US corporate news media have provided inordinate coverage highlighting specific outtakes of the recent AlexJones deposition in Texas state court. It is perhaps notable how throughout its hullabaloo coverage of the Jones trial same news media have carefully excluded any mention of Professor James Tracy’s pending action against Florida Atlantic University, an arguably more significant free speech case now before the US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
As some may recall, this appeal followed an eleven day trial in December 2017 before Obama-appointed US District Judge Robin Rosenberg, whose numerous pre and in-trial motions grossly favored the FAU defendants by stripping Tracy of his right to assert First Amendment claims and keeping vital evidence from the jury.
Despite wall-to-wall, front page trial coverage by the The Palm Beach Post and the South Florida Sun Sentinel, the event was almost completely blacked out by national news media–the same media that widely broadcast the case’s commencement in April 2016 and the circus-like antics of Jones’ deposition.* In fact, the Sun Sentinel has yet to even report to its readership the fact that the case has been appealed.
Tracy’s attorneys are still awaiting the court’ decision on the their request to present oral argument before a panel of three appellate judges hearing the case. FAU has argued against the court entertaining oral argument.
*In any self-respecting court proceeding, why is the Jones deposition being so selectively broadcast in the first place. It may well be to try the defendant in the court of public opinion, before his case can reach a jury.
In an October 2018 post on his WellAware1.com site and accompanying video published on YouTube Edward Chiarini AKA “DallasGoldbug” theorizes that James Tracy is really Marvin Bush, son of US President George H.W. Bush, and the younger brother of President George W. Bush and Florida Governor “Jeb” Bush. What is more, Tracy is in reality working for the Department of Homeland Security HSEEP program.
The evidence includes a photo taken by the Palm Beach Post during the December 2017 trial as we entered the Federal Courthouse in West Palm Beach. (The photo in fact appears as if it has been Photoshopped to enlarge the forehead and make us look about 30 pounds heavier than we actually are.)
A judge in Connecticut has granted the families’ discovery requests, allowing them access to, among other things, Infowars’ internal marketing and financial documents.
The judge has scheduled a hearing next week to decide whether to allow the plaintiffs’ attorneys to depose Jones.
The plaintiffs include the parents of five children who went to the school as well as family members of first-grade teacher Victoria Leigh Soto and Principal Dawn Hochsprung, according to a statement from the plaintiff’s attorneys.
According to the statement, the plaintiffs allege a “years-long campaign of abusive and outrageous false statements in which Jones and the other defendants have developed, amplified and perpetuated claims that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged and that the 26 families who lost loved ones that day are paid actors who faked their relative’s deaths.”
YouTube content providers can no longer publish videos deemed controversial by owners of the Youtube platform without experiencing financial censorship or outright banning. This has been experienced most recently by the popular YouTube channel, Lift the Veil.
This interview was enough to get my entire channel channel demonetized, so catch it now while it's still on YouTube. Wolfgang Halbig on Sandy Hook Lawsuit w/ Nathan Stolpman https://t.co/eZx40Nwsc5
Thus user dissent has been relegated to the Comments sections of videos, where vibrant discussion of government-endorsed propaganda still thrives, at least for the moment.
As we’ve repeatedly demonstrated at MHB (i.e. here, here, and here) GoogleGestapo, Youtube, Facebook, PayPal and even WordPress.com are today’s thought police, actively suppressing many ideas or expressions disputing government-endorsed official narratives of complex events. Content that is trivial or reinforces such storylines, on the other hand, are placed on a pedestal and receive wide distribution.
A video outtake from one of Alex Jones’ recent broadcasts may suggest one of the ways the popular radio host may have been compromised.
The excerpt, which shows Jones promoting one of his recent health-related phone apps, depicts him inadvertently revealing on his smart phone a still image and link to a hardcore transvestite porn video.
Can someone so Janus faced and with such apparent prurient interests be entrusted to carry forth the banner defending free speech? To what degree is Jones blackmailed via such obsessions? Is this perhaps one of the reasons why Jones can’t seem to get so many the story straight on so many false flag incidents?
On his August 29 broadcast Jones denied that he was viewing pornography on his telephone.
Editor’s Note: This is one among a series of memoranda directed to President Donald Trump solicited from notable experts and Sandy Hook researchers by former CIA officer and author Robert David Steele. Those that have been heretofore published are available at Mr. Steele’s PhiBetaIota website here.
