Peter Klein and Jane Doe[Editor’s note: Imagine my surprise to discover that Peter Klein and Jane Doe had been investigating “Leonard Pozner”s HONR Network, and raising such questions about it as, Does the HONR Network seek to protect victims of mass tragedies? or Is HONR participating in a project to
cover-up crime and control public opinion? To which I would add, Or is HONR a cash cow for the man who calls himself “Leonard Pozner” by exploiting the grief of sympathetic but gullible Americans who haven’t figures out that Sandy Hook was an elaborate scam? Because I have become convinced that “Lenny Pozner” and his cohorts are running an operation to restrict the freedom of speech and freedom of the press of those who care about this nation, as “Lenny” himself does not.
Frankly, the evidence for the latter has become simply overwhelming. Consider what Peter and Jane have already uncovered, namely; That the origin of to acronym, “HONR”, had nothing to do with Sandy Hook but arose from an Internet operation calling itself, “Hands On Network Resources”! So their image is as bogus as the Sandy Hook event, which was a FEMA mass casualty exercise involving children, for which we even have the manual. This reminds me of the phrase associated with P.T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute!”
That phrase fits to a “t” the operation of “Lenny Pozner”, who appears to have been using the HONR Network as a base of operation to perform (what might most appropriate be characterized as) “cyber terrorism”, by attacking and taking down research by hundred upon hundreds of Americans who are doing their best to expose the staged shootings and fake events of Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, San Bernardino, Charlottesville, Parkland and more, which are being used as faux terrorism to promote the gun-control agenda of the liberal left and the Democrat Party. “Lenny” boasts of having succeeded no less than 10,000 times in removing “content items”, where a video would count as only one: over ten-thousand times!
To bring the cynical character of the dishonorable HONR Network home, it declares on its home page that,
HONR Network is a 501.c.3 non-profit organization founded after the Sandy Hook massacre.But the fake Sandy Hook child shooting took place on 14 December 2012, where Peter Klein and Jane Doe have ascertained that the articles of incorporation include “firstname.lastname@example.org.” A historical DNS search shows that, in April 2008 the site was being hosted by “Newtownhost.com”, where Newtown is the city in which both the HONR Network is located (although it is a Florida corporation) and the Sandy Hook event took place: “It is our conclusion that the domain name “honr.com” was owned and operated by Leonard Pozner as early as 2008 and repurposed for the promotion of the HONR Network years later.
Defendants in the (completely absurd) lawsuit brought in the name of “Leonard Pozner” have gone further and discovered that the domain name, “honr.com”, was actually obtained on 18 September 2005, which, if my math is right, would have been no less than seven (7) years before the alleged shooting at Sandy Hook:
So how is it possible that the HONR Network be a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization “founded after the Sandy Hook massacre”? Under the most charitable interpretation, “Lenny” had set up his Internet operation as early as 2005 and converted it into a “Sandy Hook Honor” entity in order to enable him et al. to further scam the public.
We know that Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill where nobody died and that HONR Network thus represents an extension of the theft by deception perpetrated by the fake parents of the fictional children who are alleged to have died, where the twenty-six “surviving families” have split between $27,000,000 and $130,000,000 between themselves, which works out to between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 per family for pretending to have lost a child or relative during a FEMA drill! How appropriate to observe, therefore, “There is no HONR among thieves!”]
Peter Klein and Jane Doe
The HONR Network bills itself as a victim’s advocacy and watchdog group fighting against online harassment and abuse. It does so primarily by filing fraudulent copyright infringement claims and promoting the suppression of what it labels, ‘conspiracy theories’ about mass-casualty events. Its mission statement makes vague complaints of harms it then thinly attributes to unspecified acts, which are usually nothing more than protected speech. Ultimately, its actions have led to the ‘deplatforming’ of many independent media voices.
Corporate news media universally praises the group giving it an aura of unquestionable legitimacy. None have presented the equally universal complaints of independent media outfits about the group. This stark contrast between reporting and reality is reminiscent of ‘Mockingbird’ media. Supposedly, the group acts to reduce conspiracy theories claiming they are harmful in themselves or may foster harmful acts. But the group advocates blanket suppression of lawful speech, which limits the public’s ability to discern the true nature of events.
It is our theory that the HONR Network led by Leonard Pozner is participating in an organized program to cover-up crimes committed by US and foreign agents involving mass-casualty events. Its efforts are more broadly helping to achieve control of public opinion by discouraging online discourse.
By analyzing the material published on the website, HONR.com, the information available about the group, its online interactions and the media’s reporting about the group we set out to make a few determinations to help substantiate or invalidate our thesis.
Ø Is the HONR Network helping to prevent abuse of victims of mass tragedies and their families as their mission essentially states?Ø What accounts for the dichotomy in reporting about the group between the major media and independent media outfits?Ø Does the group promote views similar to and does it mimic the tactics of liberal progressive groups, which may be to misrepresent itself or its mission?Ø The group now promotes expanding the legal definition of ‘Protected Class’ to include parties related to mass tragedies. This would consequently expand legal powers to prosecute people for unpopular speech. How popular is this idea and how might it be achieved?
