Fluoride Information

Fluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. When in doubt, get it out.

An American Affidavit

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Steve Francis, The Sandy Hook Trial in Cultural Marxist Perspective

Steve Francis, The Sandy Hook Trial in Cultural Marxist Perspective

Steve Francis, Founder, NewsFollowUp.com

I write in support of James Fetzer in light of the ‘absurd’, as he describes it, $450,000 award to the plaintiff in the Sandy Hook defamation legal proceedings. It seriously reminds us once again that our justice system can be used as a weapon against citizens who challenge the status quo. It also includes information on a recent protest action I held at the University of Illinois where its consideration is affected by Jim’s case.

In his Sandy Hook suit, there appear to be plenty of grounds for an appeal even to a person with very limited legal expertise. It is very possible that the plaintiff’s legal team was unconcerned with gross violations of fairness practices, knowing that a complicit legal system would protect their every move, but that’s probably a bit overboard and a product of an abject mistrust of the US government, but not totally far-fetched.

Kevin Barrett’s article (here) provides valuable insight and analysis on the details of the trials and James Fetzer’s books provide vast amounts of information on the Sandy Hook and similar gun-grab psyops. One pertinent section from the article is as follows:

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 … 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…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.
And with just a cursory search on the subject of defamation lawsuits and burden of proof, the following guidelines were found on Google:
In order to win a defamation case, a plaintiff must prove three elements to the court. Prove that the defendant made a defamatory statement about the plaintiff. A defamatory statement is one that damages a plaintiff’s reputation for good character. … Prove that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false.
It’s inconceivable that any judicial body could find that James Fetzer believed that his research and conclusions were false without resorting to some sort of duplicitous motive and actions. It just doesn’t make sense. Jim has spent years gathering and analyzing mountains of evidence that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sandy Hook was a staged gun-grab psyop. This verdict is a pure and simple political hit. Jim is only guilty of being a nationally recognized figure ripe for being exploited as an example to attempt to silence dissent in the US.
It is well known that defamation lawsuits are exceedingly difficult to be successful (more). The figure is around 13% according to one study. The burden of proof has a high bar unless corruption and deceit in the legal system are involved, which is exactly the case here.

After reading about the case, I immediately cruised my own websites for content that may be susceptible to similar legal threats. I reluctantly deleted a couple of pages where the threat of legal action outweighed the value of the information, not without thinking that this is a common response happening all over the webosphere for those familiar with this case.

I have recently engaged in a protest action at the University of Illinois that may also come under the umbrella of this threat as per Kevin Barrett’s thoughts, namely that any action that ‘hurts the feelings’ of a person may be able to be exploited as a libel or slander lawsuit. Here’s Barrett’s paragraph:

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.”

My protest on the quad at the University of Illinois on 9/10-9/11 this year involved the display of posters that read “Holocaust Hoax” and “Israel (Zionists in small print) Nuked the WTC on 9/11” respectively. The posters could be read from hundreds of feet away and this occurred when thousands of students were switching classes. Go , here for more details.

My first thought after reading about the Fetzer damage award was can the whacky consternation of the Jewish students who cry ‘anti-Semitism’ at the protest be turned into a lawsuit. The answer is probably not because it took place in a designated ‘free speech zone’ at a major university — but the thought definitely crossed my mind and possibly the people from Hillel who were also present on the quad…with their ice cream stand … in response to my presence. The signs do not, in any way, violate free speech guidelines, but I am much more diligent about this issue than ever before, because of Jim’s predicament.

The UIUC police were involved in the incident and took actions to stop the protest when Jewish students (and not me) were perceived as likely to become violent. At no time did they object to the content of the protest and were actually very fair and professional.

The controversy surrounding Sandy Hook is, on the surface, about gun control but can be taken a further step back into the arguments for and against centralized or decentralized government bureaucracy systems. This leads to references in the 2020 election to the Socialist / Capitalist divide or Liberal Leftist / Conservative Rightist divide…generally… and exemplified by AOC’s endorsement of Bernie Sanders.