John Remington Graham, Esq.: In Solidarity with Alex Jones
The litigation against Alex Jones in state courts of Connecticut is plainly an abuse of process, impossible to institute and press in an uncorrupt and honest manner, and designed to intimidate any and all journalists who dare to contend that the alleged shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 was a staged event, meant to shape public opinion in favor of gun control legislation, but so poorly orchestrated by public authority and major news media that many eminent observers have seen through the official story and understood something closer to the truth. The idea that damages for defamation could be lawfully granted against Jones is patently absurd in light of seminal authority long ago established in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S.254 (1964), and Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S.64 (1974).
The episode at Sandy Hook can be and has been studied in various degrees of depth, but we can know that Sandy Hook was a hoax, as surely we can know that the intelligence of the American people was insulted by the news media reports and the Warren Commission concerning the murder of John F. Kennedy which led to the tragedy of the Vietnam War. As was once observed by Lord Acton, “Historic responsibility has to make up for want of legal responsibility.” And there is our consolation. Death has intervened to prevent temporal justice against those who plotted the death of Kennedy, but we know who they were, and we are beginning to learn lessons from their crimes for the good of our country.
Inflammatory radio host Alex Jones is besieged with lawsuits brought by Sandy Hook parents who claim to be “defamed” by the content of his broadcasts. America’s loudest rant monger appears to be fulfilling a central role in a broader play that could seriously undermine the First Amendment.
Most recently Jones, who maintains via his counsel that the Newtown massacre itself was genuine, has agreed to defray the plaintiffs’ court costs for bringing suit in Texas should the judge find it frivolous. Concurrently media platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Spotify are now censoring “Infowars” for purported “hateful” content.
Jones’ ex-wife and conflict-of-interest show boater Kelly Jones is allying with parents of the children who are reported to have died in the 2012 school shooting by picketing an August 1st Texas court hearing with a sign reading, “Texans For Sandy Hook Justice,” NBC News reports.
Ms. Jones won a vicious child custody battle with the radio personality in July 2018. Jones asserts that she was present during the creation of InfoWars, “and I’m trying to make that right.”
These people not only lost their children in the most horrible way that you can imagine – I mean, unspeakable – but they’ve been harassed by his audience. They’ve had to move houses. They had people come up to them and say that their children didn’t even exist.
As this storyline goes, while the Sandy Hook parents lost their children in December 2012 Kelly Jones saved hers from America’s most prominent career “conspiracy theorist.”
A deeper dimension to this unfolding scenario is the fact that both Kelly Jones, Jones’ children, and the parent-plaintiffs squaring off against Alex in Texas are Jewish.
This aspect of the saga would not be worth noting at least in passing if not for the fact that certain Jewish-led “civil right groups,” including as the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center, have long-sought to topple the American ideal of free speech ensconced in the First Amendment.
These interests and the powerful forces they represent would much rather have the United States temper free speech rights by taking away the rights of those expressing “hate speech,” which in reality translates to any political speech the deep-pocketed sponsors of such groups deem undesirable.
One way to seriously cripple if not eliminate free speech is via a “Trojan horse” like Alex Jones. Despite the swaggering Texan’s professed expertise in conspiracy investigation Jones cannot seem to make heads nor tails of the Sandy Hook massacre.
But that’s not all. Jones has been caught censoring actual research addressing the event, and through this ham-fisted performance has set himself up to take the fall that will likewise bring down US free speech rights.
the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States.
There is a well-known theory that 1980s comedian Bill Hicks faked his unusual death from pancreatic cancer at the age of 32 (pseudocide) and has ever since been playing the character Alex Jones since the mid-1990s. Although the idea seems far-fetched, the fact is that celebrities with substantial means have “faked their deaths” for many years to assume a new life and identity.
“Some people fake their death to avoid jail or get away with a crime” according to Psychology Today. “[O]thers want to escape debt, a stalker, or a burdensome relationship.”
“’If you want to disappear and do it right,’” writes author Elizabeth Greenwood,
“the planning is not for the faint of heart, or the careless.” She proves this throughout her book. The question for those who want to reinvent themselves is whether they can ever completely leave their lives behind. Many think they can do it for a period of time, but expect to pick it back up at some point. To really be successful at pseudocide, though, it seems one must be able to walk away—and stay away—from everything. This includes family, medical records, bank accounts, social media, cars, and your reputation as an honest person.
Even Vice News calls pseudocide “a timeworn tradition” among the laity. Is this also the case with the victims of mass casualty events … and perhaps the successful radio persona whose attorney admits is “a performance artist playing a character”? If by chance Alex Jones is Hicks’ invention he could not have pulled this stunt off for two decades without certain lettered agencies’ complicity. And for this he is indebted to them.
