The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial

Stalinist events featured rousing images. Jim Fetzer's trial featured a tear-jerking backdrop image of Noah Pozner

By Kevin Barrett, VT Editor

Tuesday was the final day of Jim Fetzer’ defense against Lenny Pozner’s libel lawsuit. I attended and wrote up a “just the facts” report that evening. At almost the same moment I published my report, the jury came back with a verdict awarding close to half a million dollars to Lenny “Jim Fetzer gave me PTSD” Pozner.

Now it’s time for an opinion piece. And as much as I sympathize with Mr. Pozner, assuming his account is accurate, my opinion is that Jim Fetzer got a raw deal…and that the reverberations of this case will be disastrous unless it is overturned.

The whole courtroom drama was carefully scripted and controlled to ensure that the jury, as well as onlookers and reporters, got to hear only one side of the story. Fetzer was never allowed to present his defense.

Jim Fetzer’s defense is simple: Truth is an absolute defense against libel, and Fetzer published statements alleged by Posner to be libelous because he believed them to be true. What’s more, he still believes them to be true. Whether he is right I do not know. But I do know he is sincere in his beliefs.

I watched Jim Fetzer take the stand, swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”—and then watched him silenced and admonished, and the jury hurriedly chased out of the room, when he tried to speak the truth as he saw it.  Jim merely said he still believed his “libelous” statements were true. Asserting the contrary would be a lie. Not saying anything would be a lie by omission. So he was admonished and threatened by the court for the sin of not lying on the witness stand!

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 (which does seem farfetched, but stranger things have happened). 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…

Yet as I understand it—and perhaps someone can correct me in the comments if I am wrong—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.

It was only in the second, penalty phase of the trial that a jury was convened. And during that phase, not only was Jim prevented from presenting his truth defense to the jury, he was prohibited from even mentioning it, or from telling the truth about his beliefs.

Meanwhile the Pozner team was allowed to engage in shameless emotional manipulation of the jury. They even projected a huge adorable picture of Noah Pozner on the screen as the backdrop to the crucial back-to-back testimony of Lenny Pozner and Jim Fetzer! (Jim Fetzer, of course, was not allowed to use the big screen to project images that raise questions about the official story of Sandy Hook—images that can be found in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, but which were, along with all other evidence supporting Fetzer’s truth defense, in essence banned from the courtroom.)

Chilling Effect?

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.”

Following the court’s logic, if a German-American’s feelings are hurt by a book portraying Germans as villains in World War II, why not sue the author for libel and ban the book? Why not drag the author into court—and refuse to allow him to present the reasons he thinks his anti-German interpretation of World War II is truthful? Of course that would never happen, since popular prejudices are in sync with hatred of Germany’s mythic villainy; the court would find ways to rig the process to support the popular prejudice.

So how about these more plausible examples: African-American plaintiffs sue publishers for hurting their feelings by publishing 19th-century texts that include libelous portrayals of blacks; the grandson of Lyndon Johnson sues authors who have hurt his feelings by arguing that LBJ participated in the JFK assassination coup; a father who lost a son in Iraq sues an antiwar author for hurting his feelings by asserting that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal war based on lies and that his dead son was a war criminal.

One can imagine an almost infinite number of possible “libel” cases along these lines. And while only a few are likely to actually happen, that is a few too many—because the chilling effect of such lawsuits will terrorize authors and publishers into avoiding controversial or unpopular historiography. This is precisely what the Bill of Rights, whose purpose is to protect controversial and disturbing speech about matters of public import, is supposed to prevent.

I have had my differences with Jim Fetzer on many issues, including Sandy Hook. Specifically, I think we should be very careful about asserting or insinuating “nobody died” theories about suspected false flag events, for reasons that should by now be obvious.

But this is bigger than Jim Fetzer and Sandy Hook. This is about saving the Bill of Rights, which is under attack today as never before. Regardless of whether Jim is right or wrong about Sandy Hook, regardless of how mistaken some of his approaches may have been, the outcome of Pozner v. Fetzer presents a clear and present danger to freedom of expression in the United States.

