Is Legal Action An Option for Sandy Hook?

By James F. Tracy

The course of action Wolfgang W. Halbig proposes to address unanswered questions concerning the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, and a foremost reason for the funding drive he is spearheading, involves civil litigation to compel testimony from pertinent officials and parties.

Parties close to have recently consulted a proficient attorney to discuss the effectiveness of filing suit in situations involving potential state crime, such as Sandy Hook. 

An operative term the plaintiff must concern him/herself with is LEGAL STANDING – whether one is a proper plaintiff.  In other words, are you the real party in interest? What are your damages?

Many lawsuits are thrown out of court simply because the plaintiff has no such standing. In other words, if the plaintiff cannot prove s/he has been harmed and cannot assert what damages they have sustained, s/he is not a plaintiff in good standing. The courts do not render collective relief – they render relief based on how one is found to have been harmed. Mr. Halbig and/or other out-of-state parties will not be able to prove how they have personally been harmed by the Sandy Hook event. Such individuals are considered “outsiders.” Mr. Halbig cannot bring a claim for something that has not harmed him personally and directly.

Wolfgang Halbig’s grounds for a lawsuit might well be good, however. GROUNDS have to do with the nature of your claim. Even if Mr. Halbig can prove every single thing in his Complaint (the initial legal filing), Wolfgang Halbig himself has not been harmed. In short, Wolfgang Halbig cannot bring the claim for damages or harm caused by the Sandy Hook event.  Only someone “closer” could do that – e.g., the parents or relatives of the alleged victims. When Wolfgang Halbig or other parties file a lawsuit, the court will ask the question: Does he have any standing to assert those grounds?

The most likely result of such a lawsuit would be a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. This is quick and easy, and will eliminate the need for any discovery and depositions. The idea that Wolfgang posed in one of his early interviews – to “get some of these people and depose them” – is not even possible given his compromised position.

On the other hand, a class action lawsuit is even a more complex and large-scale project. Even $100,000 (Wolfgang Halbig’s present donation goal) would not come close to paying for a class action suit (if he were to allege harm in the way of terror/fear/anxiety caused to the American people from a fictitious event that never took place, for instance). Class action lawsuits are extremely expensive.

Wolfgang Halbig’s desire to get to the bottom of the event transpiring in Newtown on December 14, 2012 are shared by many throughout the US and world. At the same time, however, parties interested in donating to Sandy Hook Justice should be aware of the very real circumstances that prohibit straightforwardly resolving this important matter in a court of law.

593 thoughts on “Is Legal Action An Option for Sandy Hook?”

  1. This makes sense, I’m surprised it has not come up sooner. Now that we know Wolfgang dodged the question yesterday (in the interview with the SHH admin) on the other fund he tried to raise 100k in and in conjunction with this article, to me I can’t see a way forward funding him, based on his current platform.

    We need to continue to brainstorm the best way forward and keep waking people up, but I still hope there is some method, some way, that a tipping point can be reached and we can unveil this entire Sandy Hook official story for the entire American people.

    1. Yeah, why has this not come up sooner? Like about a thousand comments ago.

      I actually remember a lawyer saying that he couldn’t file a civil suit; it was ignored.

      1. Oh. But to be fair this article has been the most active in Memory Hole history as far as I cant tell. Not many have commented on my Facebook conversation with Thomas Lapp either though it isn’t as weighty a matter.

        1. I suppose that’s why this hasn’t come up sooner:) Like the first time a civil suit was mentioned by him.

          I’m sure some of you, though, must remember dinophile mentioning that Halbig was in no position to file a civil suit some time ago.

  2. I would like to hear a suggestion of a course of action to bring about justice and disclosure. Are we going to have just continue exposing the lies until someone in a position of authority becomes willing to challenge the Official Story ? That may never happen !

    1. Tony, you said you would like to hear a suggestion of a course of action to bring about justice and disclosure.

      (I am not licensed as an attorney in CT, as others have pointed out. I still have a First Amendment right to publish my personal opinion, which I am doing here, although some may not like it.)

      One course of action for justice and disclosure is to file an action for declaratory relief asking a court to declare the whole thing was a hoax. Another course of action is to convince Congress to do an investigation. Another course of action is for people who donated to the town and to families to bring suit on the grounds that they were defrauded. You would have to find some good Ct. attorneys for lawsuits in Ct. Another course of action is to convince a U.S. Attorney to convene a grand jury to do an investigation.

      Non-legal courses of action include: Continue to post thought-provoking youtube videos with solid evidence and tell others about the videos, convene a researchers’ conference, write books, do a bus tour to raise public awareness, go to Newtown and ask questions, and / or make a film about Sandy Hook or a film that shows how such a hoax could be carried out.

      These are my personal suggestions. They are not all my original ideas. I am sharing what I have. When you run a relay race, you take someone else’s baton, you run as hard as you can during your part of it, and you hand off the baton to someone else. If you win, the whole team gets the glory. No one can do all the work in this matter. Many people (Prof. Tracy, for example) have done good work on Sandy Hook, and I have learned a lot from them. I would name names, but I don’t want to offend anyone by leaving out an important name, so I will let it go at that. If others have good ideas, and I’m sure they do, I hope that they share them.

      1. Dayw777, those are good suggestions. Under “normal” circumstances there could be a slim chance of success with the “declaratory relief” gambit. In this case, having “top-down” federal involvement and cooperation from the state, it is unlikely to happen. It would be “suicide” for the judge.

        Videos and exposure are very good. We’ve all been trying in our own ways to do just that.

        What this has done for a lot of people is to make them aware that what they assumed to be true about the nature of the world we live in is not as advertised. Neither the antecedent or the “cure” is as most were taught to believe.

        I have seen this first-hand for many years and have grown cynical. That doesn’t mean “unconcerned”, just realistic. If we were all living in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, we’d have justice galore. We aren’t.

        1. “I have seen this first-hand for many years and have grown cynical. That doesn’t mean “unconcerned”, just realistic.”

          You mentioned this before, lophatt, and it is worth repeating. It’s so obvious that I’m frankly amazed at the optimism so many have expressed in the last few days around here, that this crime can be expected to be revealed and admitted to. Were these people not around for Hillary’s murdering Vince Foster? Mena airport? Whitewater? Waco? Oklahoma City? 911?

          We have been through this repeatedly, for decades. Great books, great conferences, great movies, airtight proof of a conspiracy and coverup. Great hopes that THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT. It is a sucker’s game.

          I study these things because I like to know the truth; the chief object of education is to learn to know when you are being lied to. I’m pretty good at that by now; I can smell a rat very early on, and pay close attention from the start. But I have learned not to expect that the culprits will be caught and punished.

          My advice is obviously worth what the reader is paying for it. It is this: don’t get your hopes up that Wolf or anyone else is going to get the government to fess up. That has not happened since before WWII, and conditions grow steadily worse. That’s not to say that this research is unimportant; it is of the most vital importance. We need to know the truth. It is good for us to know when we are being lied to. But we live in a time of pervasive deceit. It is an utterly shameless time. The IRS is used as a political tool, quite openly, and the corrupt president, absolutely shamelessly, tells Ted Baxter on national television–Superbowl Sunday, so everyone will see it–there’s not a spec of corruption in the IRS. Everyone knows he lies every time he opens his mouth, so we all just yawn.

          I can’t remember the end of Mr. Smith (I suspect that his histrionics did not end up changing the corruption), but I DO remember the rest of the movie: an idealist finds out the press and the federal government are hopelessly corrupt, and work together to perpetuate the system. Outsiders need not apply.

