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.”
Leonard Pozner is the alleged father of alleged Sandy Hook child-victim Noah Pozner whose image, mysteriously, was among the posters of those who were killed by the Taliban in the Army Public School shooting massacre in Peshawar, Pakistan, on December 16, 2014, two years after Sandy Hook.
Leonard Pozner has harassed bloggers and YouTubers with DMCA copyright-infringement take-down demands, and is successful at it. He has also sued Wolfgang Halbig and Alex Jones on Sandy Hook. Curiously, in his last lawsuit against Halbig, Lenny dropped the lawsuit when it came time for him to be deposed, under oath, which reinforces the skepticism by some who wonder if “Leonard Pozner” is a real person. For more on this, see “Sandy Hook’s Leonard Pozner sues Professor James Fetzer and publisher“.
On November 27, 2018, Leonard Pozner filed a defamation lawsuit against Professor James Fetzer and his publisher, Moon Rock Books, claiming that he, Leonard Pozner:
Is a private citizen, instead of a public figure.
Has been defamed by the defendants’ publication of an alleged death certificate of Noah, which Fetzer maintains is fake. See Leonard Pozner v. James Fetzer, et al.
As required by the court, Fetzer submitted an Answer to the lawsuit, in which he makes the following points:
A Crestview man who publishes controversial books for the edification and entertainment of conspiracy theorists has been named in a lawsuit brought by the father of a child killed in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
David Gahary is the principle officer of Wrongs without Wremedies LLC, which publishes as Moon Rock Books. The company currently markets 12 books, each bearing a provocative title along the lines of; “JFK Who How and Why,” “The Parkland Puzzle: How the Pieces Fit Together,” and “America Nuked on 911.”
Wrongs without Wremedies is named in the lawsuit along with two men, Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek. They, Gahary said, edit the work of various contributing authors and build books from those authors’ writings.
Moon Rock Books sells to customers around the world, Gahary said.
“These are people who don’t really believe the mainstream media, or as they say now, the fake news media,” he said. “They don’t believe what the government and mainstream media are telling them.”
Facebook Threatens MemoryHoleBlog Page with Shutdown
Threats of Physical Harm
In the latest episode of the Sandy Hook shooting event saga South Florida-based trial attorney Louis Leo IV is requesting that a Sandy Hook parent to file suit against him for defamation.
The challenge came as Leo found out that the party known as “Lenny Pozner” and his non-profit “HONR Network” organization alleged that Leo is “posting malicious and defamatory public statements on social media against victims of mass casualty events.”
In response Leo invited Pozner and any other Sandy Hook parent to file suit against him for defamation. “Lenny, if what you allege is true,” Leo wrote,
I respectfully challenge any such purported “victim” (including but not limited to you) to sue me for defamation. I’ll waive service of process. Just let me know when you can be available for deposition. I have many questions I’d love to ask you under oath.
Facebook has in turn given Leo “social media timeout”–a 30-day ban from posting on his own Fb page for violating Fb’s “community standards.” Perhaps uncoincidentally, Facebook moved against James Tracy with a similar penalty (below). (As of 11:00PM November 22 Leo has since had his privileges restored. MHB page, however, remains in lockdown.)
Leo is the lead attorney in the civil rights case James Tracy brought against Florida Atlantic University for his 2016 termination. The case is presently before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
A CSPAN video from 2017 that surfaced in early October depicts Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi explaining how to defame someone via the “wrap up smear.”
“You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it.”
“The difference,” Pelosi continues, “is we don’t engage in the politics of personal destruction.” While she suggests this is a Republican Party tactic, her own party is the most prolific source of late in the “wrap up smear’s” deployment.
This manipulation of public opinion toward a specific object is accomplished in de facto coordination with a news media that simply don’t check the facts or circumstances surrounding allegations.
The bizarre and unfounded allegations of Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford concerning Supreme Court nominee Brent Kavanaugh is causing an acute outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), a particular type of behavioral disorder caused by the nationalistic, politically incorrect, and often irreverent US presidential incumbent.
This specific manifestation of TDS is evidenced as outrage over Kavanaugh’s alleged 36-year-old high school exploits, in contrast to his outstanding academic qualifications and professional achievements. Despite the profuse number of holes in Blasey Ford’s testimony and her deep state pedigree, even the very highly-educated Left embrace her without reservation.
