Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Sandy Hook: How we Know the Lawsuits against Alex Jones are Malicious

Jim Fetzer  

malicious prosecution =df a legal action brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has commenced without probable cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice

A couple who claim to have lost their son, Noah Pozner, at the Sandy Hook shooting alleged to have taken place on 14 December 2012, and another purported parent, Neil Heslin, who claims to have lost his son, Jesse, on the same occasion, are suing Alex Jones, the national TV program host, for defamation on the ground that he has denied the shooting took place and that their children died as a consequence and thereby spread "vicious lies" about them. Since truth is an absolute defense against defamation and Sandy Hook was a drill where no students died, they appear to have no case.
In NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), I published research with a dozen other experts, including six (current or retired) Ph.D. college professors, demonstrating that the school, which was loaded with asbestos and other bio-hazards, had been abandoned by 2008. It was not an operating school; there were no students there. But it was used as the stage for a two-day FEMA exercise, with a rehearsal on the 13th, going LIVE on the 14th, where we even have the manual itself, published as Appendix A to the book, which you can download for free as a pdf by searching on its title.

Sorting out the images that were broadcast from Sandy Hook, they fell into a pattern: the sign, the Port-a-Potties, the pizza and bottled water at the firehouse, the name tags on lanyards and parents bringing children to the scene were from the day of the rehearsal, which was treated as a festive occasion. The following day, however, was striking for its failure to conform to the protocols that apply to an emergency: there was no surge of EMTs into the building; no string of ambulances to rush the little bodies to hospitals where they could be pronounced dead or alive; no Med-Evac chopper called.

In order to convince the pubic something urgent had taken place, Newtown Bee photographer Shannon Hicks took a photograph (upper image) that appeared to show a police woman escorting a string of children to safety. But, as the book documents, she also took a second photograph (lower) a few minutes earlier, in which you can see parents present with their arms folded and in no evident state of anxiety while the woman rearranges the kids to get "a better shot". In between Boy #1 and Boy #2, several women casually look on, which I have described as "lounging at the massacre".

Ch. 7 presents 50 photos furnishing an empty house to serve as "the Adam Lanza residence", but notice the dearth of photographs, paintings or other decorations on the walls. Ch. 8 presents another 50, this time of refurbishing the school to serve as the stage. The classic is Exhibit 26 (above), where a string of four windows of Classroom 10 can be seen above the roof of the SWAT Team (or Crime Scene) van, which are undamaged. They would be shot out after the event, which means it was taken before the purported shooting. Notice crime scene tape is up for a crime yet to be committed.

Exhibits 30, 41, 42 and 44 of Ch. 8 provide further confirmation, where Exhibit 44 (bottom left) shows the perps drilling holes in the aluminum window frame to simulate gunshot trajectories. (Ask yourself: What else could they be doing?) As a former Marine Corps officer who supervised 15 DIs and 300 recruits going through the training cycle in San Diego, I can affirm that no one familiar with marksmanship would be taken in. The pink rods are 90 degrees to the panes and parallel to one another, which reflects a fantasy, not a reality. This was the blatant perpetration of a shooting hoax.

When it comes to the Pozners and the death of their alleged son, "Noah", Lenny no doubt regrets that he sent Kelley Watt a copy of a death certificate in response to her demands for proof that he even had a son or that his son had died, because it turned out to be a fabrication, with the bottom (darker) half of a real death certificate combined with the upper (lighter) portion of a fake, which has no file number and the wrong estimated time of death at 11 AM, when the shooting "officially" took place between 9:35 and 9:40.  If Lenny had lost a son at Sandy Hook, he could have sent her a real one.