        2. It would seem that exposure of corruption can only happen on a small scale. The large scale things are too well supported and funded (if I continue to harp on the Boston Marathon, it is because, while it is literally close to home for me, and occurred in a place which is very familiar – knowable and small, it has such overwhelming support at every level of power).

          I think what I bring away from it is this: the people I once thought were grown-ups in the society never bothered to examine the improbability, even if they had training in engineering and science, and would have understood that a “pressure cooker bomb” as described would have created other sorts of injuries, and even if they understood that the Marathon was already over (except for unwatched stragglers) when the alleged injuries occurred.

          When you have a few rich people controlling the message, funding it within even venerable institutions, then you have the potential for people to learn the gentle art of looking the other way, because they feel it is expedient since they have no stake in the immediate event.

          There is a distinct difference between ignorant reactions to the events however, and those of people who in a healthy society would ordinarily expose the hoax. The ignorant react emotionally and are played like a “mighty Wurlitzer” by the media. But that includes the younger generation, who will be brought up on the falsehoods and thus become loyal to their false protectors. The people who, if they paid more attention, would know for certain that it was a hoax, have no obligation but some of them actually give lip service to the lie, repeating phrases like “Boston Strong” (though without the moist-eyed fervor of the vulgar).
          The majority of those who should know do not discuss this among each other. At a further remove from the scene, some take this event as an example of something – terrorism on home soil, for instance.

          And some are perhaps literally fearful for their lives and that of their family if they move in too close to the truth and state it too publicly.
          So they cultivate a look of neutrality and attempt to go about their business.

          When I asked a person who said s/he was an ear witness to the noise of shots that supposedly killed Officer Sean Collier, and whether anyone had called them into court to testify against Dzokhar Tsarnaev, as well as whether the building next to the event had been secured or searched for suspects when the policeman came through afterwards (it was not, although steps from the event — instead they made up a temporary story of a carjacking right in the neighborhood, which, after it stopped wondering, was transferred more than a mile across town) — s/he told me a word which we will all remember if we saw Chinatown, a perennial watchword about official corruption (“It’s, it’s — Bo Xilai” — or as the cop says to detective Jake Gittes at the end — “Jake, Jake, come home. It’s Chinatown”). So when this event occurred, the kid could only utter (as a watchword of corruption, even in Boston): “Forget about it lady, it’s Bo Xilai.”) S/he did not mean it literally I think. But who knows?

          So rather than re-writing a false history, are we actually reduced to this pictogram approach — “Forget about it lady, it’s – it’s BMB.” Is this the trend? Or will some revolutionary concept replace it with the squares in some parts of the world named for dates of revolt? “Remember it lady, it’s — Eighteenth of April Square”? I don’ t know which way it will go. So far, it isn’t looking good unless more exposure happens that cannot be covered up. But life is short.

        3. “There is a distinct difference between ignorant reactions to the events however, and those of people who in a healthy society would ordinarily expose the hoax.”

          Michelle’s Mirror yesterday wonderfully (as always) poked fun at the world where Sharyl Attkisson can’t be tolerated (

          She quotes Matt Drudge:

          “One common theme during conversations with national news reporters,” is that “critical investigative journalism is all but dead,” tweeted Drudge. Drudge damned the Department of Justice (DOJ) headed by Eric Holder as the reason investigative stories under the Obama administration had all but ceased. He inferred the prevailing fear that the DOJ was tracking reporter’s sources had effectively killed the information flow.

          You’re right, musings. If I had thought of the Chinatown reference, I’d have used it. Sums things up perfectly. Bummer about the nose, Jake. You didn’t think you could actually break up the party, did you? What were you thinking?

        4. What I have been thinking lately is that the more “serious” we address these thugs antics, the more powerful they feel. In other words, in a way we encourage them.

          That is why, whenever possible it seems better to laugh at them. Between that and turning our backs to them they tend to shrink. For example, the odious A. Cooper can bloviate night and day but, if no one pays any attention to him its sort of a wasted effort. If it were not effective he would be forced to find his true calling, whatever that is.

          Recently Obongo gave a speech in Europe and, at the end, silence. It was beautiful. He stood there saying “thank you” and holding up his hands as if to quell the applause. The problem was, there wasn’t any.

          Whey we go the “authorities” and “beg” them to take action, what we are doing is empowering them. We’re saying “I can do nothing without your permission”. Instead of swelling with power these mutts should be looking over their shoulders and forming little puddles wherever they stand.

  3. Great article. The perpetrators of this scam realize that bringing them to justice will be pretty close to impossible. I think Mr. Halbig would be wise to use any money collected to keep informing as many people as possible and once critical mass is achieved those responsible for these staged shootings and false flags will at least be outed to the point that the deluded masses will no longer fall for their lies. I would love to see the scum imprisoned for their dirty deeds but I would settle for people just being made aware of them so that they lose all power over us. And it should occur to people that when these people are exposed, why aren’t THEY filing lawsuits if the information is false. That should be a huge red flag that they ARE guilty.

    1. If you oppose the official story and collect money to disseminate your views, I would worry that you are putting a handy noose around your neck for authorities to yank if they decide you are the one who should be prosecuted for fraud. They may collect money under false premises, but I believe that in something like the Boston One Fund, it has been cleverly disguised as a charity which can be given out to other needs. And as we know, officially sanctioned charities have permitted very large salaries and expenditures for the those managing them, so they get off scot-free. But a charity aimed at exposing corruption may fare worse, and then if there is a prosecution, the entire movement can be held up to public scorn as a ruse and rip-off. So whoever runs something like this should indemnify himself somehow, and be very careful not to violate the law.

  4. Really appreciate the effort of Professor Tracy..and only further substantiates the ignorance of this man Halbig that says in one breath he is in after the cops came to his house and then says but I am not in it for Halbig when asked about Sandy Hook..he is reckless,and dangerous to the group in my thought about him inviting James Tracy and Tony and others to meet up in April to take on the school board..are you kidding me? Even if he has that fancy will all be in the same geographic area at one time,with a man you have never seen in real life.

  5. If this is proved to be a hoax-James what about the emotional impact on US citizens having to watch the trauma since it’s been forced upon us in every media, daily, the monies collected, fear of our children’s safety at school, changes made to school disaster plans have been directly related to this hoax, and what about the direct impact this has on our rights as US citizens, having our 2nd amendment rights violated since the changes in CT law will now be considered precedent in other states? I believe the federal courts accept class action suits. Maybe involve the insurance commissioner in CT and federally, because of all claims? Maybe I’m shooting for the stars.

  6. Due to this SH crap, my child’s middle school has now been staffed by a full time police officer, funded in half by our school district and one half funded by our city. It’s terrible. We didn’t need him and don’t. He is not a welcome presence. Our middle school has never had problems, but due to SH, our kids now have to walk the halls with a scrawny police officer equipped with a taser on one hip and a frickin pistol in the other. Like HE is going to keep the peace there? It causes problems that didn’t exist in the first place. He uses his presence to get kids to talk about what their parents do at home…he wouldn’t be there if the SH show didn’t air.

