Another Perspective on Wolfgang Halbig’s Legal Gambit

By [Anonymous]*

As indicated in Dr. Tracy’s earlier post, Mr. Halbig will have a “standing” issue, that will result in the dismissal of any broad-ranging lawsuit he might wish to file, there are much bigger barriers in the way of any lawsuit that would lead to his attorneys getting to ask his questions to authorities under oath (which would typically happen in a deposition). 

I make these observations as a municipal government attorney who specializes in open government issues.  As part of my practice I have litigated numerous cases involving municipal liability and I have addressed issues involving whether plaintiffs have standing to make constitutional claims in cases that were decided by my state’s Supreme Court and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

First, Mr. Halbig will not be able to take depositions by filing some general claim based on how the authorities responded to the Sandy Hook incident, even if it involves constitutional claims.  This is because Connecticut follows the “public duty doctrine,” which will effectively bar anyone from having standing to bring a claim that would allow for those depositions.  Any lawyer practicing in municipal law would know this.

To have standing, a person filing the lawsuit (the plaintiff) must be able to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff some “duty” and that the defendant has failed to fulfill that duty.  Absent a duty, there is no “harm” that can be remedied in the lawsuit.  In cases such as this, where any potential actions would be based on the failure of the authorities to take some action, a person filing a lawsuit would have to prove that the authorities had some duty to act.

Under the public duty doctrine, however, when the only “duty” an agency owes is the general duty to perform its statutory obligations, which is owned to the general public, the law presumes that the agencies do not owe that duty to anyone.  A duty owed to everyone is a duty owed to no one.  Thus, if the agency fails to fulfill that duty, no one has standing to sue.

The duties typically carried out by first responders such as police departments, fire departments and paramedics are the classic type of public duty that no one can sue government for failing to carry out.

Coley v. City of Hartford, 59 A.3d 811 (Conn. App. 2013) is a typical “public duty doctrine case” that illustrates the barrier this doctrine poses.  The claim was that the police violated a statute that required police to stay with a crime victim for a certain amount of time for the victim’s protection.  In this case, the police failed to comply with the statute and the victim was subsequently killed by the suspect during the period of time the police should have been with the victim.  When the victim’s his estate sued, the case was dismissed because this type of law enforcement response was part of the police’s public duty.

There are exceptions to the public duty doctrine, but they are all rooted in theories where the agencies have made things worse for a particular person or group of people than they would have been had the authorities not acted at all.  Thus, most cases in the news where agencies are being sued and pay out money relate to affirmative harms agencies caused.

If the Sandy Hook response was incompetent and thus failed to save lives, a lawsuit would be barred by the public duty doctrine.  If Sandy Hook was a hoax and no one was hurt, then again there was not actionable harm.  Only if there was evidence that the officers or paramedics affirmatively inflicted the harm, or that “but for” their promise to the victims to help, the victim or someone else would have prevented the harm would someone have standing.

Thus, even if Mr. Halbig and his attorneys were able to identify what look like gross violations and/or incompetent responses, the public duty doctrine would bar Halbig, or anyone (including the victim’s families) from bringing a lawsuit.  And even if there was evidence that the authorities made things worse, Mr. Halbig still would not have standing because his harm would not be different than any member of the general public.

Second, if Mr. Halbig files a lawsuit based on the failure to properly respond to his Freedom of Information requests, he might have standing but he will not force anyone of authority to be questioned under oath.  This is because Connecticut has a very detailed process for challenging FOI responses that greatly limits what discovery is possible, if any discovery is allowed at all.  Thus, if Halbig were to file such a lawsuit, the only persons he might be allowed to question under oath would be the employees directly responsible for responding to his requests and any questions will be limited to issues such as what searches were performed or what facts justify a particular exemption.

All claims based on alleged FOI violations must be brought before the FOI Commission.  Under its ruled, the hearing officer assigned to this administrative claim will have complete discretion over the scope of discovery.  Accordingly even an FOI lawsuit is unlikely to be that useful, and any discovery will be completely at the whim of the presiding officer.

See Connecticut FOIC Citizens Guild VI.4: “4.  If a NECESSARY witness will not testify voluntarily, contact the Commission staff immediately.  If you are able to show why the person’s testimony is necessary and why you believe he or she will not appear voluntarily, the Commission may issue a subpoena which would require the person to appear.”

See also FOIC Regulations Section 1-21j-36 (a)-(c), which grant discretion of subpoenas.

A hearing itself before the FOIC will not allow for any wide-ranging questions or force anyone of real authority to even attend.  These hearing according to the rules are limited to 90 minutes and will focus exclusively on the issue of why records weren’t produced.  Mr. Halbig can only issue subpoenas with the permission of the hearings officer.

Mr. Halbig can only get a cause into the court system by filing an administrative appeal, where there is not any additional discovery or live testimony.  See Sec. 1-206(d).

Mr. Halbig might actually be able to use the FOI process to get some addition documents released and/or unredacted.  The Director of the FOIC, Colleen Murphy, seems to be a true advocate of transparency and made a very principled stand when serving on the Sandy Hook Task Force, after someone tried to slip in the recommendation that someone leaking exempt records could be given a 5-year prison sentence.  But even under the best of circumstances, even Ms. Murphy could not authorize the wide-ranging discovery Mr. Halbig champions. 

Thus, at most Mr. Halbig might be able to employ Connecticut’s open government laws to see a few more documents and to make short speeches, but the law is stacked against anyone using the courts to conduct the type of investigation Mr. Halbig talks about. 

*The author is a recognized practicing attorney who because of ongoing professional endeavors wishes to remain anonymous.

785 thoughts on “Another Perspective on Wolfgang Halbig’s Legal Gambit”

  1. Terrific article and thank you to the professional who contributed this. It highlights the hearing process I’d previously mentioned – as I’d suspected Halbig / his attorneys had not taken that step.

  2. Thank you for the article. Those who wish to continue to support Halbig in donations and in spirit can continue to do so if they wish, but they should not be blinded by their idealism when this is the reality of the situation. Thanks for keeping it real, anonymous.

    1. And what is the reality of the situation? That there is nothing to be done? Because that’s the impression I’m left with after reading the article.

      Lol…”Thanks for keeping it real…ANONYMOUS”

      1. Glad I could give you a laugh. I admit that I laughed a little just typing that last line .:) I do have my suspicions as to who “anonymous” is.

        This article points out some of the obstacles that will be faced by trying to go through legal channels. I would think that having this information would allow for someone like Halbig and his supporters to tighten up their strategy instead of wasting time and resources going down a road that very well may lead to a brick wall. Is that the same as saying that nothing can be done? No, of course not. If Halbig and his supporters wish to go forward they are most certainly free to do so. I don’t see the plan as being very realistic but who cares what I think? I hope he proves me wrong. I don’t know why this information would be considered offensive to anyone. It is what it is.

        1. “Is that the same as saying nothing can be done?” Imo the “nothing can be done” is implied.

          As I’ve stated, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in a particular avenue of investigation or course of redress…but…here we have a self professed expert on the Ct legal process and this person has not taken one moment…one line of deep breath to tell us what we CAN do. 2 articles on this topic and not one piece of affirmative direction.

          If these people are experts surely they can provide us some direction as to what is possible. Without it I am left to assume that there is none.