Kelley also noticed a striking resemblance between "Noah Pozner" and his older step-brother, Michael Vabner. So six of us collaborated in the investigation of this issue, discovering that they had the same eyes and eyebrows, the same shape of their skulls and even the same ears. I asked Larry Rivera, who had done brilliant work exposing that the figure known as "the man in the doorway" of the Texas School Book Depository was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, as Harold Weisberg and Jim Garrison, among others, had supposed, to create a gif for the purpose of superposition comparison:

So they fabricated the kids out of photographs of older kids when they were younger, which explains why the parents were not allowed to enter the school to observe the bodies of their dead children but instead identified them on the basis of photographs--because they were fictions who only existed in the form of photographs! Does anyone think that Lenny, for example, is unaware that the death certificate he sent to Kelley Watt was a fabrication or that his child, Noah, only existed in the form of photographs? But others upon whom those photos were based appear to be alive and well:

Wolfgang Halbig, with whom I traveled to Sandy Hook years ago to confront the Newtown School Board, has obtained a photograph of eight of the Sandy Hook girls--cute and perky, doing very well, indeed, from all appearances--juxtaposed with the images that were used to represent them as deceased. A crucial feature in planning this event was to evoke the emotions appropriate to the wanton slaughter of first-grade children, who are so young and innocent. But those who perpetrated this fraud--which instilled fear into the heart of every American parent--were anything but! And here's yet another:

When Megyn Kelly did her special confronting Alex Jones over Sandy Hook, they used a clip of Neil Heslin, who went off script by describing how he had held his dead son in his arms at the time, which contradicted the narrative that the children had been identified using photographs. So I knew that Neil Heslin had lost his way and improvised! Indeed, he brought this photo of him with his son when he testified to Congress, which provides its own indications of prevarication insofar as this should have been only six years later from the time of the photo, but he looks closer to sixteen years older.

We have perhaps 100 lines of proof that lead to the same conclusion: there was no shooting massacre. It was a FEMA drill presented as a REAL event to promote gun control! But there does appear to be a cause of action here in the form of apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit. But not by Lenny Pozner and Neil Heslin against Alex Jones but by Alex against them.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota and co-editor of


  1. This means that everyone that lives at or near Sandy Hook knows this is a FEMA drill and that subsequent publicity is false.

    1. No. There are still some mysteries regarding the bulk of citizens of Newtown who refuse to talk to outside questioners regarding the event. I may be wrong on this assumption, perhaps there are some folks who opened up to confidants. I have not read any of these accounts. There's got to be some cementing corollary that keeps this community cohesive in its resolve. I suspect fear on the part of those that "know" keeps them together in their silence. I also think fear prevents the alternate press from exposing more and more of these uncovered facts to the general public. Nobody wants to be Arkancided.

    2. Local residents initially spoke out that they were surprised there were any students there, since the school had been closed years ago. But after Lt. Paul Vance of the CT State Police announced they would prosecute anyone who disagreed with the "official narrative", they were less inclined.

      The authorities even had two detectives from the local precinct visit Wolfgang Halbig and advise him, on behalf of the CTSP, that if he continued to ask questions about Sandy Hook, he would be prosecuted.

      None of this makes any sense, even remotely, unless it was a staged even, which means that these efforts offer indirect confirmation that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

    3. It's called circumstantial evidence, and is to the standards of most courts(not that court standards are legitimate).

      If it were the average thug or white collar criminal, it would be grounds for a warrant and arrest, trial, maybe even conviction.

      But in this case, there is no need to question anything. You must be nuts or something. And even if it is a series of false flags designed to steer the sheeple into waiving their rights, govern-god knows what's best, and we should never dare question it.

  2. AUSTIN, TX—In response to multiple families suing him for defamation over his claims that the 2012 shooting was a hoax, InfoWars host Alex Jones plead with Sandy Hook parents Tuesday to imagine the enormous pain that such an expensive lawsuit would cause him. “Please, I’m begging you—have a heart and think about the suffering that a devastating courtroom experience like this would put me through,” said a forlorn Jones, tearing up as he openly asked what sorts of monsters would force him to endure the costly ordeal of defending himself in court merely for saying the shooting that claimed the lives of their children was entirely staged and perpetrated by opponents of the Second Amendment. “Before you hurt me any more than you already have, just put yourself in my shoes: After everything I’ve already endured, I’ll have to carry around the misery caused by this $1 million payout for the rest of my life. All that money—my money—would just be gone. Can you imagine that kind of loss? It’s just so senseless.” At press time, Jones had filed a $1 million countersuit against the parents for the pain and suffering their lawsuit had caused him.