  7. I say we’d better hurry and file something, or the laws for filing a federal class action suit may change

    1. @SamanthaCaine- Thank you so much for your comments here. And I’m with you–I think we need to file something before the laws change. I honestly want to see us somehow move this off the internet and into action of some sort. I’m not a lawyer, so I honestly don’t know what direction we should go in, but I definitely think we have to move things forward. It seems like we all have standing in some way b/c Sandy Hook has been already been used to change gun laws in some states (and this just the beginning), and it’s been used to affect policies at the school level. Plus, it’s being used to affect mental health measures–I don’t have any details off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure something was passed in Colorado concerning mental health soon after the event. What I’d like to get more information on is what’s going on with the people of CT–are they waking up to this being a hoax?? It seems as though getting them on board with this would be a critical piece of moving things forward, especially since the hoax of Sandy Hook had a direct impact on their gun rights. I know that Fetzer recently did a show w/a CT cop, Mark Mann, who immediately came out and questioned Sandy Hook. I’ve got to believe that if he saw through it, then other CT cops have to be onto it as well. And I do know that about 250 CT police officers recently signed a statement saying that they would not participate in gun confiscation, If anyone from CT reads this blog, I’d really appreciate hearing from them about whether the people up there are waking up to this. It seems as though CT residents should at least be aware that others are questioning the event b/c I’ve watched video clips of CT news on the FOIA issue, where the newscaster refers to the “conspiracy theories” on the internet, so the idea is getting out there.

      1. Samantha, what you said about the 250 CT police officers signing a statement that they would NOT go along with gun confiscation was like a big gust of fresh air to me. Do you have a link to that story, as I have not seen it anywhere. If this is true, then we still have a large contingent of LEO’s who will live up to the oaths they took to uphold the Constitution and protect it from enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, of which it seems hoardes of have been crawling out of their holes carrying megaphones lately.

      2. Amanda, thank you for including the mental health aspect of this. This issue is very important. The pharma companies and many the middlemen are continuing to benefit and acquire life long consumers. I am not an attorney either. I do agree that a lawsuit is appropriate. The case may make a little progress in the way of information gathering.In the least, it will make a few more aware of the truth, it will cause a few defendants uncomfortable, embarrassed and it will be costly to hire attorneys to defend the action. I know that a federal lawsuit will not fix this mess, it may only open a second can of worms. As far as I am concerned, I won’t give up until someone starts spilling the truth. This is what I feel WH is trying to do. He wants a few questions answered and to get this party started.

  8. Very good article, James, and i cannot see how one of these three (?) attorneys Halbig have been in contact with have told him this. They might very well know this is the blind alley they are leading him down, and this should make him rethink who he have in his “team”. Im guessing he will keep doing what hes doing, raise funds for this trip, and it will end up with nothing, it will be interesting to see how Halbig and Fetzer respond.

  9. Sorry to keep talking, but this is important to me. It looks to me like this is the type of case where we would file in federal kind of like product liability or civil, you don’t have to be a reside in the state where the offense occurred. Say Trader Joes, in Monrovia CA sold tainted two buck Chuck in Oregon, we would sue the corporation TJ
    s civilly in CA. If TJ’s intentionally tainted the wine, the prosecutor in my area would file criminal charges and bring them to my state. If they sold wine all around the country killing and injuring people in the process, a federal suit should be filed. We have a right to sue another state for misconduct, but we do need to convince the federal court upon filing that there is a case. This is how I see it. Let’s start the dialogue.

  10. Wolfgang Halbig needs legal assistance from a Ct. attorney to push for public records. Since anyone can ask for public records, and the public officials in Ct. have denied his requests, he has standing in that regard to file a lawsuit asking the public officials to comply with the law and turn over the public records.

  11. Samantha you are spot on on about the reasons we have of due harm to the American citizens.And it is true there are a group of gun owners from Ct ,recently saw they are planning a rally in April..but you most likely know that the key to getting into the Sandy Hook community? Perhaps. I agree we should move forward with out or with Mr Halbig somehow.

  12. I have a CT Civil Rights Attorney who is going to handle all of our FOIA requests as a first logical step right Tracey something you have not done.

    While in Newtwown we are going to inspect the non-profits financial records to see who donated the $29 million dollars and how it was spend.

    I have not see you take action in such an effort. why?

    All you do is critize me for doing at least something.

    You lack the courage by refusing to go with us to Sandy Hook when I would pay for all your expenses.

    Your just talk without action, I cannot believe people actually listen to you.

    1. Mr. Halbig,

      This does not seem very productive. Let’s discuss the facts without resorting to personal attacks. Presumably, we are all on the same side here.

    2. I think James Tracy should take up Halbig’s offer to go to Sandy Hook. In fact a larger group of investigators would be more effective and less likely to suffer from harassment or intimidation. (btw – I would go if I could but I’m in Canada and have too many responsibilities).
      Wolfgang (I’m assuming that’s really you) – you might want to slow down a little bit and solidify your approach. If the lawsuit is dismissed then it would be counter-productive for exposing the truth. I think your heart is in the right place, I’m not sure about the people you’re working with (if they are the same that Tracy dealt with during the Greenberg affair). Perhaps we could arrange to have a group talk on the matters – so that people’s concerns can be dealt with and a solid plan of action can be hammered out – I would be happy to host it.
      Anyway, I’d like to see people work together and support one another. I’m 100% behind uncovering the truth – but it’s not going to be easy!

      1. “I think James Tracy should take up Halbig’s offer to go to Sandy Hook”

        This would be a declaration on Dr. Tracy’s part that his role has radically shifted, and I highly doubt that is his intent. He has scrupulously refused, so far as I can tell, to carry torches (with the possible exception of when he lent his name to Fetzer’s 10 reasons article).

        Why is this not noticed? His role is to question and probe press coverage of these events. He never proclaims them hoaxes; he always allows the possibility that the official story has truth in it. This maddens many, who want him to be a crusader. This distinguishes him from Fetzer on a fundamental level.

        This is why I find Wolf’s bizarre post just now so false. He has expectations of James Tracy that I do not believe are warranted. He thinks the reporter (James) is obliged to “take action.” Well, then he’s stop being a reporter, wouldn’t he?

        Wolf says Tracy is criticizing him. I’ve seen no evidence of that. All I see is articles presenting new developments in an ongoing, decentralized, investigation. He allows us to talk about these things, and we are allowed to believe anything we want about them. Do you EVER see him weighing in, saying “that speculation of yours is correct, here’s how…”? Nope. People can develop many different theories here, many contradicting one another. James never steps in and favors one or another.

        His official position is, and has always been, that whatever happened that day, it could not be the way the official story portrays it. That’s it.

        You are asking him to throw away years of credibility, by joining a crowd that is declaring the thing to be a hoax. What you are asking him to do, in other words, is to say that he is no longer an impartial reporter. I, for one would find that a great tragedy.

        There are plenty of opinionated websites that exist to further a crusade of one sort or another. I’d hate to see this one blend into that mass.

        When Wolf says “Your[sic] just talk without action, I cannot believe people actually listen to you,” he’s missing the point. His JOB is to talk, not act. His role is to provide a forum for discussion, that’s all. Wolf obviously does not like it that Dr. Tracy posts reports that expose the ongoing saga of Wolf’s public persona. He demonstrates that he has a thin skin, when he conflates the opinions of commenters replying to those reports with those of the author. He went public, and does not like what he finds that public people have to endure. Well, that’s not Jame’s Tracy’s fault.

        Incidentally, James is not immune to the nasty aspects of public presence. Just by reporting, asking questions that point to official falsehoods, he has been viciously attacked. He’s done nothing deserving of that, and he does not whimper and whine about it. People routinely say, falsely, that he holds to specific theories, when all he has done is point out things that may or may not indicate that specific theories are correct. Again, that just comes with the turf.

        If Wolf’s feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps it would be best for him to quietly withdraw, and go back to obscurity.

    3. Wolfgang Halbig:

      Let’s all agree to be civil and honest; and that honesty includes holding you to the same standards of disclosure that we desire to receive from Connecticut officials.

      First, it should be noted that it would not be you that would be paying for Professor Tracy to travel to Sandy Hook, it would be paid for by the funds that people have donated to your alleged investigation.

      Speaking of funds and donations, why is it that in your first interview on the Sandy Hook incident, which you did with American Free Press, that you laid the foundation for your plea for public donations? In that interview you answered “I want to raise a lot of money” when asked directly what his next step was and what he wanted to do.