  3. Why, you wonder did Halbig and his attorneys not know about this before his quest was put in motion !.. to me as a lay person its complicated, but I can see that if the powers of ‘be’ wanted to pull the wool over peoples eyes.. all this would have been thought through and they would have know from the beginning that no one could get answers through the legal system they have in place. Beth D you were on the right track.

  4. Thank you for describing the difficulties of pursuing FOI documents. Is there any possibility that asking for proof of an existing school could be pursued? If this was not a functioning school, then there was a massive fraud.

    Utility bills, food services, busing contracts, maintenance repairs, required reporting on asbestos, snow removal, garbage pickup, etc. And of course the all important question of which qualified company was used to dispose of the bio-hazard.

    Of course they could refuse, which to me would be proof of a fraud in itself. Many have noticed the school looked decrepit, the roof appears painted in white wash, professionals in the industry have noted the roof does not contain the equipment necessary to make it a functioning building.

    The video provided in the police report, reveal fire hazards, buckets filled with dripping water from the ceiling, boilers that are off, a playground that is a rusted pile of junk. In general, not a place any responsible parent would send their child to.

    1. I agree kathy ,what interested me were the photo’s taken inside the school of the kitchen area… for health and safety reasons this would not pass examination, the dirt alone on the tiles and open shelves are not allowed if cooking meals for children… there would be a prep area, not a lone Pizza on a work bench, and once again I state the ‘ men’ toilet sign would not be realistic in a school for children… If this supposed school was the cream of the crop in education, its laughable… I would like to hear from the kitchen workers.. who were they? and what was their input in all this.- were they interviewed? I may be repeating myself but keeping this topic going is vital to reveal the truth.

    2. From what I have seen in the videos and the overall condition of the building, parking lot, roof, etc. and the surrounding neighborhood, I have come to the conclusion that the SHES was closed prior to 1980. What intrigued me the most was the article concerning the “time capsule” that was buried in 1980. This is very odd to me, usually a time capsule is buried near the cornerstone of a structure at the grand opening (1956 in this case).

      I am searching for a hoarder of hard copy newspapers from the Danbury area from that era (1980) to look for the actual article of the school closing in black and white. I know that particular article is out there somewhere in hard copy.

      1. John Luv, your last line reminds us all how important it is to support our libraries…so text remains in unalterable (for the most part) form vs. digital/internet form.

    3. @Kathy- From the video/photo evidence I’ve gone through, it’s hard to believe that SHES could have been an operational school. There were numerous fire code violations, filth (dirty, moldy tiles), and damaged ceiling tiles. Plus, the school looked like it was being used for storage, with lots of rooms stacked with junk. As others have noted, the parking lot was not ADA compliant, and I even saw a comment from a plumber saying that the restrooms would not have passed inspection. (For those interested, I’ve posted some videos and comments on how SHES looks like a decommissioned school here: (It would be extremely helpful if we could get a fire inspector to look at the video/photo evidence and give his/her professional opinion as to whether SHES would have passed inspection.

    1. And what strategy would that be? Because that’s the part that’s missing from all this critiquing.

      1. How to get standing:

        1. donate to one of the infinite number of Sandy Hook media family “charities”.

        2. after the donation is accepted, request an accounting from the charirty as required by law.

        3. check that the specified purpose of the charity is being fulfilled. It won’t be in 99% of cases since they never thought anyone would check. For example the Emilie Parker art foundation has done everything BUT art so far.

        4. lawyer letter to charity requesting more info, docs, and accounts. CC the letter to the relevant state’s attorney general, SAIC FBI, chief of police, police serious fraud division, FBI cybercrime since all the charities are on the web in a big way. Also publicise the letter on your own blog, website, farcebook, twatter, etc.

        Net cost of activism: 50 buck donation to a fake charity to trigger events.

        If you pay a lawyer to do your letter, whatever the cost of that is. Otherwise get a lawyer to do it for free online or search legal precedents. It’s a better business bureau type letter. You paid a charity for a service- namely whatever charitable purpose they are masquerading under. They didn’t deliver.

        If even ten or let alone fifty armchair gasbags did the above, the entire situation would change in favour of research.

  5. Perhaps the author is unaware of the “Common Law Court” named in the Bill of Rights as a 4th branch of government in order to bring “out of control” government & other issues back in line. Lawyers are not even allowed. National Liberty Alliance ( First state to be fully re-constituted was NY only a mo. ago or so. Now there are 6 states as of last week.

  6. But, there is another angle of attack that has not been mentioned here. If, the millions of dollars collected through Donation Funds, has been spent fraudulently, there is grounds for a Civil Suit against the Fund by the donors.
    Since the money collected needs to be accounted for and is a matter of Public Record, this is something to be considered. What is the legal opinion on this ?

    1. I think you have to look at how the fund itself has been structured. The Boston One Fund, for example, managed in part by the guy who managed both the pedophiles in the Catholic Church funds and the 9/11 funds, has probably covered his “a” very cleverly so that his share is no danger of having to be recovered and so that he has no chance of sharing a jail cell with Bernie Madoff. How would he do it? He’d simply make sure that the doctrine of “cy pres” (“close enough”) is used in dispersing the fund monies. Imagine a scholarship formed to benefit the children of a particular town which ceases to exist because a reservoir is built over it (as happened in Massachusetts to several towns). The person who is trustee could apply the doctrine and disperse the monies to nearby town in the same county with similar problems (or could argue to a court that he should). But I think the Boston One Fund anticipated this from the start. They knew that millions of people would contribute tens of millions of dollars. What to do? Design the fund to be one which disperses all kinds of charity money, becomes a long term charity like the United Way. Then, if you give to it, you do so knowing (or you should know) that your money will go somewhere else when its original purpose has been served (prosthetics for amputees).

      They don’t plan this stuff (when money is involved) in a way which might lead to prosecution.

      On the other hand, can you make a civil case out of these things? I think they tend to be treated with “prosecutorial discretion” as criminal cases of fraud, not a private civil action or even a class action. But cite some cases if you think it would fly.

    2. IMO a better angle would be that the funds were solicited fraudulently, not that they were spent fraudulently. I’m very surprised that the article didn’t address this. If you perpetrate a hoax and a lie for the purpose of soliciting donations isn’t that outright financial fraud? And wouldn’t anyone donating to such a fund have legal standing to sue?

      1. But SW, how does one prove it is a lie? Your complaint then alleges that the event never happened and as plaintiff, you have the burden of proof. So, I think that takes us back to square 1.

        Your train of thought at the start, was good – because suing the charty(ies) for how funds may have been spent might be do-able and if you win (because they may be given monies away improperly), you are still left with little…but, maybe it gives you a nugget…that will lead to the next nugget…

        I dunno. It’s late and I’m rambling.

      2. There have been notable cases where a person has claimed to have medical needs – due to cancer for instance – and solicited co-workers and maybe the general public, then found to have taken the money on false premises. But in those cases, you look closely at the language used to solicit funds. Researching the original solicitations (some done on news stations in Boston for BMB “survivors”) I remember their saying right from the get-go that the Boston One Fund would also be used for other purposes (even though the trigger was this event).Those purposes could include funding hospitals which participated.

  7. I am really surprised to hear that a parent of one of the ‘slain’ children would not have legal standing to sue the first responders for not following medical/legal procedure when declaring that student dead. So the victim can be declared dead at the scene by a police officer with a nurse’s license and left in a heap on the floor, and there is no legal recourse for any parent? I thought only emergency room doctors could pronounce a person dead.

