Sunday, July 7, 2019

Top 10 Things Fetzer Can Do To Raise $1 Million

Throwback to Jim's first award from F.A.R.T.

10...Take his magic act to Vegas where he pulls ridiculous statements out of his ass.

9... Combine efforts with Raff* to convert their unsold books to toilet paper.

8...Contract with Party City to inflate balloons at 10 cents a blow.

7...Hook up with Judyth and then abscond with her various medical fundraiser accounts.

6...Get Larry Rivera to morph a $1 bill into a $1,000,000,000 bill.

5...Sell tickets in Israel to watch Don Fox shove his "Da Jooos did it" bell up his ass.

4...Open a dunking booth at Judyth's next conference.

3...Become Depend® Adult Incontinence Products' next spokesman.

2...Convince Kraft-Heinz to let him start his own version of Planter's Mixed Nuts.

1...Sue the University of Minnesota - Duluth for granting him the title of McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus and giving him the false sense of intelligence that got him into his current dilemma.

5 comments:

  1. B, I appreciated your humor especially in no. 2 with the allusion to Planter's Mixed Nuts. :)

    For Fetzer and Palecek, there may be an eleventh-hour option #11 by following the lead of Dave Gahary in retracting publications about Sandy Hook and apologizing to the Plaintiff. How would you assess the odds for an eleventh-hour settlement that precludes an October trial by jury that Fetzer and Palecek would almost certainly lose?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The odds on Fetzer admitting he was wrong? A bazillion to one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I concur that the odds of Fezter admitting that he was wrong about anything would be prohibitive in any of his internet discussions. For years, he has perfected the art of Fetzering from the comfort zone of his computer keyboard. But he now finds himself in the real world and a legal arena that does not allow Fetzering in its house rules for playing poker. Fetzer has already brought shame upon his family members; will he also bring them to financial ruin? If Fetzer has a conscience, he would also be concerned about the precarious state of his disciple Palecek, who was described in the court record as "a man of modest means." If there were a Las Vegas betting line, I suspect that the odds might be 50-50 that Fetzer finally gets an attorney who convinces him to make a retraction in order to avoid an October trial for damages of as much or more than $1 million.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fetzer was wrong about some details of the fraudulent death certificate, but right that it IS a fraud, since it was uncertified. Under Connecticut law only a genaeological researcher or member of a state or federal agency approved by the Dept. of Vital Statistics can be in possession of an uncertified DC. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7-51a (2012). Lenny has never asserted he falls into either of those categories. Fetzer made that argument explicitly in his motion for summary judgment, and the judge never mentioned it, nor did Zimmerman ever respond to it--because it means Pozner loses. The death certificate Fetzer and Palecek asserted in their book was a fake and a fabrication--and came from Lenny, as he admitted under oath--is indeed just that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Alison and thank you for your comment.
      I will address the several issues you mentioned and inform you that I will be posting a blog on the updated status of the Pozner v Fetzer case in a few days.
      Let me start by pointing out that your claim that the death certificate is a fraud is incorrect. Fetzer offered no evidence to prove that the certificate was a "fraud" or "fake" other than his opinion. The authenticity of the certificate was gone over repeatedly during the hearing on the motion for summary judgement. I would suggest that you re-read the transcript of the hearing. Fetzer provided his book, tabbed to page 181 and the seal was seen in the photograph printed in the book. The raised seal can be seen in the photograph on page 181 in the copy of the 2015 PDF version made available by Fetzer, online.
      Now I will address your claim as to what Connecticut Law states. The Law clearly says that an uncertified copy of a death certificate can be issued to a researcher or genealogist that is approved by the State. It says nothing about someone being in possession.
      Here is the Section you reference:
      Sec. 7-51a. Copies of vital records. Access to vital records by members of genealogical societies. Marriage and civil union licenses. Death certificates. Issuance of certified copies of electronically filed certificates. (a) Any person eighteen years of age or older may purchase certified copies of marriage and death records, and certified copies of records of births or fetal deaths which are at least one hundred years old, in the custody of any registrar of vital statistics. The department may issue uncertified copies of death certificates for deaths occurring less than one hundred years ago, and uncertified copies of birth, marriage, death and fetal death certificates for births, marriages, deaths and fetal deaths that occurred at least one hundred years ago, to researchers approved by the department pursuant to section 19a-25, and to state and federal agencies approved by the department.

      Fetzer and other cranks have made mention that it's against Connecticut Law for even a parent to possess an uncertified copy of a death certificate. Fetzer has refused to provide proof of a law prohibiting the possession of an uncertified death certificate. Can you? And, supposing that it is unlawful for "even a parent" to possess an uncertified copy of a death certificate, wouldn't Fetzer, Halbig and other be breaking the law by possessing the copy provided to Kelley and Fetzer?

      Rhetorical question, no need to answer. But it goes to show the absurdity of your claim and the claims of Fetzer.

      Now, let's address some concerns of mine...
      Are you the Alison Maynard that legally changed your name to Sonja Mullerin, in Florida in 2011?
      If, so, why are you submitting affidavits to the Wisconsin Court System under your former name and not your new legal name?

      If you can answer those two questions I will be happy to continue to discuss this issue with you. Otherwise,I really don't have time to give to Fetzer's batshit crazy disbarred lawyer cohort.

      Delete