      More importantly all of us would be more inclined to donate to your efforts and view you as legitimate if you might provide us with full disclosure about your July 24, 2012 appeal for $100,000 to investigate what we can do in saving children from committing suicide which he promised to do be “provide to parents technology defender for any student who is having to suffer through this type of fail torture.”

      My Three Questions For You:
      1. What did you, Wolfgang Halbig, do with the funds he raised through that effort?
      2. Has this technology defender you purported come to fruition?
      3. Are you, Wolfgang Halbig, no longer concerned about “saving children from committing suicide or have you solved that problem?
      4. What other heart wrenching incidents have you made similar pleas for public donations to you and what have been the accomplishments of your efforts?

      Thank you for your feedback. All of us that care about full disclosure about Sandy Hook look forward to you answering the above questions honestly and thoroughly.



    4. Wolfgang, glad to hear from you here. What is it that the rest of us can do, collectively, to help you? If there are people who support you and want to help without making a monetary donation, what can they do? There is information that there is nothing registered in Florida for fund raising under your name which has caused some people concern. Is Mr. Williams the civil rights attorney that you’re referring to? Not everyone took Mr. Tracy’s comments as criticisms, at least I haven’t. It has opened a dialogue somewhere other than youtube. If you can stay posted with us occasionally and let us know what if anything is needed or something we can do, it will keep most assumptions at bay. Should we all file FOIA requests? Thank you for your hard work and efforts and is Day Williams your attorney for the FOIA requests? I need to know whether or not he is credible. Take care.

    5. Mr Halbig-

      If I read correctly,you claim to have been involved with schools in your career,and even a principal at one point-am I correct? If so,let me point out that your grammar,spelling and general syntax are suspect.And as other posters here have asked,why do you not have any on camera interviews(at least that I’m aware of),only by phone or audio…

    6. I would personally advise Mr. Tracy to stear clear of Mr. Halbig. If Mr. Tracy were to go to Newtown, I think it best for him to do it on his own and make it clear he is not associated with Mr. Halbig at all.

    7. Who posted this comment? Was it Wolfbad in the flesh? Or was it any number of his known handlers? Mysteriously, there was not one spelling error or grammatical mistake.
      So, I would also like to know: Does Wolfbag now use spell-check and proof-read his ramblings? Or did his handler post and break character?

      ps- Don’t duck my question like every other question posed to Wolfbang. I want an answer, and I am sure everyone else does also.

      1. Actually, sorry. Yes the grammatical mistakes were there, but no spelling errors.

        And Wolfdong, you offered to fly and pay for James Tracy’s hotel and meals while in CT with YOUR OWN MONEY?

        Or, did you mean the donated money you previously had promised to account for, down to each dollar, with complete transparency?


        Answer that one too, please, Wolfgang.

        1. Surprisingly many are giving him a pass on this other fundraising red flag even though it insults their own intelligence and makes them look willing to be a rube in someone else’s equation.

        2. Actually,not to nitpick(you brought it up)but there are 2 spelling errors-Newtown and criticize…just sayin’…..

    8. Yeah, that would be grand. Lets have Dr. Tracy go with you to newtown and look like a total stooge. “Well, here we are. Let’s chant. The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching! OK what now? Lets go get pizza…”

    9. You don’t have to go to Newtown to inspect 501c3’s–you can do that from your laptop. All those charities, if they are playing by the rules, have to submit a 990 to the IRS. When they file, you can request a copy, directly from them and they are obliged to send. That doesn’t mean they will in a timely manner. If this case gets cracked, it will be because of methodical, patient slogging through documents and collecting ancillary data, from whence sound conclusions can be drawn.
      A media circus might be a bad idea, it can go against you. Here is a tidbit…the total of all government and private donations that have been reported since 12/14/12 is in the neighborhood of:


      One hundred eight million, five-hundred fifty-seven thousand, three-hundred and nineteen dollars.

      Let that sink in for a moment.

      This sum does not include many of the scholarship funds, 5ks, etc etc set up by particular families. I can’t find info on the Emily Parker fund, as one example. I’m still looking though, I pretend I’m picking daisies in a spring meadow.

      1. Excellent post susan. I too agree the devil is in the details and ive done a ton of slogging. Good job with the totals. I personally think the grand total generated is over a billion.

        1. A billion!? You know, I have not considered the $$ that has been pitched in by Bloomberg and his cronies. Mayors against gun violence or whatever that thing was. I guess you could include the PAC money – but it gets complicated, some of these charities overlap, some of them have made substantial collections and turned the funds over to a larger related charity. The Fairfield county community foundation administers the Grace McDonnell and Mary Sherlach funds. Then you have these crazy opportunistic businesses selling bulletproof backpacks! It seems endless. It’s not though.

        1. You’re welcome Amanda-I am going to go over my #’s again to be sure. I think I made a mistake with the amounts of the govt grants…
          Dept justice: 2.5 mil
          Dept Ed: 1.9 mil and 1.3 mil
          State of CT 50 mil (demolish & rebuild school)=
          I originally had the govt grants at 71.5 mil.

          It is incredible that the State of CT would shell out for a new school when they were trying to decide which one would close the previous year.

    1. Larry why do you think he dodged the question about the other 100k fundraiser yesterday? Wouldn’t you like to first see full disclosure on this issue before fully supporting him financially? I agree I don’t think he is controlled opposition. But is it possible he had bad motives on the last fundraiser and has mixed motives on this one? I’m just theorizing.

      1. Who are you? All of a sudden theres all these people commenting negatively on halbig that ive never seen on here before. Seem kinda weird to me.

        1. I’ve been commenting on Dr. Tracy’s post since he started covering Sandy Hook. I live in a North Dallas suburb & work in sales.

          My grandfather (Pepe Sainz) was a leading Spanish politician in the Spanish Civil war and was approached by a high ranking state official in the US government around 1950 to help the US try and start dissension with the Pemex oil company to which he replied, ‘no I won’t help the US government take over the Pemex oil company, go find another rube’.

          Let’s just say I have a natural inclination for these types of events. if you have any questions.

    2. Larry, you made some really good points in your video. I totally agree with much of what you said. I think for me it never was that ol’ wolf is cointell it was that he was shoved down my throat and when I took a step back there was this instant s*&tstorm from tons of commenters directed towards those of us that failed to jump. The whole spectacle of the alt. press seems to reek of an operation. you need haters and promoters to create this kind of spectacle. Why all this hubub? If he wants to go to a school board meeting in newtown, great grab a f*^kin camera, buy a ticket and go – there is no need for all of this or all the fundraising. The video from that meeting may contribute to the cause. As for the legal angle, I’m sorry for being a pessimist but this seems like the whackiest thing in the world to me. If the Annenberg foundation can release a forged birth certificate for obama and no one in the country can get standing with any court then why in the world would anyone think the courts will see any case related to this? If he’s gonna go then go and lets see what happens. Piss or get off the pot. When the guy talks he seems genuine enough but this seems to be more about division than about a trip to newtown.

      You are damn right that the monikers posting about the towers and planes are trolls, is it to get us all fighting or is it because there are many new people to the freedom movement here and they want to keep them walking in circles? Both, I suspect, and I try not to bite but I also feel like I ought to pipe in when friggin judy space nukes reynolds gets plastered all over the place. A lot of people fall for that crap. I guess I never really have expected any sort of closure with this sandy hook stuff, I just view it as a new gateway to the freedom movement so I occasionally try to influence inquiring minds in a direction they may not stumble for a long time. Plus I like to fight trolls. I need to stop that though because it is counter productive and is easy to misidentify.

