Debunking the Debunkers: Report On Sandy Hook Verdict Against Jim Fetzer

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Report On Sandy Hook Verdict Against Jim Fetzer

Editor's Note: Is Fetzer just a only ever half right about conspiracies firebrand asshole or a disinfo agent? Well, if it's the latter, there must be some real info to be had on Sandy Hook worth muddying the waters about. As I've said, we have the right and duty to question historical events and our government, who in Operation Northwoods suggested faking deaths and conducting mock funerals to stir up support for a war.

Breaking News

09 Jan, 2020

James Fetzer

EXPOSING FALSEHOODS AND REVEALING TRUTHS

Home2019DecemberKevin Barrett, The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial (Expanded)

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

December 26, 2019 James Fetzerblog

KEVIN BARRETT

[Editor’s note: This report by Kevin Barrett captures what has happened in the Sandy Hook “Pozner v. Fetzer” lawsuit more adequately than anything else published on the case–including by me. For a curious development in the discussion thread on his article–which, until the shills began posting en masse, was perhaps the most intelligent discussion (absent certain posts on this blog) I have yet to read–see the appendix I have added at the end, which represents a most curious development.]

Part 1: Tuesday at the Trial: Just the Facts

Lenny Pozner’s defamation suit against Jim Fetzer concluded Tuesday, October 15, day two of the penalty phase of the trial. (Disclaimer: I have been friends with Jim since 2006, and though I don’t always agree with him, I respect his courage and sincerity. It was an honor to have lunch with him on this, the most critical day of the trial.)

Pozner won the first phase last June when the court determined that four of Fetzer’s statements alleging a fake death certificate for Noah Pozner were defamatory; then on September 13 Fetzer was found in contempt of court for sharing images of Pozner’s deposition. Fetzer argues that he shared the images, which the court had deemed confidential, as part of his legal defense research. Fetzer claims the images show that the Lenny Pozner in the deposition is not the same person depicted in at least some previous publicly circulated images of Lenny Pozner.

Pozner asked for one million dollars in damages from Fetzer. The jury’s job was to determine an award amount, which theoretically could range anywhere between zero and one million dollars. After almost four hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of $450,000 in damages.

The penalty phase of the trial began Monday with opening arguments and a lengthy videotaped deposition of a forensic psychologist, who asserted that Pozner suffers from PTSD as a result of Fetzer’s four defamatory statements. The forensic psychologist, who was presumably hired by Pozner’s legal team, predictably supported Pozner’s narrative: After suffering the loss of his son Noah at Sandy Hook, Pozner says, he experienced PTSD for more than a year, only to have his recovery cut short, and his symptoms exacerbated, by his discovery that online Sandy Hook skeptics were claiming that the school shooting was a hoax in which nobody died. Since then, Pozner says, he has been waging an online battle against Sandy Hook skeptics (he calls them “hoaxers”) which has kept him mired in PTSD. Much or most of the suffering he has experienced, Pozner suggests, is the fault of Jim Fetzer, whom Pozner and his lawyers are casting as the kingpin and prime inspiration of the Sandy Hook skeptics’ movement.

Fetzer’s legal team questioned the “Fetzer caused my PTSD” claim. While acknowledging that Pozner would have suffered PTSD from the loss of his son in December 2012, they suggested that it was not entirely Fetzer’s fault that Pozner has been re-traumatizing himself by spending much of his time since 2014 combing the internet for material that he says traumatizes him and trying to get it removed. Fetzer’s team’s cross-examination of the psychologist pointed out that normally PTSD sufferers avoid stimuli that reawaken the trauma.

The afternoon session featured back-to-back testimony from Lenny Pozner and Jim Fetzer, both called to the stand and questioned by the plaintiff’s (Pozner’s) lawyers. In front of a huge, adorable Noah Pozner picture projected on the screen, Lenny Pozner recounted dropping off his son Noah at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. He described seeing his son’s body at the funeral a few days later. He said that in 2014 he encountered the online claims of Sandy Hook skeptics and tried to engage with them in a cordial and transparent way, but soon began to feel harassed and increasingly upset at their claims that his son Noah had never existed. He said he has persistently tried to get such claims removed from the internet as a way of defending his son.

