Thursday, July 4, 2019

The Fetzering Is In The Details OR: 35 Years of PhD Is No Match For Common Sense

Well, it took some digging, but I finally found the paper trail for Jim Fetzer's momentous loss to Noah Pozner's Dad.

Let me set the scene. A Civil Trial can be boiled down to a simple process. Individual A serves notice on Individual B that Individual A is hauling Individual B's ass into court for some perceived wrong. In this case, Lenny Pozner had enough of Jim Fetzer's bloviations over the years and decided that in his opinion, Jim Fetzer had defamed him by claiming that Lenny wasn't Lenny, that Lenny didn't have a son named Noah, that Noah wasn't a real person and that Noah didn't die in the mass shooting known as Sandy Hook. Jim Fetzer's claims have been debunked in numerous places but being proven wrong has never stopped Jim Fetzer from continuing to show his stupidity.

Now, in a civil trial, there's some back and forth between parties to set the ground rules of what will be decided, what will be offered by each side to back their claims and who will be a witness for each side, all before a hearing in front of a Judge. The court sets deadlines for submission of material and responses to any material submitted. There are depositions taken of witnesses, and documents passed between the litigants (through the court) where they offer their respective "facts" to back up their claims, attach documents of proof, then stipulate to those thing the other side says, that they will agree with or not contest. They also declare which of the other side's fact they dispute and give reasons as to why.

Individual A (hereafter the Plaintiff) in this case submitted a Motion For Summary Judgment, which in plain-speak is a document stating that here's the evidence that proves my claim beyond a doubt and therefore I want the Judge to decide that based on this evidence, I have sufficiently proved my claim and there is no need to take this to trial and Individual B (hereafter the Defendant) can go suck eggs...or in other words...the Judge says Plaintiff wins, Defendant loses.

The Defendant, in this case, also submitted a Motion For Summary Judgment so the Judge will basically find for one side or the other. In doing so, finding for one side, he automatically dismisses the losing side's motion or request.

Leading up to this hearing, Lenny Pozner requested a DNA test comparing his DNA to his deceased son Noah's DNA. His lawyer prepared the necessary material, paperwork, including the documentation for the chain of custody of the DNA samples, and proof of his son's existence.

As this process progressed, I could only follow the schedule listed at the Wisconsin Courts website and had a pretty good idea what was transpiring. I predicted a major ass kicking for Fetzer and turns out I was correct. I have copies of all motions filed, the responses to facts and Fetzer's affidavit but the only thing that matters of the hearing......everything is covered there. Please take the time to read it to the end. I think it shows better than anything else, how the term "Fetzering" is defined.

Here is the transcript for the hearing for the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judment...

Jim Fetzer has been relying on his 35 years of teaching critical thinking as the basis for demanding that people not question anything he says. It's sad to think that parents paid good money to the University of Minnesota to have this educated idiot instruct their kids.

Jim Fetzer has described himself as a "devastating intellectual machine"....

The asshat can't even grasp the concept of evidence.


  1. B, Thanks for posting this transcript. I have followed closely the media attention given to this case, and the articles are nearly all identical. You are the first to actually study the court record and make it accessible.

    Apparently, a full trial will take place in October, wherein Fetzer will be able to call witnesses and cross-examine the plaintiff. But he really needs an attorney to lead his defense and make an apology to the Pozner family.

  2. On June 25, 2019, Jim Fetzer posted an article on his website indicating that a grand total of six of his books have now been banned by Amazon. These books published by Moon Rock constitute what Mr. Fetzer claimed was his "legacy" in the video link from your post of June 29. It's not easy to have a book banned on Amazon, yet Mr. Fetzer has now accomplished that feat six times.

    The article about the banned books appears at this site:

  3. The most blatant example of Fetzering occurs on p. 130 of the court transcript. By that point in the hearing, the plaintiff's attorneys, Zimmerman and Berlinger, had completed a powerpoint presentation, which offered explanations for what Fetzer had believed to be anomalies in the photographic representation of the Noah Pozner death certificate that appeared in his book. Fetzer admitted that he was wrong, yet stubbornly insisted that he was still right: "Even though my initial reasons were bad, there are abundant good reasons to arrive at the same conclusion, where my original argument had false premises but a true conclusion." The judge didn’t buy his argument. Fetzer never seemed to grasp that the trial was about the premises more than the conclusion.

    For years, we would take Fetzer and Ralph Cinque to task for the same circular reasoning about the Altgens6 photo. Fetzer wrote about the photo that "Altgens6 was altered. Therefore, someone was there who should not have been. The only person that could have been was Lee Oswald." In other words, we're starting on the premise that the photo was altered, so there is no reason to demonstrate how, where, when, and by whom the alterations were made. Because I disagreed with him, Fetzer wrote that I was suffering from "optical incompetence." But I didn't need to spend much time responding to him because Lance Uppercut did such a good job on his blog with the following commentary on June 12, 2015:

    1. I think another great example of Jim's Fetzering was his discussion about the actual way he obtained possession of Noah Pozner's death certificate. He claimed it was given by Lenny to his co-author. She submitted an affidavit swearing that she downloaded it from a website. You would think that little bit of info would have been checked by Fetzer before he submitted the affidavit but no, he blusters right in thinking he could out-bloviate the opposition. Then, he claims that he can prove the document DOWNLOADED FROM A WEBSITE was fake, completely oblivious to the fact that he was claiming the original document was a fake based on a copy. He still doesn't get it to this day.

  4. The meter is now running on Mr. Fetzer's cab ride to court. On Friday, September 13, Judge Remington declared Mr. Fetzer in contempt and ordered him to pay $7,000 to the plaintiff for the fees of one of Pozner's attorneys. The judge admonished Mr. Fetzer as follows about bringing the money to court no later than Ocrtober 14: "if you don’t, bring your toothbrush because you’ll be going to the Dane County Jail.” More on this latest development is detailed in the following article:

    The article also indicates that Mr. Fetzer finally has an attorney representing him. It is Richard Bolton, a litigator specializing in torts.