  8. Wolfgang should proceed with the case. Where there is a will, there is a way. Eventually a crack in the case will be found. Justice will eventually rule the day.

    1. I agree Rick, I don’t think there was ever a case for a legal lawsuit, but it he keeps going it will raise awareness of this subject. If I were him, I would still head up there to check out the town, and continue to do the on-air interviews. That is what started this wave of interest.

  9. Why is Dr. Tracy trying so hard to discredit Mr. Halbig? He has opened his blog to be the wild wild west of attacks on Mr. Halbig. Dr. Tracy is one of the people who helped bring Halbig to the public eye. Now his blog is filled with attacks on him.

    I see Halbig taking three angles – court, FOI and going in front of the school board. If his endeavors in court have no future, let him go. Stop trying to squash him. Any publicity about this event is good publicity. Sandy Hook will fade away like OKC and Waco, unless we keep fighting. Taking it to court may be a losing battle, but we need the public to wake up.

    All of you ‘truthers’ who sit on these message boards spewing your opinion about this and that need to get off your lazy butts and hit the streets – talk to your friends and family, bring it up in casual conversation, make your own flyers to hand out in the streets, etc. Posting on these message boards is only preaching to the choir. You are not doing any good. At least Halbig is doing something to bring more attention to the public eye.

    All of you naysayers are pathetic and I’m losing a lot of faith in Dr. Tracy taking this position.

    1. I truly don’t understand how one can see this as an attack on Halbig. If anything I would think that Halbig and his supporters would use this type of information to formulate a better strategy. I would think that they would be thankful for this information as it could save them time, money and effort. I’m surprised that this information is being construed as an “attack” on Halbig by some.

      1. The attacks have been on previous posts, and generally speaking in the truth community. Dr Tracy has not attacked Halbig, but he is allowing his blog to be a gathering place for it.

        1. “Dr Tracy has not attacked Halbig, but he is allowing his blog to be a gathering place for it.”-so you think a blog used for the expressed purpose of exploring avenues not offered in the mainstream should be censored?

        2. Did I ask for censorship? Dr. Tracy has been quiet as a mouse while the attacks keep rolling in. I think he should address this.

          I’m so glad Frederick chimed in so you can see the perfect example of the unwarranted attacks that occur on this blog.

          “..hack and fraud..”

        3. I hope you are also going after the candidate for CT Governor who called Halbig and Huckster and a liar.

          Interestingly, your hero was forced to admit he lied about having a phone conversations and her claims of support.

          What kind of person tells a whopper like that one on their FBook page and thinks it is okay? Just saying…

        4. Whatever phrases or “hurtful” words commenters here use are the results of human emotions and understandable frustration.While it is admirable(I guess)for you to want to come to his aid by asking Dr. Tracy to step in and “save” him the question remains-why? This comment section is the very definition of somewhere for people to express…wait for it…OPINIONS.

        5. Maybe many of us are not seeing how this hack and a fraud could possibly bring any positive attention to this hoax…..and no, not any attention is good attention.
          It seems to me in order to be a good ” truth seeker” that you have to be truthful yourself and about yourself. Plenty of evidence has been presented here that proves Halbig has not been truthful about his past…some evidence like listing dead people on your business website knowing they were already dead is not very truthful……..asking for 100k for another business venture is not very above board and tasteless…the list goes on and has been presented here.. Maybe many of you still backing this guy in light of the evidence that has been presented here about him and his past should be asking yourselves the question as to why you continue to back a guy that has been proven to be a fraud and still has not shown himself ??? Huh?

        6. I just have to chime in to point out that there is a difference between having suspicions about aspects of someone’s past, and that person having been “proven to be a fraud.”

        7. Right said Fred (sorry, had to say that). Or…as today – when Halbig was forced (I suspect via a written letter from the attorney-candidate for governor) to admit he LIED about talking to her and relaying a statement of support to him that NEVER happened. That is just creepy conduct.

          Notice the man’s fundraising has stalled out…could it be that people are starting to wonder about him?

        8. Dr. Tracy is reporting on facts that come to his attention and may be of interest to the readers of his blogs. He is acting as university professor would do to present facts as known and encourage the students to form their own opinions, not as a high school teacher that disperses the official version of “truth” as it was carved in stone and therefore has to be real. Dr. Tracy has analysed many of the discrepancies of the official Sandy Hook incident, and has presented views of alternate versions. Mr. Halbig is one of the people that has expressed opinions relating the incident, as have Carver, Newtown officials and CT politicians. Dr. Tracy is presenting all relevant facts as they become known, and it is up to you to evaluate their merits, not to just swallow whatever is being said.

        9. I agree, I like Dr. Tracy’s point of view and miss that. Not a fan of the guest commentators. His blog was excellent when it was truly his.

      2. Zem, just so. Obviously some have trouble with the truth, warts and all. No one here is “inventing” the legal position. It is what it is. This is not about Wolfgang Halbig.

        No one advertised this site as the Wolfgang Halbig official fan club. It seems he’s doing a fine job of that on his own. I fail to see an obligation to support him because we are exploring Sandy Hook.

        I’ve said about all I plan to say about this development. He is still free to go to Newtown, or anywhere else he so chooses, with or without the blessing of everyone here.

        What he has is no viable strategy. He has no “case”. No one is going to ride in on a white stallion and blow the lid off this thing. The authorities are NEVER going to admit guilt and no one is going to bring an indictment.

        We would all be wise to put such thoughts out of our minds and concentrate on more exposure. This is the reality we live in, we have to learn to deal with it.

        If anyone wants to go with him or send him their paycheck, by all means, do so.

    2. Bill,

      You said, “All of you naysayers are pathetic and I’m losing a lot of faith in Dr. Tracy taking this position.”

      I’d appreciate if you would clarify what the position is that you think Dr. Tracy is taking that you’ve lost faith in.


      1. Dr. Tracy has posted some interesting articles about Dr. Halbig. Dr. Tracy is very intelligent and well-chosen with his words. It is why he his appealing and why the cockroaches are afraid of him. He appeals to anyone who will take a minute to listen.

        On the other hand, his followers are taking the opportunity to seriously attack Mr. Halbig’s character. Frederick, the unaware troll, just used “hack and fraud” to describe Halbig.

        My problem is that Dr. Tracy is not taking a position. The jury is still out on Halbig, but many have already convicted this guy. I have asked Dr. Tracy to address the attacks but I’ve seen nothing.

        1. The articles in toto are not intended as an attack. Nor are they intended to provide the basis for such. The above legal opinion, for example, in addition to the previous articles and accompanying commentaries, harsh as some may be, can also be immensely useful to any curious researcher who chooses to set aside their ego and recognize their worth.

        2. So in your world Bill, pointing out that someone is being less than truthful is an attack? I guess Vance, Malloy, Llodra could make the same statements huh? I love how you are jumping on anyone who dares point a finger at your hero Halbig. Yes, Frederick called him a hack and fraud – what is untrue about those descriptions? And it’s funny while you point that Frederick calls Halbig a hack & fraud you call him an unaware troll. The irony is priceless!

          And who are you to tell anyone what to say or think as you did so not too long ago on this post:

          “All of you ‘truthers’ who sit on these message boards spewing your opinion about this and that need to get off your lazy butts and hit the streets – talk to your friends and family, bring it up in casual conversation, make your own flyers to hand out in the streets, etc. Posting on these message boards is only preaching to the choir. You are not doing any good. At least Halbig is doing something to bring more attention to the public eye.