Below are reconstructions from my notes on Pozner’s testimony. The notes were cut short by a bailiff ordering me to shut down my laptop, since I was not one of the two mainstream journalists who had been approved for electronic devices.

Lenny Pozner:

Noah was a twin to my youngest daughter. The last time I saw Noah would have been on the morning of December 14. I dropped my three kids off at the car line.

(At the funeral) his forehead was the only part that was not covered (due to injuries).

I became aware of Mr. Fetzer in mid-2014. (Asked if he had read Jim Fetzer’s edited book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook): No, I haven’t read the book, just the parts about me.

I felt it said a lot of ugly things. I wanted to defend my son. I needed to be his voice. (Answering question): I’m concerned for my safety, my family’s safety. I’m concerned for my children’s future, how they could be treated.

I was concerned someone would do something…something bad.

(Asked why he thought Fetzer’s four defamatory statements had damaged his reputation): It causes people to believe I lied about my son’s death, that my son didn’t die….

(Asked how he has been affected in terms of fearing contact with people):

I’m very cautious about what I reveal…I never know how people might react…people might accuse me of being this villain that Mr. Fetzer portrayed me to be.

(Asked whether he held Jim Fetzer responsible for the criminal acts of Lucy Richards, who left obscene, threatening messages on Pozner’s answering machine):

Lucy Richards was sentenced to prison for making death threats against me. (But why hold Fetzer responsible?) It was the way she said what she said, and the way she talked about Noah, and about me…she accused me of faking my son’s death, hiding my son, that he’s not really dead. Part of her sentence is she’s not supposed to read (Fetzer’s) website.

Jim Fetzer, called to the stand by the plaintiff’s lawyers as a hostile witness, was questioned about his responsibility for the four allegedly defamatory statements, all of which involved claims that the copy of Noah Pozner’s death certificate circulated by Lenny Pozner in 2014 was inauthentic—claims Fetzer still argues were accurate. Fetzer said that he (and in some cases collaborators including co-authors, editors, and publishers) were indeed responsible for publishing those statements, which were not defamatory, but truthful. Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington immediately ordered the jury out of the room and admonished Fetzer that the court had already ruled that those statements were defamatory and that no further impugning the findings of the court would be tolerated. When the jury filed back into the courtroom, Judge Remington ordered them to ignore Fetzer’s statement.

Toward late afternoon the defense decided not to call two witnesses, Tony Mead and Kelley Watt, who had traveled from Florida to testify. Both sides offered closing arguments.

Though I missed the closing arguments (I had to pick up my wife after a dental appointment) a friend and colleague who wishes to remain anonymous summarized them for me. What follows is based on what my source, who was present in the courtroom as a spectator, recounted afterward.

Pozner’s attorneys made broad emotional appeals, saying Pozner has experienced pain and suffering due to losing his son and then having the wounds re-opened by his battles with online Sandy Hook skeptics whose ideas, they claim, are derived from Fetzer’s book and web postings.

Fetzer’s attorneys argued more narrowly on two key issues. They asked why the psychologist expert witness who diagnosed Pozner with Fetzer-induced PTSD did not estimate any monetary damages from that PTSD. Nor, in fact, did Pozner or his legal team. No claims were made about the dollar value of any losses in earning ability Pozner may or may not have suffered. There was no claim whatsoever of any loss of income or medical bills.

Fetzer’s team also argued that Pozner’s side had not presented any convincing evidence supporting the claim that Fetzer’s defamatory statements about the death certificate had caused Lucy Richards or any other unstable Sandy Hook skeptic to harass Pozner; no evidence was presented that the harassers even read Fetzer’s defamatory statements, much less acted on them.

