James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Pro Se Defendant, Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Recuse Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington

Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Pro Se Defendant,

Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Recuse

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington

      DEFENDANT’S REPLY

NOW COMES James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Pro Se Defendant, with a Reply to the Response

from Plaintiff’s attorneys filed on July 24, 2024, to Dr. Fetzer’s Motion to Recuse Judge

Frank Remington Pursuant to Wis. Stats. 757.19(2)(g) filed July 9, 2024. Plaintiff’s Response

observes (correctly) that ruling against a party per se does not require a circuit court to

recuse. But this case involves conduct by Judge Remington that has been egregiously

biased in favor of the Plaintiff and against Dr. Fetzer, including (most recently) repeated

violations of basic due process rights under Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff argues that Dr. Fetzer cannot meet his burden for recusal, alleging that there

is not even the appearance of partiality and that there is no basis for objecting on due

process grounds. Both are in blatant contradiction with Judge Remington’s conduct in

this case from the beginning, which Dr. Fetzer has previously documented and will (at

least, in part) summarize here. All previous submissions in Case No. 18CV3122 are

incorporated and adopted for the purpose of this Reply.

    BACKGROUND

Wis. Stats. Chapter 757. General Provisions Concerning Courts of Record, Judges,

Attorneys and Clerks, under Section 757.19 Disqualification of judge, specifically 757.19

(2) asserts, Any judge shall disqualify himself or herself from any civil or criminal action  

when one of the following situations occurs: (g) when a judge determines that, for any

reason, he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner

(emphasis added). In relation to the 26 exhibits A-Z supporting Dr. Fetzer’s Motion to

Open Judgment Pursuant to Extrinsic Fraud and Fraud Upon the Court filed on June 20,

2024 (cited below as “MOJ”), Dr. Fetzer submits the following proofs of clear bias and

partiality by Judge Remington, who was acting in collusion with the Pozner attorneys.

ARGUMENT 

  • (1) Judge Remington Suppressed the Affidavit of Kelley Watt

Judge Remington’s approach was to manufacture a predetermined outcome by

finding that Dr. Fetzer had libeled Leonard Pozner by declaring a death certificate

that Pozner himself had provided to Dr. Fetzer’s research colleague, Kelley Watt,

to be fake. It was done by substituting a different and complete death certificate in

the Complaint. The published death certificate, unlike the substitution, had no file

number nor state or town certification. Under CT law, not even parents are allowed

to possess incomplete death certificates. Kelley Watt’s Affidavit exposes the fraud

and vitiates the case against Dr. Fetzer but was suppressed by Judge Remington in

collusion with the Pozner attorneys (MOJ, Exhibits J, K, and V).

  • (2) Judge Remington Dismissed Proof that Nobody Died at Sandy Hook

Judge Remington excluded Dr. Fetzer’s proof that nobody died at Sandy Hook on

both legally and logically absurd grounds, when he declared that, “whether or not Sandy

Hook ever happened or not is not relevant to this – the – the truthfulness or the accuracy

of the death certificate”. But the death certificate states the decedent died at Sandy Hook

on December 14, 2012, of “multiple gunshot wounds” (MOJ, Exhibit M). Once again,

the proof amassed in Dr. Fetzer’s co-edited book, Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: It was a  

FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed., 2016), was inconsistent with Pozner’s

position, thereby producing disputed facts that, had they been admitted, required a jury.

  • (3) Judge Remington Set Aside Reports of Two Forensic Document Experts

Having restricted the issue to the authenticity or truthfulness of the death certificate

and having disallowed extensive and detailed proof Dr. Fetzer had submitted in defense,

Dr. Fetzer provided reports of two (2) forensic document experts—Larry Wickstrom and

A.P. Robertson—who found not only that the incomplete death certificate published by

Dr. Fetzer was fake but that the complete death certificate attached to the Complaint was

also fake (along with two others obtain from the Town of Newtown and from the State),

Judge Remington simply dismissed them as “someone else’s opinion” and said, “I just

don’t think they were helpful” (MOJ, Exhibit R, pages 163 and 165).  Their uncontested

reports (again) vitiated the case against Dr. Fetzer by proving his statements were true.

  • (4) Judge Remington denied Dr. Fetzer Discovery on his Counterclaims

To ensure that Dr. Fetzer not discover more proof of the non-occurrence of mass

murder or that the decedent had not died at Sandy Hook, Judge Remington took the

further step of bifurcating the case to deny Dr. Fetzer discovery on his counterclaims

of Abuse of Process, Fraud and Theft by Deception, and Fraud upon the Court, a deft

maneuver to cut off Dr. Fetzer’s access to new evidence that might strengthen his case

(MOJ, Exhibit N). This denial of Dr. Fetzer’s right to discovery has now been used to

claim that Dr. Fetzer had not made allegations of Fraud upon the Court in a timely

manner, brought about by Judge Remington’s denial of Dr. Fetzer’s discovery rights.

  • (5) Judge Remington Refused to Admit Proof that Noah Pozner is a Fiction

Dr, Fetzer repeatedly advanced proof that the alleged decedent, Noah Pozner, was not a

real person but a legal fiction created out of photographs of his purported older half-brother,

Michael Vabner. Dr. Fetzer raised the issue by moving to expand DNA testing to include,

not just Noah Pozner and Leonard Pozner, but Michael Vabner and Reuben Vabner, whom

Dr. Fetzer had concluded to be the basis for “Noah” and for “Leonard” (MOJ, Exhibit O).