          All of you naysayers are pathetic and I’m losing a lot of faith in Dr. Tracy taking this position.”

          Get off this board if you don’t like what you’re reading. People like you who tell ME what to think or do because I don’t think or believe the way you do is the first hint of a troll.

          Halbig started off ordering his researchers to stay focused on 16 questions – then he starts asking how to deal with a Comcast Email – or how a 501(c)3 works? Really? He starts posting random (photoshopped) pictures of himself without any explanation. Then he begins to attack and call his researchers names for questioning him.

          Tell me Bil, if showing his face just once would erase alot of skepticism why doesn’t he? Because he is a distraction – nothing more. I checked out alot of his supporters on FB and interestingly they all joined around the same time in 2009. Also, why when I do a Google archive search of this guy from 1960 thru 2012 I get ONE result? Let’s see- what other results are skewed when I search – Sandy Hook, Barack Obama, 9/11….seeing a pattern here.

        3. Ok, let me see here…. Halbig has not shown his face, many of his FB supporters joined around the same time, and he is not showing up on a Google search…..

          OMG, how did I miss all the warning signs? You should be a lawyer with your keen ability to analyze evidence and paint a rock solid picture of someone.

          I’ll keep saying my point over and over again until knuckleheads like you get it – Research and vetting of Halbig are important, but attacking him personally must be stopped until we get to the bottom of the questions that surround him.

          iseelies, you are new here. I’ve been posting here for over a year. I am a big admirer of Dr. Tracy, but when I disagree with him, I have the right to express my opinions. “Getting off the message board” is a form of censorship in my opinion.

          Its obvious with you calling me a troll, that you have no idea what a troll is. Please do some studying on internet terminology.

          And yes I will continue to push people to hit the streets. All these messages on truther website aren’t doing much good if we are not appealing to the mass brainwashed public. Surely us truthers still only represent a small portion of the population. Please tell me, what have you done to spread the good word outside of staring at your computer?

          Run along now and don’t forget to drink your milk.

        4. So researching and vetting Halbig is okay but attacking him is not.
          Unfortunately it seems as though the sharing of negative and questionable info about Halbig is viewed by his followers as an attack. Not all, but some. That is just silly.

          If you choose to be a supporter, that is all well and good. It is not mandatory for others to do so and it is their freedom to report (here) those things about Halbig which they find troubling or downright disturbing..

        5. Iseelies,

          I owe you a cocktail (or bev. of choice). That was a stellar response!

          Isn’t it interesting how some people want the freedom to believe what they want – they get upset when others don’t believe what they what while at the same time attempt to deny others of their own beliefs.

        6. BillFred…I am certainly no troll……my first and last name is been posted on here so you can see I have been posting about Sandyhook on Facebook pages for a very long time…For the record I believe Sandyhook was a total hoax…no kids died.

          My issues with Halbig are many…evidence presented on this page has shown in my opinion that he lacks integrity and I believe it is hard to travel to a city ( Newtown ) and call people out on issues involving fraud and integrity when you have none yourself. Why wouldnt they just point the finger back at him and bring up all the Shady stuff about him that has been presented here…. Can no one else see how easliy he can be discredited?

          My last name was posted( no big deal) in a comment I made on Wolfies Justice page regarding him referring to Bob Woodruff and Carl Bernstein….Yes Bob Woodruff!! Whats really scary is that I was the only one to correct him !I was thinking is everyone else on this page really that uninformed?
          And this is the man that they are banking on to expose this hoax? .

        7. Frederick –

          Regarding funny “Woodruff” note (Halbig post) and the failure of the followers to notice– a prime example of low info. followers. Scary. Hopefully some were just feeling too polite to correct him.

          Some Halbig followers are so rabid in defense of this fellow – they’re so interesting to me. I think many have latched on to him out of desperation – because he’s the first solider to “go over the fence”. They’ve attached their hopes to him and ignored the fact that this fellow is “sketchy”, at best.

          A company, a cause, a political entity – they all understand the importance of their spokespersons. Regular folks on the street? Not so much – they just care that someone is willing to act in some way. Whether they want to admit that Halbig is their spokesperson is irrelevant – they should consider that in the eyes of the other side (those who believe SHook happened as was told in the news) – Halbig WILL be seen as a spokesperson of the non-believers. It is in this light, that I fear he will cause damage.

          The serious Halbig supporters chime in with the same retaliatory question over and over: “Well, what have YOU done, couch-sitting commenter?” Well,that is a valid question.

          I believe my contribution (as with SO MANY people here on this blog) has been: 1) Hours upon hours upon hours of research (police reports, etc.); 2) Hours upon hours of comparing notes with other researchers and those with inside knowledge; 3) the many hours spent engaging in conversation with people who have been “asleep” who are now waking up as the result of thoughtful and educated conversations.

          I think an amazing number of people now believe that something is very wrong with the SHook story and many are those who initially ate the story hook, line and sinker. I find this fascinating and encouraging.

          The aforementioned efforts of the couch/desk-sitting researchers out there who have an insatiable curiosity and are willing to engage in discussion with anyone who is willing to engage have been the key in slowly but carefully turning the tide. Intelligent, educated conversations and debates have been happening for the past year or more and some ideas are taking hold.

          I believe the most successful revolutions are the result of slow-moving events that occur below the surface. We have to continue efforts to gently wake those who are sleeping through the changes that have occurred in our nation. This is not usually accomplished by some nutty banshee going wildly and half-cocked over the wall in the name of the cause. It is the large wave that brings down that wall. That wave has to start with a ripple. Consider that Rosa Parks ignited a revolution with just one word, “No.”

        8. federicomarco – maybe he was thinking of Judy Woodruff. Was this posted by Wolfgang himself or one of his assistants? Perhaps it came from ‘dude’?

      2. John, I think that Bill is referring to his Dr. Tracy’s “sudden” change of attitude in this case….Dr. Tracy has officially taken a back seat on this topic. Bill sees clearly the fact that Dr. Tracy has been “talked to”. Not that it is necessarily “right or wrong”, but one can see he no longer has the “fire in his belly” for this cause.

        1. I find this preposterous. James has been courageous from the start, in objectively reporting the strangeness of the press coverage, and he has continued to do so even more strenuously when it draws withering attack on him personally. Across the world he became “the nutty professor” who denied that kids were killed that day–even though he never said that. What did he do? He calmly pointed out that there are inconsistencies in the reporting, so that the emerging picture is contradictory: it cannot have happened the way the press says it happened.

          What did he do next? He kept on doing the same, as the story developed. He has never stated what he believes happened, only what is wrong with the official story. Even when he has been on the radio with Barrett and Fetzer, both of whom are openly advocating a position, and chummily call him “Jim” (which is in fact what he goes by in life), as if they are all colleagues and on the same page, even in that environment he never falls in with them; note that. He always is cautious not to damage the carefully built credibility based on academic objectivity. This might madden us, because certain of the elements of the story are entirely preposterous, and we’d like him to come out and say so, but he’d lose more than he’d gain if he did that.

          As for the assertion: “clearly the fact that Dr. Tracy has been “talked to”,” ti is in no way “clearly” a “fact” that James Tracy is under pressure to shut up. And if you think: “one can see he no longer has the “fire in his belly” for this cause” then you have not been paying attention. As he said in his reply to me in the article “Cognitive Infiltration for the Masses”: ” In establishing this blog I never sought to be a rabble-rouser, and regret being regarded as such.” Why would he say this if it isn’t true?