  13. I have generally supported Mr. Halbig’s efforts but some of the information found on this site is quite concerning. If a :handler” is indeed involved one would think ham-handed posts such as Mr. Halbig’s recent one would be reigned in. Grammar aside, what in blue blazes would a “CT civil rights” attorney necessarily know about FOIA requests or investigation of charitable organizations? I applaud an effort to act, but one must act intelligently. People need to know what attorneys are being engaged for what purpose before they donate money to an expensive fool’s errand.

  14. If Mr. Halbig could continue to do national interviews, it would still get the word out get more of the nation to wake up. Whether or not legal action is taken, more minds are aware of the cover up. We still need Halbig to make the trip there and to ask questions of the locals, the newspaper, the police department, etc. This will be a start to stir up enough of a hornet’s for others to come forward.

  15. Let’s maybe start at the end of the story.

    Let’s say all kinds of officials and citizens are implicated in some nefarious activities such as pretending people are dead when they’re not. Isn’t that just a public mischief charge? – and there would be so many co-accused – so spreading the allegations out amongst many with stories of “I thought it was a movie set”, etcetera – you can imagine the stories put forward by the best lawyers in the country. And I suggest that the group behind the hoax has the funds for the best.

    So I’m sure you can see the minimal outcome there.

    Other outcome – public awareness. Are we kidding ourselves in that respect, as well, because I think we know the media is highly controlled – and with implications leading all the way to the White House, do we really think it’s going to make the evening news?

    Open for comments, but that’s what I’m thinking.

  16. Halbig should have no trouble finding a plaintiff with direct interest. Win or loose in court, the suit is a huge win for bringing this thing out of the shadows, and he needs all the support (Fetzer/Tracy/Smallstorm) he can get.

    Yes, the first press will be negative, up until they discover just how much people care about the truth of this staged obscenity, and how many people don’t believe the official story.

    All he needs to do is get on the air – and people will “get it.”

    Time for a road trip!

    1. @Sandy- I completely agree!! Wolfgang needs all the support he can get. And though the controlled press will of course be negative, the alternative media is most certainly behind him. And I do believe the power of the alternative media and internet radio is growing by the day. From what I’ve heard CNN and MSNBC have lost 50% of their audience from last year (don’t ask me for a link, I’ll never find it, but I definitely heard/read it somewhere). I greatly appreciate all the time and energy Wolfgang has put into going on alternative radio to talk about Sandy Hook. And I think his message really resonates with people. His way of presenting his questions in a simple, straightforward manner is easy for people to wrap their heads around.

      1. If they lost 50% of their audience; where did they go? Are they actually seeking the truth, or did they just switch to another MSM propaganda outlet? Maybe they shut the TV off and canceled the cable like me. Now that statistic would get us somewhere eh? Nothing on there worth paying for any way eh? Especially news.

        1. I’ve been trying to think of where I heard that info-it might have been from Mike Rivero b/c he constantly talks about how people are moving away from MSM to the alternative media. He seems quite optimistic about the direction things are going for the independent news and radio shows –I think this might be b/c his numbers are growing. Even if people never find the alternative media, if they just cancel their cable and stop listening to the constant propaganda, we would be better off.

  17. The American Citizens have been harmed with a rough shod government that ignores laws that the congress has passed, rules by fiat of executive orders and illegal laws passed in secrecy in the dark of night.

    While Colorado was successful in recalling their senators who passed illegal gun laws, other states such as CT & NY have made felons out of law abiding citizens. Our 2nd Amendment rights are being negated.

    The Attorney General has on many occasions expressed his desire to remove the citizens’ guns.

    He, along with the ATF and FBI have also stone walled congresses’ investigations into many scandals, including Fast & Furious and Operation Fearless Distributing which were clearly designed to make it appear there was a gun running problem in the US. The government was distributing these high power weapons to criminals, and indeed lost track of thousands of them.

    Eric Holder was in CT two weeks before Sandy Hook promoting Project Longevity and arranged for millions to be sent there after the event.

    The Sandy Hook Commission appointed by the Governor, complains all the secrecy has hampered their investigation.,0,3491606.column

    If our government is bold enough to give high powered weapons to known criminals, they are bold enough to stage a fake shooting event at an abandoned school to push gun control on us.

    The information Wolfgang Halbig seeks should be made available and in no way would harm the victims and their families, unless of course it is another scam to criminalize all gun owners.

    1. This appears to be the most compelling evidence of all. After a long court battle, the judge issued a court order that the 911 calls should be released. After much fan fare, and public displays of huge piles of cd’s for the media, and headlines that declared the gruesome phone calls were released, it was all a big lie.

      There were 5 phone calls, maybe 7 if you consider the all important janitor was probably disconnected and had to call back.

      The team of 2, received national recognition and awards for their stellar job of answering over 150 calls per hour.

      Is disobeying a judge’s order a crime?

    2. Good idea to consider the possibilities for legal action. Does Halbig’s current work or service as an educator and consultant requiring up-to-date, prevailing knowledge of school safety have any bearing?
      If not, there’s a good chance Halbig will find a suitable plaintiff in Connecticut to work with. The Libertarian party comes to mind.

  18. “Parties close to”

    “Shortly after this flurry of attention certain parties contacted me and essentially proposed that they become my handlers…”

    Why don’t you name these parties professor? Why don’t you debate me regarding the Boston bombing hoax too? I look forward to disproving your position with evidence.

    1. AJ – You have a remarkable resemblance to Carlos the Cowboy hero who pinched off Jeff Bauman;s arteries with his fingers and managed not to get any blood on himself. Would you kindly quit harassing the professor? There is no debate to be had on the fake blood hoax, many of us, unfortunately, know the true color of blood once it hits the air.

      Clearly, the professor should not name the parties publicly for legal reasons. If you read the comments, it appears they outed themselves.

      Move along now….

        1. Nothing coming out right away. In a year, look out for “Tales of the Inconceivable” – a series I’m writing with to shoot this year (up to 23 episodes?).

        1. Thanks for posting that link to the bombing victim. I had to shake my head when I saw that. There is no way that is the same guy.

          I couldn’t stop myself yesterday from going back and comparing pictures of the guy in the media against the amputee in the bombing event and the purported actor.

          Does anyone look at the dark and straight-hair guy in the press (this update on his progress) and believe it is the same guy on the ground in the photos with the kinky hair that is lighter and parted on the other side? I have a son with hair that isn’t nearly of that texture and a part if pretty hard to make, much less change. The facial structure is off. There is just no way…I know, I know, you all know this – but I just had to write this.

    2. Hey AJ, you obviously need to have your eyes held wide open (like Alex in Clockwork Orange) to watch this MUST SEE documentary by Betsy McGee. Hope you have a sense of humor, although it’s a deadly serious topic. How anyone can refute her evidence is beyond me.

      Carlos Arredondo – Boston Hero or NWO FRAUD?

      1. @Mangrove: I love that video. It’s so masterfully done and keeps up the quality & momentum for an entire hour – not an easy thing to do!

        1. Tammie and bewisetoday — glad you liked it. Hat tip to Red Pill Revolution on youtube where I discovered the link in the description to the Carlos video by Betsy McGee. She should do a Sandy Hoax video, because she really knows how to get the message across in both an entertaining and informative way. And she knows how to dig into in-depth research. Very impressive. As I said before, I don’t know how anyone could watch this and not be convinced. She even ties together the immigration angle — why Carlos was chosen. Masterful.

          Here’s the Red Pill Revolution video which is also quite good:

    3. “Why don’t you debate me regarding the Boston bombing hoax too?”