This fact has now been substantiated by the Affidavit of Brian Davidson, P.I., who has also

established that the party who testified as “Leonard Pozner” in Madison is not the same

person as the “Leonard Pozner” of Sandy Hook, whose image has appeared millions of

times around the world (MOJ, Exhibits W, X, and Y). This has enormous importance,

not least of all because it implicates Pozner’s attorneys in the subornation of perjury.

  • (6) Judge Remington Refused to Acknowledge Dr. Fetzer as a Media Person

To lower the bar for finding Dr. Fetzer liable, Judge Remington declined to rule

that Dr. Fetzer had media standing as an investigative journalist, even though Dr. Fetzer

had submitted a brief laying out his experience as an investigative journalist/reporter

for decades, including paid assignments (MOJ, Exhibit U). Even more blatantly, Dr.

Fetzer was being sued over three sentences in a book he had co-edited and another in

a separate publication to which he had contributed. How could Judge Remington,

who insisted that he read every document submitted to the court, have missed this?

  • (7) When Dr. Fetzer tried to Expose the Impostor, he was Sanctioned

Among the most important tells that Judge Remington was acting in concert

with the Pozner attorneys is that, when Dr. Fetzer attempted to expose the party

who had testified under the name of “Leonard Pozner” as an impostor (because

he was too young and too small to be the Sandy Hook Pozner), Dr. Fetzer sent

the video deposition to Wolfgang Halbig for confirmation. Judge Remington took

offense and held Dr. Fetzer in Contempt of Court, adding attorney fees in the

amount of $650,000 to the $450,000 that would be awarded by the jury for

his purported defamation of Leonard Pozner, thereby protecting himself and

the Pozner attorneys, when Dr. Fetzer had told the truth (MOJ, pages 11-15).

Judge Remington has been so eager to avoid his exposure that he has now

violated Dr. Fetzer’s due process rights by abandoning the Wisconsin Rules of

Civil Procedure, Chapter 802, not once or twice, but three times: (1) by rejecting

Dr. Fetzer’s Motion to Open Judgment Pursuant to Extrinsic Fraud and Fraud

upon the Court filed on June 20, 2024; (2) by rejecting Dr. Fetzer’s Request for

Relief from Judgment or Order filed on June 20, 2024, and (3) by granting Plantiff’s

Motion to Seal or Redact a Court Record filed on June 24, 2024.

The Pozner Response thus fails. It was not making decisions per se that deprived

Dr. Fetzer of his legal rights but the decisions that Judge Remington made. The pattern

of ruling to deny Dr. Fetzer’s motions and facts to produce no disputed facts when the

case was factually contradictory from the beginning reveals that Judge Remington was

acting with partiality and bias—of a rather extreme variety given he manufactured the

absence of disputed facts to apply Summary Judgment—in a case that had to be sent

to a jury for fact resolution. This goes far beyond the appearance of partiality and bias.

.     Judge Remington, together with the Pozner attorneys in opposition—including Jake

Zimmerman (Pro Hac Vice), Genevieve Zimmerman (WI #1100693), and Emily M. Feinstein

(WI SBN: 1037924)—acted in concert to deprive Dr. Fetzer his right to present a valid defense

by violating the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure and denying Dr. Fetzer his right to a trial

by jury. They (separately and jointly) sabotaged these proceedings by going so far as to suborn

perjury by an impostor witness. And when Dr. Fetzer attempted to expose the fraud, he was (in

no uncertain terms) smacked down by Judge Remington, lest the deception become known.

They don’t want to be held to account for multiple violations of Supreme Court Rules

and Rules of Civil Procedure whereby they committed Fraud upon the Court (Dekker,

214 Wis. 2d at 21) by eliminating disputed facts and fabricating a case against him.

RELIEF SOUGHT

By suppressing the Affidavit of Kelley Watt, dismissing proof that nobody died

at Sandy Hook and that Noah Pozner was a legal fiction, setting aside the reports of

two forensic document experts, denying Dr. Fetzer discovery on his counterclaims,

failing to acknowledge Dr. Fetzer as a media person and holding him in contempt when

he sought to expose the impostor witness—together with his more recent procedural

violations to suppress the proof of his egregious misconduct as quickly as possible—

Judge Remington has egregiously violated Wis. Stats. Chapter 757. General Provisions

Concerning Courts of Record, Judges, Attorneys and Clerks, under Section 757.19(2)(g)

Disqualification of Judge. Dr. Fetzer therefore again moves that Judge Remington recuse

himself from this case and any further associated proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

              Electronically signed by:                                   /s/ James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Pro Se Defendant

800 Violet Lane

Oregon, WI 53575

(608) 835-270

Submitted the 31st day of July 2024.                              jfetzer@d.umn.edu

 

For more on my Motion to Open Judgment Pursuant to Extrinsic Fraud and Fraud upon the Court, click here.

Or visit my GiveSendGo site at GiveSendGo.com/fundingfetzer