          I came here to learn about the “nutty professor’s” crazy blog, and it has been a central part of my daily internet adventures ever since–because of the reality of the integrity you deny that James Tracy has.

          There is something strange going on when a scrupulously objective observer is repeatedly called an advocate, and when it’s clear he’s not, the lament is that he’s lost some “fire in his belly” he never evidenced.

        2. I agree that Dr. Tracy has not been compromised or “gotten to.” Although I’m upset that his blog has become a whipping post for Halbig haters, Dr. Tracy is still solid. I think the fire is still in his belly.

    3. Bill Fred – hope you’re out there doing all that too.

      I think what the post was getting at was the difficulty involved…the lack of standing. Mr. Tracy didn’t write the article but posted an attorney’s unsolicited opinion – and that has value, at least to some of us.

      I’m hoping the very first step Halbig does is file for the FOIA hearing. That should’ve been his next step, providing the FOIA requests were in order. I know what you’re going to say – I feel the same – that the hearing is probably a lot of b.s. – but it is part of the procedure…the next rung on the ladder. Anyway, hopefully Halbig has some good legal brains on this one.

      1. Beth, I have handed out about 2,000 flyers about how corrupt our government is – covering 9/11, Waco, JFK, OKC, etc.

        Every family member I have knows where I stand on ‘conspiracy theories.’

        I have lost friends because of my public opinions, and my neighbor won’t ever look at me anymore because I have brought up 9/11 to her so many times.

        1. I’m so sorry about that. I hear you. Some think I’m 1/2 nuts because it is like a tickle in my brain that won’t stop…the hours of research have become a hobby.

          “They” win just obey without questioning.

      2. Beth
        How do you know “Mr. Tracy didn’t write the article but posted an attorney’s unsolicited opinion ?”

        He does not state this was unsolicited and we are well aware he necessarily had to engage attorneys.

        Those with open minds consider all angles.

        1. Kathy,

          What makes you think he wrote it?

          Yes, I agree with you that he has access to attorneys. So…that could mean an attorney wrote it? Fed it to him to write? OK, so that means Prof. Tracy didn’t still didn’t whip this little number up.

          Did you read the article? The author gave a very explicit description of his background, qualifications and work experience. I feel fairly certain that Prof Tracy is not in the business of ghost writing legal opinions and lying about the identity of the author. That’s a pretty bold accusation based on what proof?

          If you think Prof Tracy is a liar – perhaps this is not a place for you.

        2. Beth was simply inquiring how you knew it was an unsolicited.

          Given all that he has invested into the topic, it would make sense to me that he engaged attorneys himself long ago.

          Thought you would be willing to share you insider information, but instead you attack me.

        3. The “insider” accusation is so silly. Let’s see if we can’t put a stop to the accusations: First, I was the supposed author of the post, according to you and another poster. Now I’m an insider. Well, to that I say:

          I don’t know the professor, I do not work for him, I have never met him and I am not related to him. To my knowledge, I have not even passed him on the street. I have not engaged in the receipt of monetary benefit or the payment of the same in connection with this blog or any of the Professor’s endeavors. I have no direct or indirect affiliations with the Professor.

          I do, however: Respect his efforts to get people to wake up and question what they are being fed…and to discuss it. I support his blog via participation. Hopefully that clears up your questions and will put a stop to the incessant need to try to undermine mine (and others’) attempts to engage in meaningful conversation.

          You have a curious and suspicious mind and I respect that. Prof. Tracy often invites authors and contributions. Why not submit one of your own ideas and ask that it might be considered inclusion in a blog topic or better yet – submit your own work and ask that it be considered for publication?

        4. Hi Kathy,

          You commented, “How do you know ‘Mr. Tracy didn’t write the article but posted an attorney’s unsolicited opinion ?’ ”

          Your implication, simply stated, is that Dr. Tracy did, in fact, write, post and credit the article to “Anonymous.”

          A comparison of the syntax of the piece in question and Dr. Tracy’s writing style evident in his many articles and comments on this blog reasonably suggests that the authors in question are two different people.


  10. While I am appreciative of the insight into any legal machinations that may face this investigation…I am deeply disappointed that Mr Tracy and his advisors are choosing to focus on the negative.

    Instead of spending all this time telling us why a particular course of action will not work…how about providing us with some direction as to what could work.

    1. Dr. Tracy “and his advisors” are not choosing to focus on the negative. He/they are choosing to focus on the facts. And on finding the best strategies to deal with this situation by eliminating those that won’t work.

      1. That’s the point. they are not “finding the best strategies”. They are poo-pooing other people’s ideas….which is fine if they are bad ideas…but where is one original strategy offered by Mr Tracy and his team?

      2. Vivian, are you a white-faced zombie with no intellectual thought for yourself? We are fighting a very powerful and evil force. We need all hands on deck and all eyes on the prize – exposing the cockroaches hiding in the shadows.

        If Halbig spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on this court case that “won’t work,” and it exposes this case to say — 100,000 new people — it will be worth it.

        There is no such thing as “eliminating those that won’t work.” Its a marketing discussion now about how to get to the people who are brainwashed by their TV’s.

        1. “There is no such thing as “eliminating those that won’t work.” Its a marketing discussion now about how to get to the people who are brainwashed by their TV’s.”

          I think this is a very important point, and I totally agree. Also, the amount of time spent trying to prove Halbig is a “fraud,” and pointing out the flaws in his plans might be better spent coming up with some alternate plans, and some ideas for putting those plans into action. Or at least do both instead of only criticizing. Just my opinion.

        2. “If Halbig spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on this court case that “won’t work…”

          I feel your passion and that would perhaps be the case if the attorneys can write spotless briefs and get it and keep in court – but the case may not see the light of day if it is thrown out via the opposition’s briefs. Case closed to do lack of standing or what have you. I don’t know that it would be the best way to spend all that money (I hate when the lawyers get all the money…which always seems to be the case).

        3. Wow Bill Fred – don’t call Hero Halbig any names but attack Vivian with that derogatory statement? Are you trying to get people to leave the board Bill Fred because of your rudeness?

          “If Halbig spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on this court case that “won’t work,” and it exposes this case to say — 100,000 new people — it will be worth it.”

          Disagree – this guy is beginning to hurt the truth movement with all the in-fighting he is causing. All it will do is awaken more people to the fact that their new truther rep is a liar who can’t put a cogent sentence together. I don’t need a leader – I talk with people on boards to spark new thoughts and ideas and when someone starts telling me how to act, think, speak I suspect they are not with us but against us.

          Now start slinging your mud at me…….

        4. The infighting is being caused by irrational people. There are a lot of people taking the exact same stand as me – stop with the attacks.

          Let me explain again and again. Dr. Tracy has posted articles questioning Mr. Halbig, but has not once used derogatory words. That is because Dr. Tracy is intelligent.

          On the other hand, all the people currently attacking Halbig are fools.

          I will continue to call out irrational people who attack Halbig, like Frederick. If I use the wrong words, sorry for you. And sorry you think I want to control what you think. Thats just weird.

        5. Nice work Isee.

          Halbig is revealing more of his true self. He pokes holes in his own puffed up resume. It still bugs the beans out of me that he plays himself as if he was a long-time state trooper with all of this experience – when i fact he was an officer for just an extremely short time and 40 years ago

          Just recently, he posted that his waistline was impacted from all of the donuts (like he was recently a police officer) – He is a walking misrepresentation.