If one is going to file a civil claim that someone’s speech is actionable then it is tremendously helpful to have a “friendly” defendant. Just ask German-born journalist Richard Gutjahr, who is closely allied with the Sandy Hook parents bringing suit against Alex Jones in Texas. Gutjahr says he was encouraged by “Sandy Hook parent” Lenny Pozner and supports the lawsuit against Jones. Gutjahr is of the litigious sort, of which more below.
As some may recall, Richard Gutjahr is so anxious for a scoop that he was present to document both the July 14, 2016 “Nice truck attack” and the July 22, 2016 “Munich shooting.”
Gutjahr’s wife, Israeli-born Einat Wilf, is an outspoken Harvard and Cambridge-educated foreign policy advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Wilf’s additional credentials include serving as a lieutenant in the Israeli Defense Forces’ intelligence division and fulfilling a partial term in the Knesset.
Thus it is perhaps ironic that both Gutjahr and Pozner have wives capable of potentially operating under intelligence cover and likely even diplomatic immunity if necessary. We have been apprised, for example, by parties with considerable investigative capacity that it is close to impossible to ascertain the actual background of one “Veronique De La Rosa.”
Along these lines, more than a few individuals have preferred the compelling and plausible notion that Jones is in fact an imposter, and thus a double agent of sorts.
In the 2017 presentation below Gutjahr’ (at 13:19) discusses his would-be persecution at the hands of “hoaxers”and a strategy of waging legal battles in order to stifle anyone who might question the “on-air talent” in dubious public events.
Lenny [Pozner] and I, we talked many, many times online, and he told me about the so-called “truthers,” the so called “hoaxers.” People who get a kick out of it, to have that power over other people. And who actually also get paid for their ‘work’ by YouTube.
Now Lenny told me, “Look, Richard, you can either continue whining, or you start to get back on your feet and start fighting [sic]. It’s gonna be hard, it’s gonna be long, it’s gonna be painful, but you can actually do something against them. And so I did. [Applause.]
Not on-only I took one lawyer, I took two lawyers [sic], and from that day on they took care of Facebook and of Google. We keep on, like, telling them, “This is wrong, this is wrong. We have this court order, this court order. So we’re really a pain in the neck. And you know what? It feels really good to have somebody speaking up for you-finally.
Despite the fact that Gutjahr is “lawyered up,” he can’t seem to prevail in court. Earlier this year the ubiquitous journalist suffered a stinging defeat after suing independent German investigative journalist Gerhard Wisnewski in the district court of Cologne. The reason? Wisnewski pondered whether Guthahr’s presence at both the Nice truck attack and Munich shooting was coincidental, or may have involved some type of foreknowledge.
Gutjahr’s extravagant complaint suggested that Wisnewski’s reporting on possible prior knowledge involved omission, thus defaming Gutjahr’s by generating suspicion that his motives were for professional advancement. As the defendant explains,
In the eyes of Gutjahr and his lawyer, [I] suspected him of a crime under § 138 penal code (Strafgesetzbuch; “non-disclosure of planned crime”). “A far-fetched assertion. This was never the subject of my reporting, It was all about the abstract possibility of prior knowledge, so only about a cognitive process and the question of how the reporter could have been in two alleged terror locations or in the immediate vicinity within a week.”
A verdict favoring Gutjahr in Cologne was thrown out on appeal, with the higher court reminding the plaintiff that he must “accept critical illumination of his activities by his peers.” In Wisnewski’s view, “the case developed toward a judicial disaster for Gutjahr.”
While their approaches differ, Gutjahr’s case and the defamation actions of the numerous Sandy Hook parents share the same target, namely the free speech that prompts the public to question the sometimes unlikely narratives of government and its corporate media allies. If a verdict against America’s biggest carnival barker can be secured, everything beyond the pale of government and corporate news pronouncements becomes fair game.
Who benefits? Is it those who have something to hide? Who would rather cry, “Hate speech!” and thereby attack the messenger instead of having a fair debate where such speech, if it is truly without foundation, might be confronted and dismantled once and for all?
In the case of Sandy Hook especially the petitioners employ an entirely different method, imploring the general public to viscerally identify with their persecution and suffering–with, as Kelly Jones puts it, those who “lost their children in the most horrible way,” and who must thereafter be “harassed by [Alex Jones’] audience.”
This dramatic plea combined with Jones’ over-the-top “performance art” distracts everyday spectators from considering the events in question and, moreover, the “hoaxers” and “conspiracy theorists” who’ve raised the very questions that most salaried journalists have either long abandoned or must consciously dismiss for fear of losing their own livelihoods.
One thing is certain: Richard Gutjahr might have ultimately won his court case, if only the defendant was as eager to forfeit his free speech rights as Alex Jones appears to be.