      Why would he do that? Do you know what position he holds on that topic? I don’t. How would you prepare to debate him? How can you “look forward to disproving your position with evidence” when he has not disclosed what his position is?

      Please provide me with evidence that indicates how you know what Dr. Tracy believes happened that day.

  19. Whether Wolfgang is legit or not (or even real or not…can we PLEASE get some webcam or video chat of this man speaking in person with video? It is ridiculous this has not happened yet. No photo taken of the man since his rise to Truther Stardom either), he is NOT the man to be leading this crusade.

    Wolfgang loses his temper mightily and gets off track easily.

    Wolfgang has displayed awful judgement in multiple instances so far (his handlers, the fake donation facebook page, the insanely bad spelling errors and grammar mistakes, just to name some.)

    Wolfgang is not a good interview. He dodges direct questions, and answers questions not posed to him.

    Arguably Wolfgang’s biggest strength vis-a-vis his Curriculum Vitae is (was) his role in the Children’s Safety Institute. Now that he has been “fired” from the C.S.I. (his own words, not mine), and the C.S.I. no longer even exists, then what good is Wolfgang, compared to any other random person?

    Wolfgang has, through multiple interviews now, shown he is not the brightest and sharpest mind. Slow, plodding responses and an avoidance/hesitancy to bring up more salient points regarding the Sandy Hook event, combined with the points listed above easily show us that Wolfgang should NOT be spear-heading any charge.

    And, please do not reply with a “Well, you think you would be better for the job?”

    Whether I would or not, matters not. Wolfgang is going to do more damage than good if he faces any national or mainstream media figure.

    Do you really think Wolfgang could hold his own in a segment with Anderson Cooper or even Al Sharpton? He would get embarrassed and ultimately would give fodder for the controlled national media to say, “See? THIS man is the LEADER of the ‘Conspiracy Crowd.'”

    Wolfgang, you seem keen on installing yourself as Pope of the Truth Movement. You seriously are trying to knock Professor Tracy as doing less than you for Sandy Hook truth? It is nonsensical comments like that which show your lust for power and recognition, and a dismissal of all the work which was done for 14 months before you arrived on the scene.

    Why not use your name and the C.S.I.’s name to try and prevent the school from being demolished?
    Why not stop collecting donations, and dip into your own pocket if you want to go on a 2 or 3 day trip to CT?

    You know how much a flight to Bradley Airport in Hartford, a car rental, and a hotel for two nights should cost, even figuring in meals and gas and incidentals?

    A thousand bucks. $1500 at the most.

    If you truly care about The Truth (capital letters), please sit back and realize you are acting like a Wolfbull in a China shop.

    1. Peace, I agree. This is not a job for a “narcissist”, it is a job for someone who doesn’t have any self-interest. We could all help someone who has a viable plan and a good public image. That’s why “Peter” has “Errol”.

      This is too much “Alex with the bullhorn” and not enough “Inspector Perot”. I’d like to shout at them too, but would it get us anywhere? I also didn’t like the evasiveness with Fetzer. I guess I wish him well but I’m not a convert.

      1. When Alex said on the show while he interviewed Wolfgang that maybe he should go to Sandy Hook with him, and I thought to myself, oh no, we don’t need that muddying the water shenanigans stuff messing it up for the rest of us, or the quietly on the front lines ‘Inspector Perot’ you refer to,

    2. Seems the Big Wolf has a lot of experience creating corporations and soliciting donations from unsuspecting dupes – and when those efforts fail, he simply abandons the projects. Perhaps the Wolf feels he’ll finally hit the jackpot with the Sandy Hook Hoax – as he presents himself as being on the side of truth.

      1. What you said here resonates, and the attention too, not just the money, hence the run for political office in 2010. Maybe a portion of the motives is passion for the truth with the larger over reaching motives being money, power, and ego. Just speculating.

    3. Judgement and spelling areas are not the same. Don’t put them in the same sentence. What is the name of the fake Facebook donation page? The story about his handlers remains to be seen.

      “just to name some” — can you give us better ones, because your points are quite weak.

      The jury is still out with Halbig, but you have already convicted him in your own mind. You have no idea from your computer wherever you are.

      You are pathetic.

      1. Bill the jury may still be out, but with him dodging the question about the details and fruition of what happened with the other 100k fund aren’t we really delaying the inevitable in not coming to certain conclusions? He has sought to raise the exact same amount previously and won’t talk about it, I am hitting the floor in plumb astonishment as I see so many not demand more answers to this issue.

        1. Do you know if he actually raised the funds for the other endeavor? I think it was a program to stop child abuse or something.

          Look, I want answers too. I know the truth movement is stacked full of frauds, shills, trolls and dis-info agents. I just think we need to be very careful in attacking Halbig before we have all the facts.

        2. Bill, nothing was ever raised for that other endeavor, it was just a post to try see if there was any interest.

        3. Are you saying that because Halbig did not answer the question then it is conclusive proof that nothing came of his past fundraiser?

        4. zem, I wouldn’t call it a fundraiser. He inquired on some article about seeing if there was interest.

      2. Sandy Hook Justice Fund. It is still on Facebook with 25 likes and reporting around 3500 in received funds though that figure may just be a front to solicit more donations. The story of the page is not over yet.

        1. Kyle, that fraud page now seems to have been deleted. It is gone, but yes, I think it was around $3,500 someone made.

  20. In my opinion before anyone starts to collect donations for a cause they should have a clear cut and precise plan. Just to say ” I am going to hire an attorney and have people start raising their right hand to give testimony ” is not enough. I can go around saying that.

    Wolf should have known BEFORE he starting collecting funds what their legal plan of attack was. What avenues they were going to take, who were they going to sue? and for what reason and on what grounds?. Attorney consultations prior to collecting donations should have explored strategies and weaknesses of the potential defendants. An attorney should have told Halbig something to the effect of ” ” Wolf I think we can sue them for this or for negligence or denial of civil rights etc etc” and the attorney should have an estimate on what it is going to take in terms of hours, monies needed, hurdles etc. etc..
    I see everything being done willy nilly by Wolf…..his plan is vague, has an attorney been retained.? Who is he? What are his qualifications to try these cases? What does he believe is a possible avenue for success and chances of this matter?? Do people who are contributing have a right to know if the chances are good that they may prevail? Otherwise maybe money( your hard earned money not mine} would be better spent in some other way to help the cause.

    What would be a definition of victory anyway? Wouldnt a definition of victory be an awakening of the masses, an awakening of the American people that our very own govt is purpetrating these types of hoaxes on the American people to take away our rights?? What as truthers do we really want to see happen from our efforts? Maybe as truthers collectively we need to define our goals in this cause….because collectively is where we have all the power…we dont need to follow any one man or two…….

    An excellent example of this is the 9/11 families that came together to press for an independent investigation into 9/11…..They worked intelligently, cleverly and collectively to find a platform to get their message across and succeeded in their quest for a new investigation into 9/11

    1. Amen to that!!! It boggles my mind that people actually contribute without know “the plan”. But, I guess they do.

  21. “Other outcome – public awareness. Are we kidding ourselves in that respect, as well, because I think we know the media is highly controlled – and with implications leading all the way to the White House, do we really think it’s going to make the evening news?”

    ..exactly ..and if people want to support this man who I think is reckless and strangely impulsive at this point,that is their decision.

    I also am of the belief at this point in time to feel it is not safe for people to involve themselves too much with this man.

    Questions I have not asked..because they are just questions floating through my mind and may have no bearing on Mr Halbig..One thing that comes to mind that is little explored is how does he stand on the right to bear arms and registration etc.Where does he stand on children being tested for mental disease in schools and prescribed medications?