          He’s been let go from many of his jobs – but indicates that these partings were caused because he spoke out for some cause. If true, why didn’t he sue? He has even lied about being “fired” from a business in which he was a partner. The other partner didn’t like what Halbig was up to and rumor was he was uncomfortable with the plan to raise money from people. But, Halbig likes the drama – so again uses the, “I was fired for” (this time it was “asking too many questions about Sandy Hook”). What a crock.

          He further proves his character by fibbing about a conversation and support given from a candidate for governor. Looks like she chopped him off at the knees pretty quickly – wish I could see what that certified letter looked like (read “cease and desist”) …because clearly she forced him to publicly admit he lied.

          What a train wreck. He will hurt the cause – not draw positive attention to it.

    2. I consider that a much greater task, requiring perhaps certain skills which most people don’t have. On the other hand, just as we have often declared something to be a hoax, because of a key element in it that doesn’t work in the real world, rendering it fictional, I think that knowing what the courts will throw out is essential in helping to avoid blind alleys and worthless endeavors.

      The critic does not have to create a new work, but is on solid ground in criticizing what has been presented or what is proposed to be done.

      1. This is my exact point – “blind alleys and worthless endeavors.” And being constructive is a “much greater task?”

        We are not going to win this in court. I think most people know that already. The system is stacked against us regardless of the legal jargon used by the “anonymous” author.

        Its all about publicity and getting the word out. The sick bastards who run this country use any means they can to push us back into our holes. We also need to use all means possible to get the word out to the brainwashed public. And if that means a failed court case, go for it.

      2. So you’re saying Mr Tracy isn’t an advocate…he’s a critic?

        Mr Tracy clearly has the ear of those with knowledge of the legal system and what may or may not work. Why are we only hearing what won’t work…and nothing about might work?

        1. I view the MemoryHoleBlog as not a place to read news or find solutions to what we see in the news that is wrong/troubling —

          It is a place to analyze what is given to us in the news and to discuss these issues with fellow posters. On occasion, guest posters have been given the opportunity to weigh in on issues.

          Maybe I’m just seeing things differently.

        2. Beth – I completely agree with you on the reason you go on blogs. Example – the post I made that sparked a thought you had one day. I love it when things like that open up. I love hearing a new idea from a poster that coincides with something I thought about and I can now expand on.

          This is why I have no interest in leaders. I appreciate Dr. Tracy having this board for us to bounce ideas off of. I know I’m fairly new here, but I have been on other boards (some private) for over a year now and it’s been an amazing journey with complete strangers. It’s pretty easy to pick out the people who are like-minded and just as easy to identify the trolls and $hit-starters.

    3. By the way, when people want to dismiss everyone who doubts the authority of the MSM or government, they often point out what are proposed as alternate theories, far more outlandish than even the original hoax, by way of explanation.

      The temptation to find motive and shadowy puppeteers behind these events creates the opportunity for those in power to avoid being held responsible. It tends to allow the hoax to remain firmly in place – perhaps to apply the final coating of glue that allows it to persist, as rational people stop paying attention to the inconsistencies and instead cling to the official explanation because it does not invoke as much magical thinking (but it certainly may!). What has been created is an “either/or” situation, and sometimes this is a planned outcome. It certainly was with UFOs in the Nevada Desert during the testing of early stealth aircraft.

      1. As much as it may appear a side-issue– i’d be concentrating all my support to the on-going Florida case regards why gypsum etc hazardous waste– isnt radioactive.

        This case is stalling upon the technicality that the litigants did not define ‘the scrubber process’ correctly–despite that it is the waste product –regardless of how it is processed–that is the defined hazardous and radioactive material.

        We certainly will be able to resolve ‘the UFOs in the Nevada Desert during the testing of early stealth aircraft” because these guys are merely the tip of the iceberg regards nuclear is safe and clean.

        That we are trying to emulate the unclean might require we also assume breathing hazardous materials isnt recommended [??].

  11. Beth D.- Thanks for that document.
    According to those guidelines, it looks to me like a traumatic cardiac arrest patient must be at least 18 years of age for resuscitation to be terminated by EMS arriving at the scene. The only exceptions are decapitation or transection of the torso, neither of which was ever mentioned in connection with these ‘victims’.
    The guidelines also state that “the person at the scene with the highest level of currently valid EMS certification and… who is affiliated with an EMS organization present at the scene will be responsible for resuscitation activities.” It doesn’t sound like an officer with a nurses license should have been in charge when there would have been highly trained and certified EMS available.
    It still seems to me that proper procedure was not followed, and that parents should have leal standing to sue. That they choose not to is highly suspect. What does our legal expert think?

    1. Christo – you’re welcome (the EMS-DOA link). That is 4 years old and I didn’t have time today to search for a newer model. Maybe they changed it before the event. I talked to an EMS person about this a while back and it was a head shaker but we’re in a different state.

      Maybe “Adam” was such a crack shot that he got each and every target in the head such that it was so devastating as to justify no attempts. It goes along with the story of how many shots he took that hit their mark in such a short period of time…(right…) As if any of us believe the tale of his sniper abilities.

      1. Christo/Beth- I’ve been in EMS for 15 years- it’s not a question of what someone is “allowed” to do- (regardless of training)- For example – all Police officers are “first responders” which means they can initiate CPR… as can lay people- The way it works in most states is that the next highest level of EMS care than takes over and starts “triaging” and making “Some” decisions- (not all since only a licenced MD can prounce death in most states)- So next let’s say the EMTs arrive- they have more training that first reponders -so they might leave some victims who are obviously mortally wounded- Once a Paramedic (or nurse in some cases) is on scene- they then take over- My issue as a parent would be- “were the victims (if there were any) attented to” and triaged in a timely manner in order to try and save as many as possible”- If paramedics were not allowed in after say 5- 10 minutes (which could make difference between life and death)-that’s an issue. If police inside were stalling/etc- that would bt my issue- If that is the case- delaying medics entry in any way is ground for a lawsuit. You do not have to have an MD on scene to prounce- Medics on scene work with an MD on line (usually transmitting an EKG strip) in order to make it official. in most cases- medics are the highest level of EMS care on site. Nurses are also based on training but many nurses (especially school) are not exposed to the amount ot “street” injuries out in the field that medics are exposed to

  12. I love all of the naysayers including “anonymous” who give their self-aggrandizing opinions on the job that Wolfgang is doing. Yet I’ll bet NONE of you have made any effort on uncovering this conspiracy other than bloviating. I would hope that the lawyers Wolfgang has contracted with would have informed him of the possible problems in going forward. Wolfgang Halbig has spent a lot of his own time and has put his life and name out there for all to see(and criticize, obviously) unlike the “anonymous” legal advice purveyor. Who amongst you can say you have done a fraction of the work to bring this conspiracy to light than Wolfgang Halbig?

    1. I would venture to guess that there are a few someones here who are slightly obsessed, have done hours upon hours of studying of the police reports, videos and pictures – and have spent hours researching, spent time collaborating with others and spouting off to others – starting educated conversations, pointed out discrepancies. The revolution often rises quietly from within…

  13. Beth D. thanks for this “anonymous” article and also for being the first to “comment” on it. Classy

    1. You are thanking Beth for this “anonymous”, article, that implies to me you know she is the author of it.

      If that is the case should we not investigate her credentials and past business dealings? The fact that she goes on and on with known trolls sends up the red flags to me.