Fetzer’s lawyers reminded the jury to set aside their personal feelings and emotions: They shouldn’t decide on the basis of whether they like or dislike Fetzer or agree or disagree with him. Damages are not supposed to be emotional or punitive, Fetzer’s attorneys said, but are only related to actual dollar-value loss (which had not been demonstrated).

The jury retired to consider their verdict. A few hours later, well into the evening, they ordered pizza. A few mainstream journalists, including a New York Times reporter, remained in the courtroom to await the verdict. The jury returned the verdict after about four hours of deliberation:

Jury Awards Sandy Hook Father $450,000 damages for defamation

Part 2: The Opinion Piece (Assuming We Are Still Allowed to Have Opinions)

Tuesday was the final day of Jim Fetzer’ defense against Lenny Pozner’s libel lawsuit. I attended and published a “just the facts” report that evening (republished with minor changes above). At almost the same moment I published my initial 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

APPENDIX: The $50,000 Challenge

A fellow calling himself “Michael Lewis” has challenged me (several times, now) to prove that I served as a commissioned officer in the Unted States Marine Corps, which I have regarded as a frivolous psyop. I replied by publishing photos including my commissioning as a 2nd Lt. USMC upon graduate from Princeton, a photo of the Regimental Staff at the USMC Recruit Depot in San Diego, where I served as a Series Commander with 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command going through the training cycle, one series after another, and a photo of my first wife pinning on my bars when I was promoted to Captain, USMC, which this guy has (absurdly) discounted as “photoshopped images”:

These images appear on page 440 of Mike Palecek and Chuck Gregory, eds., White Rose Blooms in Wisconsin: Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer and The American Resistance (Moon Rock Books edition 2016). He has now reiterated his challenge, which I have accepted with three conditions as follows:

So I am calling his bluff. If he declines my terms, I am no worse off than I was before. If he accepts them and I prevail (which ought to be effortless), then I will be $50,000 ahead of the game in financing the trial I was denied by the indefensible finding of liability concluding the Summary Judgment.

Please follow and like us:

error20

$50, 000 challenge, Kevin Barrett, Legal Lyncihg, Michael Lewis, Pozner v. Fetzer

Post navigation

National Guardsman, “We will not comply” if ordered by Virginia governor to arrest police, confiscate guns

The $50,000 Challenge: Can Jim Fetzer prove he served in the United States Marine Corps?

January 9, 2020 0

Stephanie Sledge, 9 Years Pass & Nation Still Enduring Lies of Tucson Shooting

January 9, 2020 4

Scott Ritter, Iran holds all the cards in coming Middle East conflict with US, unless Trump is ready to drop a tactical NUKE

January 7, 2020 24

Patrick J. McShay, Targeted Assassinations and Foreign Entanglements

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

JFK says:

December 29, 2019 at 5:48 pm

The whole world now knows what Judge Remington did to James Fetzer and to the rights guaranteed to every citizen of these United States.

Some people could not live with themselves under such circumstances; some persons would thrive on it. It’s the difference between a satanic cold-blooded psychopathic murderer who enjoys his trade and a God fearing Christian who always seeks to treat others fairly.

I do not need to say where Judge Remington falls on this scale. He knows where, and I suppose God does too.

I will say this though. Jim Fetzer is one great guy. God knows it too. May God give him all of his blessings. He surely deserves them and more.

Will says:

December 27, 2019 at 4:50 pm

Well, Dr….Has there been a response to your new conditions?

It may all be trolling nonsense, but is surely worth a shot.

Might be a good idea to discuss this on tonights Raw Deal.

James Fetzer says:

December 27, 2019 at 5:23 pm

He says he can send it to my attorney for a trust account. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Should have response tomorrow and more on SUNDAY.

Will says:

December 27, 2019 at 5:42 pm

Seems fair. At the least, it’s an interesting experiment. At the most, you’ll be $50K ahead for your appeal. But I’m not holding my breath.

It is curious, if legitimate, why Mike Lewis is so convinced you did not serve.

James Fetzer says:

December 27, 2019 at 5:44 pm

Agreed. I think he is a fake so I am calling his bluff.