How a Talk Show Host Can Help Defeat the First Amendment
By James F. Tracy
Beginning in April the parents of children said to have perished in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre have filed defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones (e.g. here, here and here) and others claiming the radio talk show host defamed them by repeatedly stating to his audience that the incident was staged. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified monetary sum from the defendant, claiming he caused them to be harassed and threatened by parties who share Jones belief that the event was a hoax.
In the event these actions are tried they will in all probability not function as a venue where the veracity of the Sandy Hook event itself can be verified or disproven. Nor will the plaintiffs likely have to provide much if any evidence of harassment or pain and suffering.
The parents’ attorneys assert in one suit that “overwhelming–and indisputable–evidence exists showing what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.” This claim is unanimously (though erroneously) supported by Connecticut State authorities and national news media, and has been accepted as settled fact by a federal judge in Lucyv.Richards.
An open question remains whether the suing parties would need to suppress any countervailing evidence. This is largely because over five years after the Sandy Hook massacre event Jones still routinely exhibits uncertainty on whether or not the shooting was real. It is with this suggestion of “actual malice” that he is setting himself up for an untenable position before a jury.
Sullivanv.NewYorkTimes defined actual malice as a primary requisite for a plaintiff to prevail in bringing a defamation suit. In that famous episode the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement with factual inaccuracies produced by 1960s civil rights advocates and carried in the Times had not been published with actual malice. The court ruled that under the given circumstances the newspaper’s staff did not run the ad either 1) knowing it was false, or 2) with reckless disregard for the truth.
In the cases at hand Jones’ would-be confusion about Sandy Hook began just hours after the alleged shooting itself, when Jones, perhaps anticipating the mixed orientation of his audience toward the incident, expressed confusion over exactly what took place in Newtown. At the same time, and without any real evidence, he used anonymous callers’ observations to label the event a probable “false flag.” This ambiguity would continue for more than five years.
In the months and years thereafter substantial evidence emerged suggesting the “massacre” was probably a FEMA drill overseen by the Obama administration and presented as an actual attack to lay the groundwork for strengthening gun control legislation. Some of this data was compiled in the book edited by Professor Jim Fetzer, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
Instead of inviting Fetzer on to his radio program following the book’s publication and subsequent censorship by Amazon.com in late 2015, Jones ran in the other direction, actually deleting a story by Infowars writer Adan Salazar from his website and thus in effect joining forces with Amazon to suppress that title’s revelations.
Jones conflicted stance toward Sandy Hook is now even mirrored in his attorney Marc Randazza’s public remarks. “We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” Jones’ counsel Randazza explained to the New York Times, where he continues to note “that Mr. Jones has ‘a great deal of compassion for these parents.'”
Such a statement suggests how the Sandy Hook official narrative as defined by the media (and in the minds of any potential jury member) is shared by the defendant himself and his own legal team.
University of Texas law professor David Anderson contends that Jones’ repeated waffling on Sandy Hook makes him especially vulnerable.
What I understand is that he’ll say these things at one point, and then later on, he’ll say, “Of course I know that wasn’t true.” If he says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble. If he consistently says, “I never claimed that to be true,” then he’s probably on more solid ground.
Because Jones’ confusing array of broadcast utterances on Sandy Hook are all a matter of public record it will not be difficult for the “prosecution” to demonstrate Jones’ confusion amounts to a “reckless disregard for truth.”
Further, since Jones’ public persona precedes him and given the fact that jurors are often impressionable and will surely not be avid “Infowarriors,” plaintiffs’ counsel will likely find it easy to depict Jones as a devious and malicious actor. Unfortunately, these are all a jury needs to be fed to affirm the parents’ claims.
Jones’ uncertainty on the Sandy Hook massacre is especially unusual for a figure who is the self-proclaimed “founding father of the 9/11 truth movement,” and who for over two decades been the country’s most prominent “conspiracy theorist.”
Moreover, Jones strongly-voiced political opinions in many areas is what his fans find most appealing. In light of this 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. It’s at least for certain that Jones is not any truth movement’s most desirable ally.
