headline, even though they had prior knowledge that it's wrong. So they were acting maliciously. So you should sue them for slam. That's the first thing I said when you went through that argument before the break. Kirk isn't that ironic? Is that ironic? In the case of this New York Times, the mighty powerful New York Times could have committed a far more serious act of defamation by attacking me. After I'd informed the journalist authoring the article of the facts of the matter and substantiated them with the reports of the two document examiners, their affidavits and their CVs. Yeah, she does that as the judge. I mean, the judge is so out of line that I think to take it to the appeal level, if it is like three judges instead of one, there's no way, three of them, especially when they're at that level where they think they might become Supreme Court justice. They're not going to sell out a block to the black mark on their record like that as blatant as this judge did. This judge should be removed. I mean, how does he say that expert witness is just having an opinion? It's already established by court that you bring in expert witnesses. I mean, that's a no brainer, right? It's, I got to tell you, it's very, very strange. What happened in that courtroom on Monday, I was not prepared for what took place. I was really floored. And it seems to me that something was grossly wrong, grossly wrong. It's a racket against you. There the court is actually a for profit corporation, I guess. So remember what Paul said, how they didn't let him into his court date because his ID was expired, even though it's already been determined that an expired ID is still an ID. Is still a function was on identification? Yeah, sure. And so somehow somebody at the front door had ordered to be talking to people behind the, you know, behind the gavel or whatever the judges chambers, communication between the judges chambers and the guy at the front door. I mean, that's just someone going into the courthouse with an ID that's expired by whatever days they might be going to renew their ID. First of all, I bet that made no sense when Paul told that story, just like what the story you told about the judge talking to the plaintiff and never giving you any attention until he pretty much it already made his own decision about it. It was clear to me that by the time I had the opportunity to speak, it was clear to me the decision had already been made. It wasn't going to matter what I said, even though I offered a clear elegant proof that the document was a fabrication. The plaintiff's counsel, this guy, a James Zimmerman, had already produced his desertific, and say said that the plaintiff have been obtained for no appositor from the state they had both forms of certification, but they were irrelevant and immaterial because they were not the desertificant that I had described in the book. I mean, it was blatant. I was virtually shouting out, this is a shell game. This is improper. Those are the wrong desertificants. I have no doubt the record is going to reflect. I was stunned. Yeah, you should check out Juris Dictionary and talk to that guy, and he's really smart. He's really. I'm very much like the suggestion. Why aren't you hanging around and I'll finish the blog here because this is so important and you may have further comments about it. Sure. The author, yeah, just stand by. The author cannot properly qualifies it journalist, but only as a propaganda is repeats the false allegation that we had claimed that Mr. Posner had faked his son's desertificant to promote the conspiracy, since she has to know better, given the statement I sent in the proof that I provided, she did not simply make a false assertion multiple times, but has to have done so deliberately, which means that Miss Auderman has qualified as lying for the New York Times. There is a real story here, which would no doubt fascinate the American people, but the role of the times is to conceal the truth, not to reveal it. And here I show the actual document from the book, which has this graphus from page 181, no imposters, desertificant. One first consideration, Lenny's desertificant for no positor looks authentic. Requestions only arise when you take a closer look for it to have been published by his father, Lenny is a significant development. Sentinous is the first concrete proof we have that any child actually died at Sandy Hook. As I have emphasized, there have been extraordinary efforts to suppress information about these 20 deaths. Over my strenuous objective, plaintiffs attorney introduced two copies of properly certified desertificates. He claimed plaintiff had obtained for no, but those were not the copy published in the book above, which I had described as a fabrication. And because it is an uncertified copy, my characterization was correct in Connecticut, not even parents are allowed to possess an uncertified copy of a desertificate. The copies he introduced were irrelevant and immaterial to the case. With no longer matters in America, whether in the courts in Wisconsin or in the New York times, they understand who controls the news, controls the culture. Anyone can go to my blog at James Fetsardot, Oregon, read the blogs I've been talking about here, which have to be among the most important I've ever published. There were lots of other oddities about the situation, including the following. Lenny made this desertific and available to Kelly in 2014, but he'd already modified the desertificate in 2013, as it says right at the top, modified by Leonard Posner-Fothernick gives the date in 2013, which included the address for their deceit. I thought it was bizarre. I mean, no one changes their address after their death. But Lenny Posner