    1. In this instance, I agree with you. He is coping out. He ought to be making the case--for which I adduce ample evidence here and in the book--that the school was closed and there were no students there. For him to complain about losing big bucks is a sell-out. He thereby exposes himself as a phony and a fraud himself. I am disappointed in this guy beyond words.

    2. “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”
      ― Oscar Wilde (16 October 1854 – 30 November 1900)

      If Jones says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble as the lawsuit unfolds. Under the law, the plaintiffs in the suit would only be entitled to punitive damages if they’re able to prove that Jones acted with “actual malice”—that is, if he made his statements knowing they were false, or “exercising a reckless disregard for the truth.”

  3. quote:

    “Bankston told HuffPost he has never before seen cases involving the kind of “mental anguish” these parents are experiencing.
    “I think as a father, it’s a very surreal experience,” Bankston said. “Anyone, parents or not, who spends 15 minutes talking to one of these parents will understand immediately how vile this lie was, and how genuine their pain is.”” Quote:” Mr. Farrar decided to leave his successful practice at V&E to co-found Farrar & Ball, LLP. He now utilizes his professional experience to focus on representing individuals, families, and businesses in complex legal disputes involving a variety of matters. His cases involve product defects, trucking accidents, medical professional liability, contract disputes, business dealings, workplace accidents, premises liability and cases involving the general negligence of others.”
    “Mr. Ball left Adams and Reese and the defense-oriented practice to focus on representing families and individuals who had been wronged by corporate negligence and malfeasance in product liability and catastrophic injury cases. Shortly thereafter he co-founded Farrar & Ball, LLP with the same goal. Mr. Ball has been lead counsel against virtually every major automobile and tire manufacturer, domestic and foreign. Mr. Ball has successfully obtained verdicts and settlements against numerous Fortune 500 companies, including, but not limited to, Michelin North America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Freightliner, LLC, Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, Technical Chemical Company, Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, and Michelin Tire Corporation.
    While he does not limit his practice to any one area of the law, Mr. Ball has gained a highly-regarded reputation in the representation of individuals who have been injured as a result of defective consumer products, including automotive and tire defects.”
    “Mark is one of the state’s premier young litigators, having secured a series of noteworthy victories at the trial and appellate level. Since joining the firm in 2010, Mark has helped hundreds of the firm’s clients ensure that wrong-doers are held accountable. His work takes him across the nation as he helps fight for clients in dozens of state and federal courts against some of America’s largest corporate defendants. Mark’s chief concern as an attorney is the protection of working families, and his practice areas have been focused in the areas of corporate negligence, automotive defects, and hazardous medical devices. In 2015, Mark was a leading figure in the creation of national Multi-District Litigation to address a dangerous surgical device known as the “Bair Hugger.” Due to Mark’s pioneering work, thousands of these injured patients nationwide have been given an opportunity for justice. “
    Above are three quotes from the website of the law firm named for the first two Farrar and Ball above. A statement for Mark Bankston is included. The theme of their work is to address issues of safety defects in products among others. If we imagine the Sandy Hook Shooting scenario presented by the government and media likened to a product, then the presentation is clearly defective. Normally a client might have come to these lawyers complaining about the apparent lies by the government as “ defective” and the lawyers would seek to prove and confirm they lied just like they do with products of the many companies listed under lawyer Ball.
    Con't. below:

  4. Con't. from above:
    Above are three quotes from the website of the law firm named for the first two Farrar and Ball above. A statement for Mark Bankston is included. The theme of their work is to address issues of safety defects in products among others. If we imagine the Sandy Hook Shooting scenario presented by the government and media likened to a product, then the presentation is clearly defective. Normally a client might have come to these lawyers complaining about the apparent lies by the government as “ defective” and the lawyers would seek to prove and confirm they lied just like they do with products of the many companies listed under lawyer Ball.
    I think these lawyers above have already given us a large hint as to their motives and intentions in this case and they are not truth and justice by exposing the massive "government defect" in the Sandy Hook Hoax. Rather their motives here will be selfish and involve that five letter obscene word MONEY and how much of it they can scam out of Alex Jones and his handlers without addressing one word the the many thousands of words which prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Sandy Hook Shooting event was a massive con job on a duped American Public. Even the propaganda article today in the propaganda organ New York Post did not mention a peep about the massive amount of evidence and facts produced by professor Jim Fetzer, Ph.D. and his associates in the book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook". I would bet none of these "top" litigation lawyers have read it, although it is free, and likely never will. They are too busy chasing ambulances for MONEY.

    Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., Physics

    1. Ultimately, the Deep Staters know that the good guys cannot command a significant proportion of media attention and their observations are right on. Pozner bluffed and lost, but the vast bulk of Americans are non-thinkers who would never think about the truth variables presented by Fetzer et al. Now we know Facebook is part of the coverup, many coverups, but will that cause millions/billions to quit FB? Until we occupy more of the bully pulpit, we'll see these absurd false flags come along periodically until it is decided a mega-event is the only thing that can capture the attention of the dullard Americans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Deep State is showing stress cracks as we speak. We have not yet used the recently presented, if redacted, information on the JFK assassination yet. That information is likely tainted with noticeable gaps in continuity.
      We are scoring some points but not enough points in enough people.Are we approaching the abyss where abject totalitarianism is thrust upon us? Don't know about you, but if there were justice in this world, Fetzer would find his name on the next Nobel Peace prize. Simply put, who has done more than the Dynamo called Fetzer?

  5. The first amendment right of a journalist to seek truth of any given event and tell that truth to a public, willing to listen to a voice other than the corrupt media (or as Donald Trump calls then the “Fake News,”) is of paramount importance in the USA today. Rather than object to this lawsuit Alex should welcome it!

    1. The facts of the case as laid out buy Jim Fetzer in his book would overwhelm the lies, contradictions and actions by government agencies throughout the events at Sandy Hook.

    2. This is purely a “Sour Grapes” lawsuit. Hurt feelings are NOT actionable under law.

    3. However, using the court system to monetarily harm a person you disagree with is not legal.

    4. If the individuals bringing this suit against Alex show up in a courtroom even ONE DAY, that is proof that they intend to take this suit to a conclusion which they hope will be in their favor.

    5. After that one day in court Alex should file a COUNTER LAW SUIT for twice as much money (plus attorneys fees) against them!

    Such a counter-suit would add power to the ability of a journalist to tell a side of a story according to the facts as he sees them.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Mr Fetzer, this is a better photo of the two men you say are drilling holes in the window. Do you see either man holding a drill? Only thing I see is the man closest to the camera pointing with one hand at the window. You do do not use one hand with a drill. More importantly, the area of the window he is pointing has no holes. If the photo is of them drilling holes, why is he pointing at an area where there are no holes?

    1. Let's see. We have the FEMA manual. We know Shannon Hicks staged her photo. We know how they faked the kids. We know the SWAT (Crime Scene) van is there before the crime has been committed. We even have photos of eight of the girls alive and well.

      But you want to play games about the holes? Where did they come from? As I observe, they are perpendicular to the window panes and parallel with one another. You must be a complete doofus to try to salvage a provable hoax with nonsense like this. I am not surprised they might have gone to the trouble of touching up photos that give the game away.

      What I have to ask is why you would fall for it? What I like about your version is that its beyond any question that the windows are not yet shot out, which proves by itself that it was a hoax. That you trade in such trivialities given the evidence that I preset here impugns your integrity.

    2. Taking a closer look, you just may be right--that they are discussing what to do with the windows to make it look real rather than already in the process of drilling. Good catch!

      But surely you can see the fact they are there before the crime has been committed further substantiates the hoax. Would you not agree? Either way, it's proof of fraud.