      Nothing to see here, move along, the classy chick has declared there is no legal recourse to justice.

      1. Kathy,
        I didn’t write the article but flattered you thought of me.

        If you and your chucklehead cronies have any doubts – please feel free to send an email to the good professor and will can confirm that I was not the author.

        Then perhaps you and DMhennen can be mature enough to apologize for your very misguided rant.

    2. ??
      Nice try blamethrower.
      Get your facts straight. You and Halbig have some things in common.
      I did not write this article but appreciate that you thought of me.

  14. The people are harmed by the press reporting the Sandy Hook drill as an actual event, it is just that the law allows it to happen. I would say the standing is with the people who are harmed by the dynamic between the press reporting the drill as live and the result leading to legislation that restricts civil rights. Maybe the key is to find someone who has been a victim of libel or slander for being called a conspiracy theorist for doubting the official story of Sandy Hook that is willing to sue based on the grounds that the story is actually fake. The standing is: harm from libel or slander in being called a conspiracy theorist on grounds that the story is actually a lie. A good attorney with all the evidence contained on this site and others convincing a jury that the harmful accusation was based on false reporting and was damaging to the plaintiff could lead to an interesting precedent. Boy, I am really reaching as I know practically nothing regarding law….

    1. Rick, your last line gave me a chuckle. I feel your passion – been there, done that a few times in my life.

      Then you get these lawyers that look at us and say, “Well, point to the law that was violated” and “OK, calculate and give the basis for your damages”.

      They make us want to slap ’em say, “You went to law school – you figure it out and let me know what you come up with.” The law seems to make it easy for some and impossible for others, if you know what I mean. In situations like these, the biggest problem can be finding an attorney who will take on a weak or precarious case because they don’t want to look like a fool in front of the judge. It’s just maddening. You sit there and say, “But there must be a way – this is all wrong.” This is how most of these shysters get away with the things they do.

    2. I wonder if anyone has lost a job for talking smack about the follies at Sandy Hook – preferably someone living and working in Connecticut. The US (unlike Britain) has erred on the side of free speech, so that libel and slander don’t fly too well here. But if you were actually harmed for doubting the official story, and saying it on the job, might you sue for wrongful termination and be able to bring out information and subject it to the test of the court? Even settling such a case would raise issues.

  15. Mr. Halbig intends to scoop up as much cash from the public as possible, then abandom his claims to sue, depose, fight, etc., then claim he will use all the money to go in a different direction; such as writing a book, but he still needs more cash. In other words, he’s just a scammer seeking to rip off truthers on a popular topic i.e. Sandy Hoax.

    1. Halbig owns multiple homes. I don’t think becoming a Sandy Hook truther is the pathway to becoming rich.

      I can’t believe people actually think this is a possible scenario.

  16. Below is an example of an active law suit used with discovery to obtain public records. Potential harm to a community comes with the distress of falsely being told there’s a mass shooting in your neighborhood. I suppose it’s up to the courts to decide whether this is enough to weigh against the “public duty doctrine”. It would be good to examine state statutes to determine if records created by public officials (barring attorney/client privilege) belong to the public.

    El Rio vs COT Lawsuit over public documents request for GCU deal wraps up in court.KOLD TV: 4.01.14

    Closing arguments of Attorney Bill Risner in El Rio public documents trial:

    1. Unfortunately you can’t necessarily look how a case would be handled in one state as an example of how the case would be handled in another state. Connecticut provides an administrative process, which allows for quicker and cheaper resolutions of disputes, but also greatly limits the scope of what can be litigated. The court only plays an appellate role reviewing the administrative record. Arizona allows FOI challenges to be brought directly in court. This will allow for much broader rights for discovery and over the scope of the case. It is also a lot slower and more expensive.

      If you are interested, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press provides a great tool for comparing each state’s FOI law.

      So the point is that Halbig can bring his FOI lawsuit but that wont allow him to put the right people under oath.

  17. ————————————-

    Has anyone else noted the schizophrenic quality embedded in the hoax
    issues? “If” anyone died; ( no one died); parents of victimized children could sue with standing. (But no one has; because no one died?) EM responders did not function on a professional level; there was no reason to respond as there were no victims. It was all theater and no one can be brought to justice, etc., etc., etc.

    Small wonder no one has ideas on how to approach SH or BMB frauds legally. We can’t get a handle on it in real time.

    I listened to a discussion today on the SCOTUS decision regard the “McCutcheon” suit. A very wealthy man brought legal action against the cap on election donations. Now the SCOTUS deigned that this issue was well worth its valuable time.

    In a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, it was decided that there would be no restrications on the amount of money a donor can give to a political candidate. I bring this up because it is an example of how far down the road our vaunted high court has gone to protect special interests–i.e., the vested interests of the elite class, aka billionaires who buy access to the halls of congress and to the White House.

    I listened to the verbal gymnastics of Justice Scalia as he explained why he could not justify denying the Koch Brothers or Warren Buffet types their constitutional rights to use money to impose their will in matters of government. The GOP candidates were summoned to Nevada recently where they were vetted by another billionaire with money to burn and a desire to invest it in his various ventures expecting a payback. These men will choose who will run and who will win.

    Business as usual…

    Then I follow here on MHB our sincere wish to bring justice to outrageously unjust scenarios. And I wonder: would the SCOTUS take Mr. Halbig’s case under consideration? Connecticut won’t even allow him to present his case within the usual framework of legal process using legal machinations. When the inmates write the laws, the asylum goes berserk.

    The defense rests, your honor…..

    1. “We can’t get a handle on it in real time. ” Exactly what TPTB are counting on.Consider the possibility of Halbig being brought in to “tackle” the case only to prove just how hopeless an endeavour it is….

    2. Yes, there are no victims, hence, no lawsuits. That in itself is an obvious clue. Does anyone really think that, with that many “victims” NONE of them would have sued?

      Secondly, WHAT case? In my understanding he has “questions”. Questions doth not a “case” make. We know its a hoax, they are not admitting it. How would we prove anything with no ability to examine witnesses or acquire documents?

      Connecticut may have laws that fall into the “just-Us” category, but so do other states. It may be a travesty, but it isn’t illegal.

      This is just a small example of how the legal system works. Most think it is about purity and light and getting to the “truth”. It isn’t. It “can” work, somewhat, for those who have the resources to access it.

      These laws in question were put there for precisely this reason, to protect the guilty. For states that do not have these laws they simply lie and say they don’t have the documents you want. If you appeal your clothes could go out of style and they’ll bleed you dry in the process.

    3. I do believe that the Sandy Hook incident was a government authorized hoax with CT complicity to carry it out and the Newtown authorities being convinced or bribed to go along with it, it is still premature to state definitely that “no one died”. We still do not know what actually happened, and maybe never will. Wee cannot argue about “if anyone died or no one died”. The government does not care how many people die as long as their objectives are achieved. And who knows how many more may meet mysterious deaths if they break the code of silence?

  18. A “Spingola Saga Update” lol:

    Kaminski was guest on Nick’s “Circus Maximus” podcast last night; find MP3 & (censored) Mami’s comments at:

    ^ It’s 2 hours, and beginning at 30 minutes, Mami’s mod “zapopper” calls in, mostly to inquire about the S.Hoax situation & Deanna. This discussion continues for 17 minutes. Kaminski makes his disillusionment with Spingola clear. Well worth the listen.