    1. Rosanne, wise words. This is not supposed to be an election and, as far as I know, he is not running for office.

      On the other hand, if he is well-meaning and is simply stumbling a bit trying to do something positive, I don’t want to discredit him. I must say, however, that if one decides to take on the state of Connecticut and the U.S. Dept. of Justice, it would be wise to have a plan.

      “Exuberance” is not a substitute for acumen. I admit to not knowing much about Mr. Halbig other than his advertised credentials. Being suspicious by nature of people who rely too much on bonafides I may not be as “impressed” as someone else.

      This doesn’t seem like a job for a State Trooper or a “school safety expert”. This seems like a job for a professional investigator and/or an attorney. Flailing about wildly, no matter how loudly, will not win the day here.

  22. First, I am not, and have no connection, to the “Larry” that posted the video comment above.

    I analyze Sandy Hook from a law enforcement officer’s (LEO) perspective, as I am a former LEO, as Wolfgang is.

    At present, I have NO ties with any principal party, or any ‘group’, in all of the Sandy Hook arena of discovering truth, other than simply being on their members list on FB.

    Personally, I supported Wolf beginning approx ~3 weeks ago, when I first noticed his presence on FB & media. I based my support on a good ‘gut-feeling’ and satisfaction with his prior experiences, all being very related and relevant to schools, school/child safety, and the Sandy Hook ‘incident’. I have never questioned (and still don’t) Wolf’s honesty, integrity, or intentions. But I do worry, (unsure if I’m justified or not), if Wolf’s direction and actions would be the same as mine, as to what I’d see as ‘the correct way’, or if I’d consider his path detrimental to the case.

    I am, however, very concerned that he may be moving far too fast with the monetary collection actions, as I had really hoped to first learn far more ‘proof’ about Wolf’s competence as far as investigative, organizational, and specific course(s) of action, PRIOR to him creating a huge nestegg/fund. I felt the competence aspect was not fully proven yet, as I have seen many mistakes in his information and analysis that do make me question it.

    I hear talk about the very basic 16 questions and legal/FOIA aspect of his plan, but I know nothing of his abilities and skills to competently and skillfully handle the investigative aspects of this complex case. I had really hoped for more interaction and communication of the ‘substance’ of his investigation, evidence, and direction. The biggest thing that bothers me about the fund, is that it seems to be solely used at one sole man’s discretion, justly or wrongly, with no oversight or ability for us to consider each large expenditure truly spent in the right direction. I feel that before anything is spent, it should have to meet basic levels of justified (similar to valid probable cause, as is needed for warrants).

    Highly detailed case knowledge, investigative accuracy, and correct direction is vital, and cannot ever be compromised or underestimated in importance. No one man is a perfect investigator or ‘decider’ where funds should be used. I believe the investigative and follow-up actions require a ‘team’ of highly skilled and proven LE experienced experts. I am NOT suggesting myself, in any means, as tho I consider my work meticulously accurate, I will be the first to tell you “I’m NO expert”. But I DO know the vital importance and value of proven competent investigators.

    1. I share most of your concerns. There are hundreds (if not thousands), of possible leads to follow up on based on the published account of this tale. Virtually NONE of them proven. As some (including me) have said, that seems to be precisely the aim. Getting people to accept a wild, implausible tale with no proof.

      There are people with very good skills and experience in drilling down into details and verifying their truth. This is difficult in this case as most of the public records have been sealed. There are still many other ways to verify the accounts that have been presented.

      My thinking is that, if a person or group prepared a report based on their findings regarding all of these alleged characters and events, it would be fairly hard to ignore. This could be a daunting task. There are certainly other examples of people trying to get to the bottom of events such as this running into “difficulties”.

      My sense is that it would be a rewarding effort. Those of us who have tried to find useful information have done fairly well. It is the type of information that may not lend itself to the internet that is missing. Just as the internet is wonderful as a tool for research, it is also useful as a way to hide information and track those who are searching for it.

      What is needed is some good, old-fashioned “boots on the ground” detective work. Nobody lives without creating a history, even the characters of Sandy Hook. If they turn out to have no history that would be a discovery in itself.

  23. Kathy I agree..Happy to see you bring up Holder,

    I think what we may have to remember is that this Sandy Hook Hoax,Scam,Psychological thriller etc..goes all the way to the top..and that is what I keep in mind when we press ahead to decide how we feel about our support for one man who has garnered our attention.Many of you on this thread have made some really good suggestions and I am hearing more people say slow down instead of speed up,rightly so ..only because they too are seeing the direction it may lead,less freedoms,video’s and bogs being taken down,more laws passed to keep us away from any evidence if it backfires.

  24. In 2013, the CT state legislature—specifically in response to Sandy Hook–amended its FOIA law to exempt from disclosure precisely the types of records that are sought by Halbig. Straight from the horse’s mouth:

    “Public Act 13-311… amends the state Freedom of Information Act to exempt from disclosure a photograph, film, video, digital, or other visual image depicting a homicide victim, to the extent that the record could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the victim or surviving family members’ personal privacy.”

    Moreover, “[T]he law also exempts from disclosure under FOIA, (1) law enforcement records, compiled in detecting or investigating a crime, that would disclose the identity of minor witnesses and (2) the portion of a recording or audio tape that describes a homicide victim’s condition. The audio recording exemption (1) does not extend to 9-1-1 or other calls for assistance made by a
    member of the public to a law enforcement agency and (2) expires on May 7, 2014.”

    As for the topic of the post (standing), generally speaking, members of the public have standing in an FOIA case even when proceeding under the laws of a state that’s not their state of residence.

    Yves Smith, a financial blogger from New York, has a pending FOIA case in California seeking to obtain records about the state’s retirement plan system (CALPERS). The state has stonewalled Yves to no end.

    See, e.g.:

    What’s particularly egregious about CA’s conduct is that Yves tailored her FOIA request to seek records THAT CALPERS ALREADY DISCLOSED TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (from the UK, no less). Under CA state law, any FOIA protection of previously-disclosed information goes out the window the minute it’s disclosed the first time. And yet CA has dug in its heels for six months.

    In other words, CA is refusing to disclose information that is, without a shadow of any legal doubt, covered by its FOIA law. In CT, by stark contrast, much of the sought-after information is expressly exempt from disclosure. The odds are next to zero that a CT FOIA suit bears fruit.

    A federal FOIA case might be a different story; there is no Sandy Hook exemption, for starters. But based on Halbig’s post above, that’s apparently not in the cards.

      1. Wasn’t Adam Lanza “actually” killed by police, according to the official report released a few months ago? I know that contradicts the previous “official story” but, so far I haven’t seen an official explanation of the discrepancy. So many “official this and that” so little time. Anyway, just had to interject that little nugget. Carry on.

        1. “Wasn’t Adam Lanza ‘actually’ killed by police, according to the official report released a few months ago?”


          From Part I, Book 8, #71, p. 4:

          “Male walked into an elementary school and shot kids & faculty member. Male was fatally wounded by police on scene.”

        2. Oh yeah, Kate Slate to the rescue! I do remember her coverage of this. One of my favorite youtube researchers on Sandy Hoax. Ta!

    1. If the feds were “disinterested” parties that could be a viable avenue. In this case it is abundantly clear that they are active participants and, therefore, will resist any effort at disclosure.

      I encounter this type of stonewalling continually. I can’t say I’ll ever get used to it (it’s my upbringing), but it is more common than not. There is a huge difference between law in theory and law in practice.

      If those in positions that are obliged to follow the law refuse to do so, and those in positions to compel compliance don’t, there isn’t much one can do. It’s comforting to know “the law is on our side”. In practice that doesn’t happen in certain circumstances.