It is well known that the Leftist George Soros’ Open Society entities (and his $Billions) back the Socialist / Democratic candidates and his Jewish apologetics and like support is not disputed. His and Leftist gun control efforts, in general, abound in this sphere. Leftist / Jewish entities were the progenitors of Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism which is just a step away from Marxism and Communism. The term ‘globalist’ is now considered an anti-Semitic snarl epithet and is easily attached to the tens of millions of people slaughtered by Jewish-led Communists in the Russian revolution. Gun owners are well aware of this fact. It is one of the main arguments in considering the control of assault weapons.

President Trump recently, in a White House meeting with Pelosi and Schumer said: “there are communists involved [in Syria] and you guys might like that” … leading to the belief that he is fully aware of the attempted Communist revolution in America. The Leftist MSM is an integral part of this gradual cultural/political and treasonous revolution. See this Anti Defamation League page promoting gun control in America. Guns are tightly controlled in Israel. Most Jewish citizens have voted Democratic for decades. The Kibbutz (collective farm) is a common occurrence in Israel. British Leftist Fabianist Zionists had a strong hand in the creation of Communism. (more here). This revolution is real.
The Leftist forces behind this revolution that includes massive gun control are the same forces behind the verdict in James Fetzer’s lawsuit setback. They would never allow a result that supported Jim’s position and would take any action legal or illegal to make sure this would not happen.

We are, like never before, inundated with fake news and propaganda that some internalize to the point of being psychologically compromised. This is just one of the goals of Cultural Marxists and their MSM interlocutors. Go here and here to find lists of CNN and other fake news stories.  The piling on of Political Correctness, Cultural Marxism, mass surveillance, gun control psyops, and contrived terrorism drills is designed by the Deep State to limit our ability to push back. When we do, as in the Fetzer case, perils from a corrupt legal system add to the catastrophe.

There is a fog of data on each gun-grab psyop that would require hundreds if not thousands of hours of research and analysis to sort out the facts and deliberate disinformation. In the Sandy Hook case, there’s an ominous twist to the situation. Not only has there been a constant procession of similar gun control psyops, but the MSM creatively intertwines them to multiply their effect. In this story, the author reports that the authorities ‘found’ articles about the Norwegian Brevik case in Adam Lanza’s bedroom. It makes for good press but virtually no one has no ability to ascertain whether this is true or false, but it’s out there for all the world to absorb into the confusion.

The main problem is that the MSM and Deep State have the power to control the national conversation. There is eerie and ominous cooperation between CNN, MSBNC, NYTimes, Washington Post, CIA and FBI..etc in their assault on Trump and Conservative Christian America… and James Fetzer. Trust in these institutions is at an all-time low but their power and influence remain ubiquitous.

No polls are ever allowed to surface on the sampling the public’s opinion about the official narratives of 9/11 Truth, Holocaust Hoax, JFK assassination, or gun grab psyops like Sandy Hook…etc. Zogby actually did have some polls on 9/11 a few years back and ever since they have been excluded from MSM coverage of polls. There are many other examples.

The election of Donald Trump proves that major cracks are forming in the ability of the MSM and Deep State to hold sway over America. Their blatantly incompetent and failed attempt to frame Trump with the Steele Dosier and the desperate Ukraine impeachment situation gives us great hope that things may be turning around. He definitely is not a puppet of the elite. The Syria troop withdrawal is the latest dramatic evidence of this. The election in 2020 will be by far the most important in our lifetimes.

Gun psyops like Sandy Hook have not only failed to get the expected gun control legislation in Congress but have actually dramatically increased the number of guns in the hands of the people of America.

Hopefully, Jim Fetzer’s legal assistance will be able to take the obvious and corrupt actions of the Deep State to a resolution with the appeals process. The duplicitous and careless tactics of the plaintiff’s lawyers and Judge Remington hopefully will prove to be their undoing.
Donations to the James Fetzer Legal Defense Fund may be made at jamesfetzer.com or by mail.
Please follow and like us:

1 comment:

  1. Fetzering
    Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.
    2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are.
    3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

    Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960's, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it's use in the 9/11 debate arena.
    1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

    2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.