changed the address for Noah after he was departed from the address for his ex-wife to the address for himself, which I believe was not explicable by Lenny's professed reasoning when I was able to question him during a seven-hour video deposition, where he said that since Noah had only resided there a brief time, but mostly with his father, he wanted to give the address where Noah had mostly spent his time. Frankly, that's an absurd idea, but the forensic document examiner suggested for more likely he changed the address because he didn't want donations going to his ex-wife, but rather to come to him. This is a man who, by the way, in the complaint referred to his dear departed son by his initials in the pee. He doesn't even refer to him as Noah Posner in the complaint. I as a father find that verging on obscenity that you would be referring to your child by their initials in a complaint that's supposed to be in his support and defense. We have another caller from the 512 area caller. Please give us your name and state and join the conversation. Hello, hello, Dr. Fedser. This is Janon in Texas again. Full Janon. I'm delighted to have you here. I was quite interested in what you said a few minutes ago about you requested to expand the DNA investigation. I really have not heard much about that, but it would seem that that would be a way to establish a positive identity of the person, the natural person appearing in the courtroom going by the name of Leonard Posner. Am I correct on that? That one of the side effects of an expanded DNA investigation would be a positive ID on that person going by the name of Leonard Posner. Yes, yes, particularly you see since I believe that the real names of the parties referred to as Leonard Posner and Noah Posner are actually Ruben Vabner and Michael Vabner by having DNA tests of all the four of them, including then the wife, mother, Faradneet, Delarosa. We'd be able to sort it out, but the judge denied my request for expansion. I mean, Janine, what in the world is going on here every time and that would be objective scientific evidence about the identity and the propriety of the DNA evidence was a judge declined to do. I was baffled at the time. Now that he's tossed my expert examiner's report, I think it's part of a larger pattern. Honest to God, I really didn't see it coming. Others were telling me they thought the deck was stacked. They thought the case was rigged until this point I don't believe I really was taking it as being the case. Now of course, it's difficult for me to deny. Right. I don't really know what to make of this. It looks like your efforts to bring concrete evidence to the case are just being thwarted and just thrown out before you even are allowed to submit real evidence. The court accepted a case from someone named Leonard Posner as the plaintiff whom they have no positive identification of. I didn't know courts could even entertain a case when they don't have a positive idea of the plaintiff. I don't know if I'm off track on that or not, but I'm on track. I wasn't making the point from the very beginning in my initial answer where when I received the complaint, I had the choice to move to dismiss it or to accept it with an answer. I was explained from the beginning that there appeared to be and when I served my counter claims that I believe a fraud was being perpetrated on the court because the party who is launching the lawsuit wasn't the person he claimed to be. So I was maintaining that there was abuse of process that the lawsuit actually wasn't filed to establish defamation, but for the improper purpose of silencing skeptics of standy hook and others who do conspiracy research. That was the real reason of using the law to undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press. That in the second place, there was a case for fraud and theft by deception because massive sums of money had been received by this plaintiff and others for opposing as the parents of children who died at Sandy Hook, where they were enriching themselves between one and five million bucks for feigning the role. And then third, the fraud upon the court, which I believe was represented by the entire lawsuit. I must say at no point did I believe that the judge was actually taking my case all that seriously. In fact, he reiterated at the end what he said earlier on that he thought this was a very simple case. It's a very simple case if you take for granted that Sandy Hook was real, but if you understand that in fact it's an elaborate charade, it's actually a complex case. And I don't believe that the judge, if he was in fact sincere, had the least inkling that the complexity of the case, which I was seeking to emphasize again and again and again. We have another caller this time from the 408 area. Both of you please do stay on the line. Area call for 08. Give us your name and your state and join the conversation. This is Paul from California. How are you doing? Good Paul. How are you doing? Shocking development, right? I think you are predicting it quite a while ago. Well, you know, you just the again, my experiences, excuse me, sorry for a second, hang on. Oh, thank you. My experience is limited myself personally, but I've seen and read a lot more and you're just going into an unreal world and they just, they can make up and do whatever it is they want. By the way, the other person that called I forget who it was, he was mentioning jurisdictionary. And you know, I kept in court. He's actually still on with us, Paul. Yeah, yeah. So I took that course. Actually, I think one time I think I might have talked to as a doctor, Frederick Graves of not mistaken, but it's mostly for, it would be mostly for a plaintiff would be my take. And it's relatively conventional and straightforward. It wouldn't have done any good at all. My best analogy would be like this is let's say that it made you an expert at swinging the bat and, you know, hitting fastballs and curveballs and, you know, you were ready to go, but then you go up to the plate and their intention was to walk you the whole time and you never got a pitch to hit. Yeah. That's, it doesn't matter how many legal degrees you have when the situation was as ridiculous as it comes. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, I do have one question which troubled me and I wasn't sure. But of course, my, my assumption is you're going to go to a court case to decide the facts. Okay. Now you're going to have a so called trial to decide punishment, which seems bizarre. Did you waive the right to a jury in this first phase and you decided to let a judge hear it? Well, I mean, the plaintiffs wanted a jury trial. I mean, certainly we wanted a jury trial that the case was complicated in the following respect. Only one of the three defendants actually had a lawyer. That was David Geherry because he represents the publisher of the company moon rock books. A company cannot represent itself, pro say and had to have an attorney. We not only had an attorney grounded in Wisconsin by the name of Reed Peterson, but we had an attorney from California by the name of Alexander Patale who has a lot of trial experience who was anchored in Wisconsin by way of Reed. In other words, Alexander's ability to practice in Wisconsin was on an ad hoc basis because he was associated with a local attorney. Now very strangely and unexpectedly, my colleague and co-defendant settled with a with a posner. I didn't even know about this until much later. He settled with a posner in that point. His attorney Reed Peterson retired. I mean, retired from the law and thereby lost the anchor for the attorney Alexander Patale in California. Now we going in had expected that first the attorneys would represent Dave and then they represent Mike and then they represent me and we take care of each of us in serial order but it didn't come to pass at all. And Dave actually gave up with the book. He said he would no longer publish. Nobody died at Sandy Hook, which frame. Yeah, that made me sick when I read that. That really just me off. Paul. I had no idea how it made me feel absolutely nauseated. And it's even worse because if you read the article about it that was from the associated press and even appeared at the hill, which of course is a publication for those who work on Capitol Hill, he even apologized to posner. He said he spent this time with posner. He was now convinced that it really happened. George Burns observed a long time ago that if you can fakes in serity, you got it made. This guy is very smooth as Mike Palachek observed, very smooth. But I caught him in multiple lies during the deposition, multiple lies. Let me give him illustration. He had about two dozen websites, domain names and all that where Tony Mead was a brilliant student of Sandy Hook had a fair, did the amount. So I presented this list of all these domain names and asked him about them because there were one for Tony Mead, one for me, one for Wolfgang Halberg, one for others who had been severe critics of Sandy Hook. And he said, he said, oh, he just gathered them to retell them that nobody seemed to want mine was available for 20 bucks if I wanted it. And I said, well, you know, when I first discovered you had that, I went to the website and I found it. And you had about 30 pages of material about me, most of which was true. But then when I went back later, it was no longer there. Well, guess what? I found it. And it turns out to say James H. Fetzer, a life of insanity. And it's got the name of the honor network on every one of its 37 pages. So you know, I mean, I unraveled this stuff. It's all in the record. It's in my affidavit. And honest to God, I believe at this point in time, the judge never even his eyes never crossed the page. Yeah. Well, so I mean, this just goes back to what I've discovered myself. And you know now, there can't be any doubt in your mind. This world that we're living in is nothing to do with facts, truth, evidence, or anything else. It's a club. You know, it's an exclusive club. And as George Carlin said, you ain't in it. Let me ask Janon and Captain Kirk. If they have any thoughts, they'd like to add to your observations, Paul, Captain Kirk. Yeah. Captain Kirk, are you there? Yeah, the club. It's called the Club of Rome. Oh, the club is called the Club of Rome. Yeah. Janon, did you want to add to this? Yes. You're so. I agree. I agree. I used to have a little problem. I was too idealistic, you know, thinking that our whole court system was a joke. But you know, it's being confirmed. And to me, on this particular case, it looks like the judge actually facilitated fraud upon the court. I mean, facilitated. Made it happen, entertained it. And I'm kind of thinking that if we can't get non-fabricated death certificates or no deposit from the state of Connecticut, we may not be able to get non-fabricated DNA results from a laboratory. That's the way I'm thinking now. Thank you, Dr. Smith. I know. I know. Well, I think you're a wonderful person and extremely perceptive. And I'm very glad every time you call in. Thank you, Dr. Smith. Yes. Yes. I'm delighted. I'm delighted every time you call in. Paul, further thoughts of yours? Well, just for the fun of it, if you're ever interested, there's a piece. It's now in multiple locations I've found it before, but there's supposedly a former federal judge by the name of Dale Brown. And the title of the very part, one of the titles I think one time it came ac