      1. “If those in positions that are obliged to follow the law refuse to do so, and those in positions to compel compliance don’t, there isn’t much one can do.”

        Not so. In fact, one reason to bring a federal case to begin with is that the federal appeals court overseeing Connecticut (the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals) has previously ruled against officials who refused to answer FOIA requests.

        In particular, the Federal Reserve itself refused to answer FOIA requests pertaining to its backdoor bank bailouts submitted by Bloomberg reporter Mark Pittman. Pittman filed suit in the Southern District of New York and won. Chief Judge Loretta Preska ordered the Fed to hand over the documents sought by Pittman. The 2nd Circuit affirmed her decision on appeal.

        The case demonstrated that some members of the federal judiciary are willing to overrule the most powerful cartel in the U.S. and order it to comply with the law. Given what we’ve seen from Connecticut officials to date, I seriously doubt that a state court case would produce a like result–particularly when they can hide behind a new statute specifically designed to conceal what happened at Sandy Hook.

        1. Good luck with that. I don’t have any argument with that “in theory”. In “practice” however, who ya’ gonna call? Did I mention that Holder is a frequent visitor to Connecticut? Is anyone aware of any other “issues” regarding the Just-Us Dept. refusing to prosecute?

          My comments are based on observed reality, not theory. In theory we are all “free” and the police and courts simply do their jobs and are free from influence. Do you believe that?

          Judges and prosecutors don’t get their positions by being non-conformist. They look “left” and “right” and check their bank balances before making any decisions.

          I’m not pleased by this fact. But, as a reasonable person I should be aware of it. If one is going to spend time, money and effort to achieve a goal it is best spent in a manner more likely to achieve success.

          Sadly, I think the SHES event will end up like the “JFK event” and the “9-11 event”, et al, and no matter what the level of outrage becomes it will be ignored (at least officially). If one is in a position to bring legal action and doesn’t, what are we to do about it?

          There is still room to shine light on this. That may have the benefit of making it more difficult to propagandize and manipulate. That would be a good thing. It also may open the door for some to be more critical of what they are told. It may also have the benefit of showing these mutts for what they are capable of. All of that is worthwhile and possible.

          Expecting a system that refuses to take action on a long list of blatantly illegal acts that the country is clearly aware of to respond to SHES is naive. The whole point of this is to show us how brazen they can be and get away with it.

        2. “Is anyone aware of any other ‘issues’ regarding the Just-Us Dept. refusing to prosecute?”

          Of course. Any fraud perpetrated by a TBTF bank will serve as an example. The Goldman Sachs Abacus/Timberwolf case was a glaring failure in that regard. HSBC’s admittedly criminal money-laundering enterprise is also an outstanding example.

          While you are correct that Eric Holder is a corrupt and wholesale failure as Attorney General, the DOJ is an executive branch (Article 2) institution. Article 3 courts are another matter, as I showed.

          “My comments are based on observed reality, not theory. In theory we are all ‘free’ and the police and courts simply do their jobs and are free from influence. Do you believe that?”

          Reality? I cited a case were a federal FOIA case achieved its goal against the most entrenched and corrupt power (the Federal Reserve) in the nation. It’s not unique. Here’s some additional reality, a more recent case concerning the FBI’s refusal to answer FOIA requests about its involvement in a plot to assassinate protesters:

 (“On March 12, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer issued her order in the case, along with an accompanying memo, saying that the FBI needed to explain why the agency cited ‘law enforcement exemption’ as its reason for denying Shapiro access to the other 12 pages.”)

          These two real-world lawsuits undercut your breezy defeatism, which you don’t back up with any contravening cases.

          “Judges and prosecutors don’t get their positions by being non-conformist.”

          Oh? Tell that to Bank of America and Citigroup, who’ve borne the brunt of Judge Jed Rakoff’s withering pen repeatedly. Hell, Rakoff was so incensed by the complicity between the S.E.C. and Citigroup that they JOINED HANDS in a mandamus action before the Second Circuit, where Rakoff took on the co-conspirators AS A PARTY represented by publicly appointed counsel.

          There are nearly 1000 members of the federal judiciary. For someone who complains about theory, your own theory that all of them are corrupt is just ridiculous–and flatly refuted by the facts.

        3. Well my friend, you can call it “breezy defeatism” if you like. I deal with federal authorities on a daily basis. The decisions you cite would be notable “by exception”. Trust me, I’d love to be a true believer. My experience informs me that it just isn’t so.

          I wasn’t trying to burst anybody’s bubble. If they want to believe that all that’s needed is the right combination of evidence and outrage to assist one of these noble champions of justice to leap to their aid, fine. I’ll watch. I’ll eat my hat when it happens (gladly).

  25. Kyle Sainz said:
    we want a detailed answer about the other 100k fund Halbig was involved in and I think it is odd that more are not demanding an answer when he clearly dodged the question yesterday

    Thomas Lapp said:
    The problem is we keep answering it, but i happens through random posts and I don’t think people see them all the time. When we set up the GoFundMe, it was me and Dave on a GotoMeeting. He literally picked 100,000 out of thin air, it was basically a guess. He chose it and said “I’m pretty sure this thing is going to cost over a million dollars in legal fees, but let’s just put 100,000 as a start”. The fact that he was involved in any fundraising before really had nothing to do with this now. I think people are taking something that is not suspicious, and making it seem as if it should be suspicious. He has had a career in education, and a heart for children’s safety. It would be completely normal to know that he had been involved with other fundraising ventures. That particular one was about getting a program started to help children have access to a better means of reporting incidents involving bullying. I literally remember years ago hearing one of the ideas, which was to have a mobile app that kids could use to snap photos or video of incidents and have them sent to a school administrator as proof.

    Kyle Sainz said:
    but he never explained how much he raised or what came of it and it seemed like he didnt want to talk about it yesterday with Tony

    Follow up from myself to readers of this blog:

    I am alarmed that this is somehow not an issue that he had this other venture and still no detailed answer of what came of it and if any money was raised and if so how much. I want a detailed answer and I think we need to keep pressing for it.

    1. This is a wee bit strange. Kyle and Thomas are having a conversation with their selves and find the need to post it here?

      1. people want to know about the handler, well this is the words of the one that remains.. the other one, David Weiss, said he was stepping down last night due to the drama, more or less.

      2. This has all the hallmarks of a psyop. Sorry, I can’t help but notice. Think about it. Would “your” lawyer post attorney-client privileged information about you? If he did, would he still be your lawyer?

        Could this be a “subtle” way to discredit Halbig? What “legal costs” are we talking about? As James’ article (correctly) states, one needs “standing” to sue. Any attorney worth his salt would have told him that.

        So, if a suit isn’t the plan, what other legal costs are we talking about?

        I would be interested to know if he has a habit of setting up funds. As we’ve seen in SHES its’ a “growth” industry. Apparently people send money with no idea of how it is to be used.

        Now, if he said “I’m setting up a fund to hire investigators…..and I estimate that to cost $1M…..”, at least we’d know what the money was for.

        Anyway, I’m getting more suspicious of this by the day. I hate to think that’s because of the tactics being used. It doesn’t make sense to discredit your own client.

        1. “People send money with no idea of how it is being used”

          Yes, this happens a lot. They call it income tax.

        2. I am puzzled, and more than a little miffed, because I made these exact points in comments a couple of weeks ago: that Halbig did not have standing to sue for damages, because he had suffered no personal injury; and that the only kind of suit he would be able to bring would be under the CT Open Records Act.

          Curiously, I cannot find my comment now. I’m also not finding other comments I made and that I know were posted.

          “Memory Hole,” indeed!

        3. Sorry dino, I didn’t see them. This is as basic as it gets. “Annoyance” is not compensable.

Comments are closed.