Will says:

December 27, 2019 at 10:15 am

Blessings, peace and harmony to all here.

May the coming NEW YEAR be the most prosperous and serene of our lives..

Winfield J. Abbe says:

December 26, 2019 at 9:08 pm

I first met professor Dr. James Fetzer, Ph.D. almost 6 years ago. We both grew up at opposite ends of Pasadena, California, he in the South West part called South Pasadena, I in the North East part called Sierra Madre, a small town at the foot of Mt Wilson. He attended a different public school system than I did. Pasadena is a large city and our paths did not cross for about 75 years!

My late Mother and Father were both born and raised in Minnesota, he in Mora about 60 miles North of the twin Cities and she in St. Paul. He is descendant from a farming family from Germany while she is descendant from Norway and Denmark; her parents arrived as immigrants just before the turn of the 20th century. Both were highly responsible and highly intelligent citizens which I give thanks for every hour of every day. He graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1936 while she graduated in English; she later earned a Master of Library Science from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Dad’s first job as a professional engineer was with the American Steel and Wire Company, owned by U.S. Steel Corp. at Cleveland, Ohio in about 1937; I was born there at Lutheran Hospital in 1939. They were tired of the cold weather and drove to California in a 1931 Chevy Coupe with rumble seat about 1940. After living in San Diego and Los Angeles they settled in a small town Sierra Madre in about 1943 where I was raised for the next 23 or so years until I left to make a new life in Georgia. Sierra Madre was probably as close to paradise as anything could be then.

As a boy growing up in Sierra Madre, I had jobs from about age 10 doing everything from weeding yards to washing dishes to delivering newspapers for the Pasadena Star News, to working in gas stations and garages and on and on and on. I earned almost enough money during the Summer to get me through UC Berkeley during the year,. I was also a hot rodder,. I am going to relate a short story of how I was also mistreated by a Superior Court Judge at about age 16 some 2300 miles across the country almost 65 years ago, very similar to the way professor Jim Fetzer was mistreated by Judge Remington in Wisconsin in this sham trial as so well described by Dr. Keven Barrett, Ph.D.

It was a beautiful Summer evening in Sierra Madre about 1955. I had a 1937 Chevy Coupe with full race GMC engine painted Zolotone black and white and looked like a speckled bird. My opponent in the drag race was named Stetson and had a 1932 Ford Coupe with a hopped up V-8. We carefully chose a rural road with very little traffic to minimize the risk of anyone or any property being harmed. I beat him by a few freight car lengths. The Sheriffs appeared on the scene., During the race my engine blew a few valves and lost most of its power. I ditched the law and watched them go by from the end of a dead end street. NO PERSON OR PROPERTY WAS HARMED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM PERIOD. Of oourse we were wrong and had violated the law but there were no, zero damages to anyone or any property period.

Of course my opponent, who lost the race dramatically, was apprehended by them and quickly spilled the beans about me to them; they were waiting for me at my home. They arrested me and after some time there was a trial in Los Angeles Superior Court under Judge Neely. After he listened and ignored my complaint that there were no legal places to race near by, and no one or property was damaged, what do you think my sentence was for a first offense? 6 months in jail and loss of license until age 18! Of course I had no lawyer then. My Father was there but what could he do? I was arrested immediately and jailed at a facility called Biscaluz Center named for a former Sheriff. I was incarcerated with some strong criminals, rapists, murderers and other criminals. This was a first offense. Again, no,zero damage of any kind to persons or property. Do you think this was a fair sentence? Do think Professor Jim Fetzer was treated fairly by Judge Remington in Wisconsin about 2500 miles to the East of where I received the shaft by the corrupt legal system in America? I don’t. This outrageous sentence would have caused me to miss graduation with my class at Pasadena High School too. To make a long story short, a stroke of luck came my way in the form of a probation officer named Rosenberg who got me released in about 6 weeks from my stay with hardened criminals. My teachers at Pasadena High School were great and helped me catch up and graduate with my class in 1956. By the way that punk from Hollywood did much the same thing in Florida a few years ago, only on very dangerous city streets but was permitted by buy his way out of prison. Our legal system is a totally unfair disgrace to every principle in our Constitution.