  8. Why don't you file an amicus brief? I would LOVE to see all of this nonsense subjected to real rules of evidence.

    Fat chance at that happening, right?

    God, Jesus, and baby Jesus - PLEASE have these parents sue Fetzer and the whole lot of them.

    You deserve much, much worse - but it's a start.

    1. Steve, Why do you think they are going after Alex instead of me? Because mine is collaborative with dozens of other experts on Sandy Hook. We have proven the school was closed by 2008 and that there were no students there. Good starting point.

      One student may go astray, but I have thirteen contributors, including six (current or retired) Ph.D. professors. The chance that we are wrong is minuscule. And the proof has only grown stronger since the book first appeared. Think about it!

    2. And they ARE going after you, in invidious ways, such as by removing your SH posts from this blog multiple times. I have had my own computer interfered with just trying to post a comment here.

    3. Because YOU are (correctly) considered a delusional.
      Jones actually has an audience, and , although he knows this stuff is garbage he understands his mentally defective audience swallows it. He is far more insidious because of that vile deception "for profit".

  9. I hate to be a devil's advocate respecting the FEMA manual, but found this site, which purports to debunk it:

    Where did you get the manual, Dr. Fetzer? Do you have reason to think it is authentic?

    I think this is a lesson to researchers that we need to do actual FOIA requests to the agency to get documents like this, rather than relying on online sources.

    1. Yes, I do believe it is authentic. It explains exactly what we were told took place there and affords a framework for sorting it out.

      We were sent a jumble of reports and videos from Newtown, but they fall into two groupings, which correspond to (a) a rehearsal and (b) going LIVE:

      (i) the sign, "Everyone must check in";
      (ii) Porta-Potties in place;
      (iii) pizza and bottled water at the Firehouse;
      (iv) many with name tags on lanyards;
      (v) parents bringing children to the activities.

      No parent would bring a child to the scene of a child-shooting massacre; but this was the rehearsal and was being treated as a festive occasion.

      The manual states that everyone must check in. Restrooms and refreshments are standard elements of FEMA events; and the players are identified by color-coded name-tags on lanyards.

      Likewise, we had no surge of EMTs into the building; no string of ambulances to rush the little bodies off to hospitals, where they could be declared dead or alive; no Med-Evac chopper was called; no bodies were places on the Triage tarps.

      Since I explain this in every talk I give about Sandy Hook, you must not be serious about this. The attempts to debunk every aspect are well-known and familiar.

      There are other forms of confirmation that it is authentic, but the most important is that it explains why we seemed to have activities taking place that corresponded to a two-day exercise, with a rehearsal on the 13th, going LIVE on the 14th.

    2. As good as Jim's explanation is, the fact remains we don't, yet, have much traction at all. Imagine having the truth and the truth is not enough. Our delivery system is lacking and we are being overtly shut out of the main press organs. Are they traitors, are they not interested in the truth? Or, are all the writers and editors forewarned that if they slip and somehow print the truth, their jobs will be on the line and they will vanish in a heartbeat should they succumb to the truth. I've offered many editors and writers the chance to get in on the ground floor of the truth but there have been no takers. Do all think I'm a "conspiracy theorist", a flim flam man, or a liar? No. Not at all. They feel the big hand on their shoulders and they know the truth is immiscible with their jobs. They come off as smart alecs at times as they parrot the voices of the event controllers and their higher ups. We've seen lies become reality thanks to incessant Goebbelsian repetition. I've a newspaper contact who does realize it's the truth OR his job and he gets to pick which alternative he selects. He admits he is hamstrung by the choice he must make. Still, I have not been able to break through and steer writers/editors to Dr Fetzer's counseling room. Nettlesome at best, this shows how lock-stepped the media is behind this massive collection of lies. They KNOW, but they can't come forth with the truth because their jobs are on the line. Arguably, some are traitors with other loyalties like the double citizens, but I feel the truth is simply too dangerous to be caught with.