OffGuardian  /  Kit Knightly

Kit Knightly

A Connecticut court has handed down a 1 billion dollar fine on radio host and independent journalist Alex Jones, for “spreading misinformation” about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

This is a travesty, and that any could call such an absurd penalty “justice” is sickening. Especially when it is so obviously designed as warning to everyone in the independent media.

Indeed, outside of the specifics of this case, the potential fallout for everyone in the alt-media sphere is terrifying, because already the Jones precedent is being used as an argument for “regulation” of the internet.

Forget about Sandy Hook. Maybe it happened or maybe it didn’t, experience teaches us that virtually nothing happens exactly as the media reports, but even if it did – even if every single word Alex Jones ever said about Sandy Hook was a deliberate lie – you cannot “regulate” that, you cannot make it a crime, and you cannot silence people’s future for words they have said in the past.

That is censorship.

People have the right to free speech. And that includes – MUST include – the right to lie and the right to simply be wrong.

If you take away those rights, you put the power to regulate speech in the hands of those with enough influence to create official “truth” or hold the “right” opinions. And that has nothing to do with objective truth, or real facts.

The media, and the establishment it serves, do not care about truth or facts.

To take a recent example, a Pfizer executive recently reported the pharmaceutical giant never did any research to ascertain if their Covid “vaccine” halted transmission of the “disease” commonly called Covid.

There was never any trial data showing the “vaccines” prevented transmission of “covid”, and that means every outlet, channel or pundit who claimed the vaccine “stopped the spread” was actively “spreading misinformation”.

What’s more this misinformation has likely led to literally thousands of deaths. That is far more harmful than anything anyone could say about a ten-year-old school shooting, real or not.

Will CNN or The Guardian or the NYT face a billion-dollar fine?

Of course they won’t. Because this is not about “misinformation”, this is about uncontrolled information. It is about regulating – even criminalising – the free flow of ideas and opinions.

Even if this kind of rule were equally applied to all media on every topic, it would be still awful…and we all know it won’t be.

Instead, it will be applied to the independent media, to alternative and anti-establishment voices, and to the internet.

If you doubt that, check the media reaction.

One argument against the need for any new regulation of free speech is that we already have legal systems in place to protect people from “harmful speech” – threats, libel and defamation.

Indeed, Jones’ fate here could be held up as a prime example of “the system working”.

But that is not enough, according to this article on NPR which bemoans the “limits” of de-platforming and defamation suits.

That opinion is shared by this article on NBC, which headlines “Alex Jones’ lawsuit losses are not enough”, and concludes:

Defamation lawsuits are an important tool in the quest to reduce harm from harassment and abuse. But they are not a solution to the lie machines built by incredibly savvy, incredibly cynical pundits like Alex Jones. This week’s verdict, coupled with whatever else happens next, will certainly make conspiracy theorists think twice before they inflict pain on private individuals in the future. But it will not solve the bigger problem, which is our world’s dangerous, pervasive flood of misinformation.

That line about “making conspiracy theorists think twice” is the most honest sentence in the article, and confirms one of the major aims of the Jones trial narrative is to set an example.

But while the point of the article could not be clearer, the author never actually uses the words “regulation”, “legislation” or “censorship”. He chooses to play a more subtle game than that.

The same cannot be said for Simon Jenkins in yesterday’s Guardian, who eschews subtlety completely:

Only proper online regulation can stop poisonous conspiracists like Alex Jones

“Proper online regulation”. We all know what that means, it means censorship. He’s not even hiding it in coy language, but openly arguing for a global censorship programme.

He begins by pining for the days when nobody could get a scrap of the public’s attention without going through approved channels:

There have always been Alex Joneses spreading poison from the world’s soap boxes and pavements. As a boy I used to listen to them at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park […] Their lies never made it into newspapers or on to the airwaves. Free speech went only as far as the human voice could carry. Beyond that, “news” was mediated behind a wall of editors, censors and regulators, to keep it from gullible and dangerous ears.

Imagine the kind of mind that is nostalgic for an age when “News” – he is right to use quotes – had to pass through a “wall of editors, censors and regulators”. Imagine being able to simply dismiss the multitude of the public as “gullible and dangerous”.

From there he moves on to praise the verdict against Jones, and the state-backed censorship exhibited by the major social media platforms, but laments it does not go far enough, even hinting that people should have their own private websites confiscated:

The main social media outlets have accepted a modicum of responsibility to monitor content […] attempts are made to keep up with a deluge of often biased and mendacious material, but […] by the time it is taken down it re-emerges elsewhere. Jones has been banned by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but he can still reach audiences on his own website […] Justice is meaningless without enforcement or prevention.