The process of Pozner v. Fetzer appears to have been rigged precisely for the purpose of engineering this controlled demolition of our Constitutional rights. It must be appealed and overturned.




We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


  1. There are many logical problems with the entire Sandy Hook Scam. One of the most significant is with the death certificate documents. Yet the Judge in this case refused to allow challenges to the death certificates. In doing so he blindly certified documents which are demonstrably fake and fraudulent in a number of ways and refused to allow Professor Fetzer to challenge them to a jury. This shows bias on the part of the judge against the position of Professor Fetzer, a very intelligent scholar and investigator. Moreover we don’t know anything about the background of the judge in his ability to analyze complex scientific situations like this. All we know is he received an A.B. degree but in what field? It very likely was not a difficult mentally challenging subject like physics or mathematics. The Judge was totally negligent in failing to allow Professor Fetzer to challenge the death certificates to the Jury since serious questions remain about their veracity. Much evidence exists that they are fake in a number of ways. This judge is grossly negligent and should be removed from his important position in Wisconsin. This judge committed the unpardonable sin: He favored one side over the other. Shame on him. Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., A.B., Physics, UC Berkeley, 1961, M.S. Physics, California State University at Los Angeles, 1962, Ph.D., Physics, UC Riverside, 1966, Institute of Science and Technology Fellow, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966-1967…

    • highest score on 18 hour written qualifying examination at the doctoral level given in 6 three hour parts for a week, First Prize for in Contest for best Scientific Explanation of how the Dunking Bird Works sponsored by Dr. Harper W. Frantz, Chairman Physical Sciences Division, Ph.D., Chemistry, UC Berkeley, Pasadena City College, 1959, written up in the Pasadena Star News. I have taken over 300 semester hours at four public colleges and universities in California including the most advanced mathematics and physics courses available. I have received awards for superior or outstanding achievement in mathematics, physics and chemistry. I doubt if Judge Remington has even come close to any of these achievements in his mental development. I was a tenured faculty member at the University of Georgia 1966-1978 but resigned due mainly to lying and cheating by two deans and three department heads for over 5 years. Read the remarkable qualifications of Professor James Fetzer, Ph.D. here:

  2. Jim Fetzer is confronted with the cost/benefit analysis of an appeal but he must absolutely move forward with it anyway. To allow the Deep State/Communists an unchallenged win, likely leaves Jim Fetzer vulnerable to more of the same legal harassment. Are their no high profile/competent attorneys who’re prepared to run Jim’s appeal pro bono? Hopefully a former Military/JAG attorney may read about it on this very site (I’m obviously no expert on US military legal officers but I had to ask) . The Pozner/Deep State cabal don’t want publicity because it exposes their fraud. That said, Alex Jones has done a complete 180 on his former belief in the Sandy Hook hoax. Is he simply avoiding an expensive legal stoush or does he actually believe that Pozner’s child was killed as a result of Sandy Hook? Is Pozner just a really good actor or did he actually lose his child and if so was his death even related to Sandy Hook False Flag?

  3. The media said that Sandy Hook teacher Kaitlin Roig-DeBellis saved 15 children by squeezing them into a 3′ x 4′ restroom. The police reports said that they found the bodies of 15 children stacked in a 3′ x 4′-7″ restroom. Unlike the police, the media is under no obligation to tell the truth.

    Teacher Story

    Police Report

  4. $450k is chump change for the deep state to establish a poster conspiracy wacko–thus, linking the rest of us as conspiracy wackos. Actors in the control drama all get their rewards.

    Boston bombing black backpack, and still a conviction

    The case is often made that ‘our’ judicial system is rigged.

  5. Unlike Jeffrey Epstein, Jared Fogle wasn’t above anyone’s pay grade. While Epstein ran a sex trafficking network, Fogle had a fetish for teenage girls. The American justice system tore into Fogle with full force like a hungry lion while tearing into Epstein like a whimpering beaten puppy. Again, the justice system revealed it’s tiered dispensing of justice. Anyone who expects some type of fairness or equal treatment is in for a sad awakening. The new American justice apparatus resembles the Bolshevik’s USSR and their single way of thinking. Until the next revolution, that’s life.