I say shame, shame, shame…on Judge Remington in Wisconsin for his gross unfair treatment of one of the top intellects and scholars in the country today. Judge Remington is a disgrace to Wisconsin, to the so called legal “profession” and to his distinguished Father who was a very prominent lawyer and professor of Law at the great University of Wisconsin. Judge Remington should take a good hard look in a mirror. The Sandy Hook Hoax is one of the most reprehensible lies perpetuated by our totally corrupt federal and state governments. Professor Fetzer and other associates, mostly with Ph.D. degrees, not at all comparable with a hack J.D. degree in Law, with the exception of a few like Alison Sunny Maynard, proved without any doubt, that Sandy Hook was a con to promote the gun control agenda. Rather than following the rules Judge Remington obliterated the rules. Instead of promoting TRUTH he has promoted LIES and is evidently so ignorant himself he does not even know it! He is in the same low league as the 42 federal judges named by name and location in the seminal book by former Engineer Earl W. Carey: “IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America”, Bismarck House, St. Louis, 1992. Judge Remington should do us all a favor and immediately resign. Shame on you! Professor Jim Fetzer, Ph.D. should be awarded the Medal of Freedom, not worthless Sports Hacks. Professor Jim Fetzer may be a better physicist than most physicists; a better mathematician than most mathematicians and a better logician than most logicians.

Winfield J. Abbe, Pasadena High School 1956, Pasadena City College A.A., 1958, A.B. Physics, UC Berkeley, 1961, M.S. Physics, California State University at Los Angeles, 1962, Ph.D., Physics, UC Riverside, 1966, Institute of Science and Technology Fellow, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1966-1967, Faculty Member with Lifetime Tenure, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 1966-1978; voluntarily resigned mainly due to lying and cheating by two deans and three department heads for over 5 years. These lies and cheating affected the lives of some very good young assistant professors who were better than virtually all the senior professors with a few exceptions! Secrecy is the enemy of the truth. Secrecy is why the con of Sandy Hook has been fostered. Judge Remington aided and abetted that con to every American Citizen in his corrupt Courtroom in Wisconsin. Shame on him! In America today secrecy is fostered by the full military armed force of our totally corrupt government. Are we any different at bottom than Nazi, Germany? Our Constitution does not address the fundamental problem of government secrecy. Awards for Superior or Outstanding Achievement in Mathematics Physics and Chemistry. First Prize in contest for best explanation of how the Gooney Bird works, Pasadena Star News, 1959, Highest score on 18 hour written qualifying examination at the doctoral level given 6 three hour parts for a week.

Thank you Probation Officer Rosenberg for getting me out of a jam of court corruption in LA in 1955. You changed my life. When I relate this story to others In Georgia they break out in laughter and relate stories of how they were going over 120 mph on I-20 and laughed about it with a State Patrol officer afterwards. So much for “Equal Protection Under the Law”!

BillAustralia says:

December 26, 2019 at 7:17 pm

Season’s greetings Jim and Kevin. I used to believe all the mass media bulldust. Now I know better. The president is a billionaire and holds the highest post in the land, and he is continually hamstrung, so from a power and prestige angle should get justice, but it is denied. Jim could not even present his case to his liking, he too is treated unfairly.

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Report On Sandy Hook Verdict Against Jim Fetzer

Best Collections of Evidence

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Really Debunking Who?

Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?

Constructive Criticism and Real Debunking

Our Published Work on Other Sites

Our Radio, Video, and Podcast Interviews

9/11 Truth Documentaries

Scootle's Truth Bytes

Other Great 9/11 Websites

Related Websites

Blog Archive

Contact or Make Donation Via PayPal.com At:

Popular Posts - Last 7 Days

Popular Posts - Last 30 Days

Popular Posts - All Time