Next, he tells us who exactly will be in the crosshairs of this suggested global censor. It’s a predictable list:

victims may have the rule of law on their side, but that does not curb the climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, trolls and QAnon followers or the appalling and anonymous abuse that now greets the expression online of any liberal – I might say reasonable – point of view.

Alongside a “no true Scotsman” fallacy altering the definition of free speech:

No one seriously believes free speech is an absolute right.

Like all censors before them, modern censors such as Jenkins seek to codify their desire for control in the language of concern. Proselytizing about the need to “protect people” and “the greater good”. They would, they claim, only censor harmful lies.

Such is the call of the censor through the ages. We’re only censoring heresy, we’re only censoring blasphemy, we’re only censoring treason.

Jenkins is aware of this, even as he uses special pleading to argue his version of censorship would be different:

Historians of the news media can chart a progress from early censorship by the church and crown to state licensing and legal regulation. This control was initially employed to enforce conformity, but over the past century it has also sought to sustain diversity and suppress blatant falsity.

The hypocrisy is rank. “Maybe they used to enforce conformity, but of course we would never do that…we just want to silence people who disagree, for society’s sake.”

Of course, none of those who seek to control the speech of their fellow humans ever claim to want to censor the truth. They call it “sedition” or “propaganda”, and claim to be safeguarding “the truth” even as they pull out tongues or break their victims on the rack.

Now they call it “Misinformation”. It’s all the same in the end.

One more time, for the people at the back.

• Free speech is NOT reserved for people who are “right”.
• Free speech is NOT only for people who tell “the truth”.
• Free speech is NOT to be moderated by “a wall of editors and regulators”.

Free speech is not a privilege in the gift of the state, a commodity to be regulated by the government or a child’s toy to be punitively confiscated by grown-ups who know better.

It is a right. For everyone. Everywhere. Always.

And if it is removed from one of us, it is removed from all of us.

Original Article: https://off-guardian.org/2022/10/14/the-alex-jones-verdict-is-a-declaration-of-war-on-independent-media/

Why Didn't Alex Jones Use the Truth as Defence?

Henry Makow

Asked a reader.


Photo courtesy https://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2022/10/


Original Article: https://henrymakow.com/2022/10/why-didnt-alex-jones-use-the-truth.html

James Fetzer -Truth Was Irrelevant to Alex Jones’ Show Trial

Tap News  /  danceaway

HenryMakow.com

Prof James Fetzer. Click to enlarge

Prof James Fetzer, left, who is facing a $450,000 penalty for his book “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook” says truth is no defense in 2022 Amerika.Alex Jones and his lawyers did not even try to use it which suggests Jones may be part of a charade designed to stifle dissent.

“I brought together 13 experts–including 6 Ph.D.’s–and we established that the school had been closed by 2008; that there were no students there; and that it had been a two-day FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control), I regarded this as an opportunity to present this evidence to the public through the judicial system and thereby establish the facts of a massive fraud.…

I sought to intervene in all three of Alex Jones’ defamation trials in order to point out that, in no case related to Sandy Hook, has there been a jury finding that anybody died at Sandy Hook. I was not surprised that I was opposed by the Plaintiffs, whom I regard as frauds who are milking the system for money, but also by the  Defendants. And I have even reached out to Norm Pattis, one of his attorneys, and volunteered to be an expert witness on his behalf to no avail.”

Makow – This is what Satanism (Communism) looks like. Jones has to pay a billion dollars for simply stating the truth. This is the cloud-cooku-cooku-land Satanist Jews and Freemasons are imposing on humanity. The Truth is the only thing that matters but Jones’ lawyers dismissed this defence and instead focused on the argument that Jones didn’t profit from his lies. Something smells!

by James Fetzer PhD – (henrymakow.com)

I also sought to intervene in the Remington case, where (again) I was opposed by both sides. You might think Remington would put up a fight against a $73,000,000 settlement, but it appears the insurance companies are making an investment in anticipation that the outcome will be insurance for every legal gun owned, which is going to render them huge profits in the multi-billions. Once again, the case was not decided on its merits but on the basis of stipulations or agreements.

I had released my edited book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed., 2016) as a PDF when amazon.com banned it after having been on sale less than a month In Wisconsin, a lawsuit was brought for an alleged defamation of one of the alleged parents, known as “Leonard Pozner”, whom I declared (from the beginning) to be a legal fiction, for publishing that an incomplete death certificate (with no file number, town or state certification) was fake.

Continues …

https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=259951

Original Article: https://tapnewswire.com/2022/10/james-fetzer-truth-was-irrelevant-to-alex-jones-show-trial/

James Fetzer - Show Trial: Alex Jones' Case wasn't Decided on its Merits
Henry Makow

Prof James Fetzer, left, who is facing a $450,000 penalty for his book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" says truth is no defense in 2022 Amerika.Alex Jones and his lawyers did not even try to use it which reveals Jones may be in on a charade designed to stifle dissent.