  6. Duff once said on one of your (KB) shows (IIRC) that Lenny Pozner was likely intel. Any more information along those lines?

  7. Suppose for the sake of argument, that they dig in their heels on this and refuse to grant an appeal or even go “in your face” to the point where they appoint the same judge to handle the appeal. After all they know they already have the corrupt upper hand don’t they? Why give in on anything now? Even with an appeal they can corruptly control the appeal anyway no? What would you do? We are living in very very bad times in America today. If this example doesn’t convince people what will?

    • Many years ago at Berkeley, physics exams were graded by graduate students not professors. At the beginning students who complained to graduate students about the scoring quickly learned, the hard way, that rather than only checking the question, they would re grade all of them! The graduate students outwitted us and this led to the desired result. Once students discovered this they quickly stopped asking for anything to be regraded! I strongly suspect some hanky panky in any appeal of this case because they have so cleverly and corruptly won so much so easily so far. These so and so’s obviously have prior approval for their despicable activities don’t they? Why Obama himself may have even approved this con! After all he is a lying lawyer too!

  8. This trial was a foregone conclusion before it even began. What was Fetzer thinking? There has not been an honest judge on the bench in over a century. Because he is dealing with thugs, a thuggish question would have gotten through the screen. Question: Is it legal to murder someone who is already legally dead? Of course, that question would have gotten him cacked.

  9. Let me ask a rude question to Kevin’s good article: “Why should we expect an appeals court, which will obviously take much longer, likely years, or forever, to render a decision, to be any fairer than this local corrupt court in Wisconsin?” And let us look South to Florida where another sham trial has been on going against the free speech rights of Professor James Tracy, Ph.D., who was fired from a tenured position at Florida Atlantic University, all based on many of the same lies about Jim Fetzer regarding the Sandy Hook Scam. There was a corrupt judge in that case too. Now it is under “appeal”. Does anyone really expect a different outcome? I hope so but I serious doubt it. These two sham trials were both fixed from the outset. Read our Constitution and see if you can find the word lawyer anywhere in it. I can’t. Then ask, why have lying lawyers hi jacked our entire government all three branches although the current occupant of the WH is an exception? Paul Revere should have shouted, “The lawyers are coming, the lawyers are coming!”

    • Suppose theoretically that Jim had unlimited funds to make an appeal of the corrupt sham trial in Wisconsin? But how can such a perversion of Justice be appealed? How can you appeal that large image in the courtroom? Shouldn’t this be one where the entire sham trial is vacated and start over with a different judge in a different venue? Jim needs some powerful lawyers no? But where are they hiding? Don’t most of them seek to avoid this case like the plague? How and why was this judge selected to handle this case in the first place? Isn’t this question secret just like the entire Sandy Hook Scam is secret too? Lawyers and judges love secrecy. They hate people, especially citizens, looking over their shoulders, no?

    • Robert David Steele thinks there’s still hope. He writes:

      “This case is far from over. The evidence of judicial misconduct is clear and if the Wisconsin appeals court does not direct a retrial with a jury to consider all facts in dispute, then this case could and should go to the US Supreme Court. We are years away from resolution.

      “There is no question but that this trial was rigged from day one, and a proper investigation is likely to quickly produce evidence of collusion between the judge and plaintiff’s attorney. There is a Catholic mafia in Wisconsin that controls the courts, and there is also a Mossad mafia — I believe both came into play behind the scenes.

      “At root this trial is about two things: whether government false flag operations can be exposed through public investigation; and about freedom of speech. The evidence that Sandy Hook was a false flag is incontrovertible. Once President Trump does full disclosure of the 9/11 false flag event planned and executed b the Zionists with the complicity of Dick Cheney and and Donald Rumseld, there is going to be a nation-wide clamor to expose all false flag operations starting with Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing.”

Comments are closed.