Saturday, June 29, 2019

Keep Talking Fetzer...your damages trial isn't long off....

After Jim Fetzer had his ass handed to him in a summary judgement in Wisconsin's court system, you would think he'd be a little wary of continuing the behavior that caused him to lose in the fist place.

BUT NO.....Jim keeps running his mouth, seemingly unconcerned that his trial for damages approaches.

Hat tip to James Norwood for bringing the video below to my attention in comments left on my last post. It seems someone took an appearance of Jim with Dr. (cough cough) Katherine Horton (internet nutjob) and edited it with captions included....

Nice creative touch with the flames and all.

This got me searching for the original video because I was interested to see the whole conversation about Jim's best bud, Dave Gahary, throwing Jim under the bus and settling with Lenny Pozner without informing Jim.

You can watch the entire interview here...

Everyone that has visited my blog over the years knows what high regard I hold for Jim and his band of wingnuts like Raff* Sink, Judyth Very Faker, Dennis Cimino, Don Fox, Gary King and Larry Rivera so, in closing, I'll give Fetzer the last word...


  1. B, Thanks for locating and posting the complete interview of Katherine Horton and Jim Fetzer. I listened to the entire one-hour program, and I had a couple of surprising reactions:

    First, I admired the measured responses of Katherine Horton that drew upon her experience from the court system in the UK. I was also impressed with the books on her shelves that appeared in the background: Solzhenitsyn, Oscar Wilde, Tom Segev.

    Second, I was surprised to learn that Fetzer did not make use of the first amendment as the core of his defense. He presented detailed analyses of what he perceived were anomalies in the different versions of the Noah Pozner death certificate and in the DNA evidence. But his main contention SHOULD have been that his book was an expression of free speech with no intent of malice towards Mr. Pozner.

    He also identified a number of procedural errors during the trial, which could be used as the basis for an appeal. It was especially troubling that the judge would not allow Fetzer’s expert witnesses to offer their opinions on the DNA evidence. That alone could be an argument for appeal.

    Fetzer also claimed that he and his co-defendant were unable to find an attorney, due to the controversial nature of the case. But his case was likely compromised because he did not have legal representation during the trial. He scored a point when he was successful in getting his book “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook” into the court record, which could be a factor in an appeal. But he really needs an attorney.

    The first edition of the book is available for free pdf download on the internet. While I do not find the book to be persuasive, I also do not believe that Fetzer and his co-authors were setting out to cause personal damage to Mr. Pozner. His main criticism is directed to FEMA and the Obama administration.

    Because you have an excellent legal mind, I would be interested in learning your thoughts on (a) Fetzer's chances of an appeal and (2) whether an argument based on core principles of the first amendment would improve his chances in the next round?

    1. I tried to find anything on the net that dealt with the case but there was no coverage at all during the period before summary judgement. The only things to glean were from the status listed on the Wisconsin Court website that gave a few hints as to how things were going. Fetzer gave a few updates in the various wing-nut bins he inhabits in video form.
      To answer your first question, I don't think Fetzer has much in the way of grounds for appeal. Pozner went after him for things in the book as well as comments Fetzer made in "interviews" in the aforementioned wing-nut bins. Fetzer claimed that Pozner wasn't a real person, his son Noah wasn't a real person and still maintains that Noah never existed. Fetzer consistently claims that this was all about a birth certificate being a fake. It wasn't. The experts that Fetzer referred to in the vid were supposed document experts. The DNA test offered by Pozner along with the certified birth certificate pretty much shot Fetzer down. It proved he was who he said he was, Noah was his son and dead. All the rest is Fetzering.
      Your second question goes into ground left mainly to the discretion of the judge. First Amendment protection do protect many people from various things they say. Journalists can usually protect themselves by retraction, apology etc. However in this case, Fetzer went beyond simple claims. He promoted the fact that Pozner was part of a cabal, and was so for the purpose of furthering an attempt by the Government to violate the Second Amendement as well as monetary gain.
      Fetzer fucked up. And this time he was held accountable. In October we'll see, to what amount.

  2. B, Thanks very much for your responses and your insights into the trial. I was especially interested in your point about the journalists who engage in damage control through retraction and apology. That is the route already taken by Alex Jones and Dave Gahary after they changed their positions on Sandy Hook.

    I came across this interesting article from June 28 in the "Twin Cities Pioneer Press," which discusses more of the litigation of the case and the discovery phase. The article is written by Rubén Rosario and is entitled "The Recent Court Victory Against the Sandy Hook Deniers has a Saintly City Connection":

    1. James, I just finished 170 pages of Fetzer Fetzering the Judge. Go to any Fetzer video of him bloviating about bullshit and you'll get a taste of what the Judge put up with for 4 hours. I get the docs posted in a day or so. In them, you'll see exactly why Fetzer lost and why his claims of reasons for appeal are worthless.

  3. B, I look forward to your findings from the court transcripts.

    Regarding the satirical video above, I was surprised that youtube removed it not for a copyright infringement, but for the following reason: "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. Learn more about combating hate speech in your country."

    The youtube policy identifies these factors as pertaining to hate speech:

    Gender Identity
    Immigration Status
    Sexual Orientation
    Victims of a major violent event and their kin
    Veteran Status

    It goes without saying that this statement about "hate speech" is laden with irony since Lenny Pozner filed suit against Jim Fetzer because he believed books, videos, and blogs resulted in death threats to him and his family. Now, the youtube people have concluded that Fetzer was on the receiving end of hate speech with the little video with the flames and the captions.

    Surely, Pozner and his family were greater victims of hate speech than Jim Fetzer, who has for all intents and purposes just been convicted in a civil trial of disseminating hate speech himself.