"The school had been closed by 2008; that there were no students there; and that it had been a two-day FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control), I regarded this as an opportunity to present this evidence to the public through the judicial system and thereby establish the facts of a massive fraud.

It would turn out that Wisconsin has a rather peculiar Summary Judgment  (SJ) protocol allowing the court to determine whether or not alleged facts are or are not "reasonable", where they may be set aside (as though they did not exist) if the judge--based upon his own subjective opinion--determines them to be "unreasonable", which would entitle him to discount the abundant and compelling proof that I submitted in my defense."

I sought to intervene in all three of Alex Jones' defamation trials in order to point out that, in no case related to Sandy Hook, has there been a jury finding that anybody died at Sandy Hook. I was not surprised that I was opposed by the Plaintiffs, whom I regard as frauds who are milking the system for money, but also by the  Defendants. And I have even reached out to Norm Pettis, one of his attorneys, and volunteered to be an expert witness on his behalf to no avail.

by James Fetzer PhD(henrymakow.com)


I also sought to intervene in the Remington case, where (again) I was opposed by both sides. You might think Remington would put up a fight against a $73,000,000 settlement, but it appears the insurance companies are making an investment in anticipation that the outcome will be insurance for every legal gun owned, which is going to render them huge profits in the multi-billions. Once again, the case was not decided on its merits but on the basis of stipulations or agreements.

I had released my edited book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (2015; 2nd ed., 2016) as a PDF when amazon.com banned it after having been on sale less than a month In Wisconsin, a lawsuit was brought for an alleged defamation of one of the alleged parents, known as "Leonard Pozner", whom I declared (from the beginning) to be a legal fiction, for publishing that an incomplete death certificate (with no file number, town or state certification) was fake.

The scan of the document had been shared by the Plaintiff himself with a colleague of mine, Kelley Watt, with whom he had over 100 hours of conversation. The document on its face was no more authentic than a driver's license with no number and no state seal. A complete version (with file number, town and state certifications), which was attached to the Complaint, however, was claimed to be not "materially different", which made the case legally absurd from scratch.

Because I knew the strength of the evidence I had amassed through collaborative research with a dozen other experts, including five other Ph.D.'s (where we had determine that the school had been closed by 2008; that there were no students there; and that it had been a two-day FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control), I regarded this as an opportunity to present this evidence to the public through the judicial system and thereby establish the facts of a massive fraud.

It would turn out that Wisconsin has a rather peculiar Summary Judgment  (SJ) protocol allowing the court to determine whether or not alleged facts are or are not "reasonable", where they may be set aside (as though they did not exist) if the judge--based upon his own subjective opinion--determines them to be "unreasonable", which would entitle him to discount the abundant and compelling proof that I submitted in my defense.

The Court systematically precluded or discountred my evidence, including the reports of two forensic document experts, where the Plaintiff and I could not have been more at odds on the facts. I maintained it had been a FEMA drill (for which I had published the manual) where nobody died, while the Plaintiff alleged that his son, to whom he referred as "N.P.", had died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012 of "multiple gunshot wounds''.

On the basis of the perverse SJ methodology used in Wisconsin, the Circuit Court either ruled out my evidence as inadmissible or declared it to be "unhelpful", and thereby found there to be no "disputed facts"--which would instead have required a jury trial to resolve--and ruled that I had defamed the Plaintiff. The trial for damages (analogous to the three of Alex Jones, which, unlike mine, are being televised) awarded $450,000 in damages.

When I took my case to the Court of Appeals (District IV), it upheld the Circuit Court and (in consecutive paragraphs) declared that it was "reasonable" to believe that Adam Lanza had shot his mother and then 20 kids and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary and that it was "unreasonable" to believe it had been a FEMA drill where nobody died, in spite of my evidence, which included an FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012.

(Sandy Hook was a simulation like COVID. No murders in 2012)

Given the absurdity of the SJ procedure in Wisconsin, I submitted a Petition Pro se to the US Supreme Court (attached) and supplemented it with an Application for a Stay (also attached), because "Leonard Pozner" was moving to take my blog, jamesfetzer.org, and the Sandy Hook book to satisfy the $450,000 award. In Wisconsin, monetary awards can only be satisfied by money, which intellectual property such as blogs and books are not, but the Circuit Court nonetheless gave them to the Plaintiff.