We sought to be impartial and objective in our analysis. As such, we employed methods that are conducive to those ends. All published material and statements cited within this analysis are referenced with corresponding sources and links wherever possible. The author’s direct experiences with the HONR Network have been noted. Any influence of these experiences upon our analysis was limited and greatly outweighed by the total body of evidence.
3. Origins of HONR Network
The history of the HONR Network in one sense dates back to when the domain name, “honr.com” was first registered in 2001, according to archive.org. Determining what the site contained throughout its history is difficult. Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine will normally display a smattering of chronological snapshots for a given site, the number of which depending upon a variety of factors.
Most Wayback Machine snapshots of the site display a 302 error, a relatively common error indicating the page took too long to load. Strangely, many snapshots actually redirect to the current web site. We know the snapshots from before December 2012 do not accurately reflect the historical page content because what is shown makes reference to “the Sandy Hook massacre.” Redirecting historical snapshots to the current version of a page is not typical of the Wayback Machine.
If we assume that, “honr” is an unusual abbreviation of the word, “honor,” then it raises the question, why is it misspelled? Early snapshots of the site provide us with some clues. Those snapshots are of pages that advertise computer network services. Most significantly, the phrase “Hands on Network Resources” is displayed. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that “HONR” is an acronym for, “Hands on Network Resources.”
Ownership of the domain name by the HONR Network’s President and Treasurer, Leonard Pozner can be reasonably determined in a few ways. First, articles of incorporation contain the email addresses, “email@example.com.” Our early research of the website also produced pages from before December 2012 containing a Connecticut phone number. That content is no longer available. However, a historical DNS search shows that in April 2008 the site was being hosted by “Newtownhost.com.” Newtown is the city in which both the HONR Network is located (although it is a Florida corporation) and the Sandy Hook shooting event took place.
It is our conclusion that the domain name “honr.com” was owned and operated by Leonard Pozner as early as 2008 and repurposed for the promotion of the HONR Network years later. This would seem to contradict our thesis in some ways. It’s less likely that a domain name already owned by Pozner for an unrelated purpose would be suitable for playing such a pivotal role in a future operation.
The Sandy Hook Shooting Event
The HONR Network organization was born in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting event which took place on December 14th, 2012. To quote the current website,
“HONR Network is a 501.c.3 non-profit organization founded after the Sandy Hook massacre.”
There is a wealth of reporting about the Sandy Hook shooting event, so this document will not delve into any specific reported details of the event. The main factor as it relates to this analysis is the relationship between Leonard Pozner, founder of the HONR Network to the event. It is reported that Mr. Pozner’s son, Noah was among the victims of the purported shooting.
Although its mission statement has changed over time, it generally claims that the organization exists in response to purported harassment and torment of the family members of victims of major news events like the Sandy Hook shooting by hoax and hate purveyors. We believe this is a fair summation of the group’s stated purpose.
It is very difficult to determine the organization’s actual reason for existence using any or all of its own published material. We will examine this issue further. But, because the true purpose of the organization is not precisely defined we examined its actions for more substantive evidence.
4. Actions of HONR Network
Claims of Copyright Infringement
For most people, any direct interaction with the HONR Network has been in the form of a YouTube copyright complaint. Almost as soon as amateur videos about the Sandy Hook school shooting event appeared, copyright complaints were being issued against them by Leonard Pozner. The complainant was identified as either “Lenny Pozner,” “Leonard Pozner,” “HONR Network” or other variant. The authors experienced numerous complaints of this type.
In nearly every case, the complaint made no specific reference to the offending material. Therefore, one can only speculate what that material may have been. In 2018 HONR Network reported 2,568 videos to YouTube and had 1,555 expunged. In many cases, the resulting copyright strike was their 3rd strike, causing their accounts to be completely expunged.
Further copyright complaints were similarly filed against the owners of websites. The website owners fared no better, many losing their hosting accounts due to their provider’s acute sensitivity to the DMCA.
“Noah Pozner brown Jacket SHE001 US copyright office registration# VA1950355”
It’s reasonable to file a copyright complaint to remove material that you own and don’t authorize the use of. That’s even more understandable if you don’t approve of the context in which it’s being used. However, it’s unreasonable to file a complaint against material that does not infringe on a copyright unless it constitutes illegal speech or violates the policies of the hosting platform.
The actions of HONR Network have principally been to file copyright complaints. Although its website rhetoric and various statements to the news complain of many things, they do not include copyright infringement. Therefore, the use of copyright complaints was just a technique by which the group was able to suppress speech that it opposed for some other reason.
Other Claims made by HONR
Among the arguments presented on the HONR website, in articles written about the group and by Leonard Pozner himself are classifications and characterizations of content it seeks to take action against. They often refer to the people publishing this content as “hoaxers” and make claims about the intent of publishing such content.
The following table contains all the examples found in the material examined for this analysis.
|Classifications of Content||Characterizations of Content||Intent of Content|