The timing was striking, since the conversion occurred on 28 July 2022, the morning of which (during the first Alex Jones' trial for damages) my name and those of other Sandy Hook Skeptics--Sofia Smallstorm, James Tracy, and Wolfgang Halbig--would be taken in vain. But if someone wanted to learn what that "bat-shit crazy Fetzer" had to say about Sandy Hook, they could no longer access my blog because it had already been taken.

My SCOTUS case would fare no better. It was sent to Conference on 28 September and on 3 October I would learn that it had been denied. My Application for a Stay (attached) did not catch up with the Petition and would likewise be denied the following week, even though it makes a powerful case for granting a Writ of Certiorari, including satisfying the four criteria that are the basis for selecting cases for our highest court to review.

My ongoing research on Sandy Hook has further confirmed that it was indeed a FEMA "mass casualty exercise"  as the manual declared (attached). It was on the schedule to be conducted at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012 on the Connecticut branch of FEMA (attached). I believe that Wisconsin was chosen to sue me because its SJ protocols put the facts of the case under the control of the judge. No jury required! And it worked.

So in none of these cases, including my own, was there a jury determination that a mass shooting took place at Sandy Hook Elementary on 14 December 2012. I have done my best to expose the truth in collaboration with over a dozen other experts, but to no avail. It appears to me that the US judicial system, up to and including the US Supreme Court, has been compromised and that we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, sad to say.


Robert Barnes Interview - Stunning Claims in Alex Jones Case (Video) Start at 1.35

As part of Alex Jones' legal team, Robert Barnes has embraced the view that the Sandy Hook lawsuits brought against Jones are part of a conspiracy to cripple the First Amendment.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/robert-barnes-interview-stunning-claims-alex-jones-case-video/


Original Article: https://henrymakow.com/2022/10/james-fetzer---show-trial-alex.html

Alex Jones Was Railroaded & We Were Deceived
Henry Makow

Jones was found guilty of "defamation" when he called the Sandy Hook "Massacre" a hoax.


"What you witnessed was not a trial on the merits, but only the damages portion AFTER a verdict is reached and one party is already found guilty."
The general public was being played because they don't understand the difference between a trial on the merits verses a trial on damages.






MM(henrymakow.com)


Alex Jones did not sell out. He was not allowed to use the truth as a defense because the corrupt Judge/Court would not allow an actual trial on the merits.
The Judge ruled Alex Jones was guilty on a technicality before any trial was allowed.  

Before litigants go to trial there is a "discovery period" in which both sides get to ask the other side for evidence and information.  They can request documents, emails and take people's deposition.  

Once all that is done they go to trial to find the truth.  However in Alex's case, the Sandy Hook Plaintiffs' claimed Alex did not turn over all of his emails in discovery.  So the Judge ruled in the Sandy Hook Plaintiffs' favor that Alex was "hiding evidence."

Therefore, the Judge just became the jury and "ruled on the [nonexistent] trial on the merits" as a sanction against Alex, finding he was guilty of defamation. The trial on the merits was hence CLOSED.

Next, the Judge just moved the case straight to the damages portion which just decides how much money does Alex Jones owe the Plaintiffs.  

Similar to a criminal trial once a person is found guilty then the next part of the trial is the sentencing --what's their punishment --how much jail time?

Folks -- there was no trial on the merits -- did you just miss that ???  

That's why Alex Jones kept saying it was a "Kangaroo Court."--The Deep State Court made damn sure Alex would not be allowed to use the Truth as a defense, which happens only in the trial on the merits portion of a case.

What you witnessed was not a trial on the merits, but only the damages portion AFTER a verdict is reached and one party is already found guilty.  

Then, the jury just decides how much money Alex owes to the Sandy Hook Plaintiffs.  

In the Damages portion, the only thing the Court allows Alex to say or be questioned about is related to how much money he has or makes and how sorry he was that he hurt their feelings to mitigate their emotional pain and suffering to reduce how much money he owed them.

Alex's legal team was not allowed to question any of the Plaintiffs. Alex was not allowed to say he was innocent or complain that the Court was unfair. Alex can complain only to the Appellate court that the trial court was unfair.

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE


Because the Corrupt Court had already moved the trial to the Damages portion, I understand the logic of Alex attorneys to forego James Fetzer's evidence and expert witness testimony.

The general public was being played in this Sandy Hook Defamation case because they don't understand the difference between a trial on the merits verses a trial on damages.

Alex Jones' "trial," in its entirety, is the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" showing us all that our Constitutional Rights to a Fair, Just and Impartial TRIAL have been LOST !!!  

Alex Jones was completely RAILROADED !!! The courts have hundreds of tricks up their sleeves to undercut your constitutional rights to a fair and just trial.  

Read More Of This Article + Original Article: https://henrymakow.com/2022/10/alex-jones-was-railroaded.html