    Spingola has posted a couple of, err, ‘interesting comments’ at mami’s blog entry for her most recent AFP show with guest “Wade”. You have to read them to believe them:

    First DS comment is [April 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM], which I would describe as a textbook ‘Flip the Script and Project’ gambit… same MO which has characterized DS’s entire anti-SHoax-skepticism campaign which began with her Jan 15 show, where she preemptively ‘suggested’ that SHoax-skepticism may itself be… drumroll… a Sunstein cognitive-infiltration psy-op!!… lol.

    Next DS comment in that same thread is [April 3, 2014 at 12:52 PM], which picks knits over Dr. Fetzer’s grammar in his angry Sofia/Halbig email, and questions whether the email came from Fetzer?

    lol, where to even begin on that one?!?

    1. John Kamimski used to be a frequent guest on Deanna Spingola’s ‘Spingola Speaks’ program. Guess he won’t be guesting anymore. Deanna should hang up a Gone Fishing shingle. In one sentence she writes that public officials often deserve our distrust. In the next she writes that we should trust formal reports from the same bunch.


      “They (change agents) ask questions, not because they want information but to generate a lack of confidence in public officials who admittedly often deserve our distrust.

      If people ask public officials for specific information that those officials have already provided in the formal reports, then there is no need for further queries if answers are the real objective.”

    2. Darren Weeks, who has a morning Saturday program on RBN where Deanna Spingola has a Sunday program now, said this morning that it took a long time to come to this conclusion, but he now firmly believes that Sandy Hook was a staged event with crisis actors. He added that from now on he’ll have a hard time believing official stories about any hyped shooting incidents.

  19. From Wolfgang Halbig’s gofundme site:

    We are traveling to Newtown on May 5th for an evening planning session with CT parents.
    On the morning of May 6th we will visit two of the non-profits such as United Way Western Ct and the Newtown non-profit that have collected $24 million dollars and inspect their records as to who contributed and how the funds were allocated.
    May 6th at 7:30 pm we will attend the Newtown Public Schools School Board Meeting and providing them through our Attorney Paul Spinella our CT FOIA request in person.
    We will also visit the Newtown Police Department to introduce myself and get them to provide us with our CT FOIA requests through our Attorney.
    THey came to my house so now I am going to their house.
    Thanks for having faith in me.

    There is an attorney by the name of A. Paul Spinella with an office in Hartford. If this is the same Spinella Mr. Halbig is referring to, his reviews are less than stellar. But hopefully they may surprise all of us and bring some encouraging news.

    1. Anne, this will end badly. No “non-profit” is going to hand over records to W.H., attorney or no attorney. The police don’t have his FOIA records. He may be “going to their home”, but he may not be leaving.

    2. Anne B – Halbig seems to reference two attorneys (who are charging a $5,000 retainer…just to be called a client + $200/hr). This particular fellow you name – he doesn’t seem to fit the areas of expertise needed here.

      1. Yes, there was a lawyer in Carson City, Nevada and now one in Connecticut. There is only one attorney by the name of Paul Spinella in CT, actually Agostino Paul Spinella, aka A. Paul Spinella. In addition to handling hip replacement claims and nursing home abuse, according to his website he also represents clients who had their rights violated by law enforcement, municipalities, government agencies and officials. Halbig’s case would fall in there somewhere. Perhaps the visits to his home by LE will qualify if nothing else.

        Excerpt from attorney Spinella’s website:

        “A particular area of Attorney Spinella’s practice is the area of criminal trial and appellate practice. He is the author of Connecticut Criminal Procedure, a 1,000-page textbook that examines the history, development, and existing state of the law of criminal procedure. First published in 1985, this text was the result of four years of labor—it has recently been supplemented two times and is presently undergoing additional revisions. As a result of his zealous defense of the citizen accused, Attorney Spinella has developed a substantial practice prosecuting claims on behalf of citizens who have had their rights violated by law enforcement, municipalities, government agencies and officials, and powerful corporate interests.”

        As overwhelming as all this is, it’s also a look into a future world run by tyrants. A world where police and military drills, false flags, psychological warfare and empire building become the new normal in people’s lives. Throw in Common Core for good measure and the word freedom becomes a relic. That is until the empire falls as all empires must.

        1. Hi Anne B!

          You crack me up! Well, speaking of wingnuts.. Halbig posted that he has three attorneys (in CT- that guy); NV (oh boy…Day Williams) and someone in MD.

          Did you see the whacko letter Day sent to Prof. Tracy? Most of the regulars remember Mr. Day from his posts here in MHB…or his creepy YouTubeVideos, his blog and excerpts from his book.

          What kind of practicing attorney writes something like this?

          In follow-up, Halbig posts this letter from his attorney on his Fbook like he’s just somehow threatened the good Prof with a statement, “….we’re ready to start the game”. Yeah, Wolfie, sure.

          Wolfiemay be off his meds. His posts (or his cohorts’) are getting more desperate. Today, someone he was chatting with on-line had their FBook hacked / closed so he announces that one of his people with “boots on the ground in CT has been attacked.” Well, guess one has to resort to such efforts when their fundraising has stalled so much. Drama, drama, drama.

          The man doesn’t even write 1/2 of his posts. One today starts out with, “Dude…” — so, what – now he’s paying neighorhood kids to write them or something? Yet, I can’t look away — in light of the entertainment value.

        2. Beth D – no, I was not aware of that letter. Just a couple of days ago I started checking out Sandy Hook Justice, Wolfgang’s site. I saw the “dude” remark and reasoned it would be more at home on a biker site. I also learned of the snafu with a lawyer running for governor. Friends in high places are hard to come by and harder to keep.

          I am sure Newtown will put out all the stops on May 5th and 6th. Nuttin’s gonna rain on their parade. There is also an image on Wolfgang’s site from the recent video chat. He does look a bit older than in the one picture we’ve seen most often. To quote Dr. Carver “I hope this doesn’t all come crashing down on Newtown’s head.” Let’s hope he is wrong and it all does come crashing down.

        3. I pray people who are left with no options because the law is stacked against them don’t take the law into their own hands.

    3. A prediction: Halbig is shown something that “changes his mind” and “convinces” him the shooting took place as the official story says.

      1. Quite possibly.
        As I’d mentioned earlier – it would not at all surprise me if this big kinda dumb lug is a “hired” hand.

        1. Of course he is-he’s only useful as a tool(pun intended)to show how futile fighting the system is….

  20. The article is accurate and, like some of us have been saying, any lawyer worth their salt would have told him that. I appreciate the information. I tried in my own way to say the same thing.

    There is a difference between WANTING to do something and BEING ABLE to accomplish it. This is often an unpleasant, even unfair reality. However, as adults we have to be able to look realistically at our options.

    As I said, and the article confirms, the courts are not a viable option. That doesn’t mean “you don’t like Wolfgang”. It means what it means.

    I personally believe that about all one can realistically expect to accomplish here is to raise public awareness of the lying. The hope would be that more and more people would simply quit listening to anything they said. They can continue to make movies, it just isn’t effective if nobody watches them.

    1. Hi Lophatt…Hope you are well. I know, I know…it’s the way the legal system is set up…and it stinks.

      I agree w/what you say about refusing to watch the show – but I’m not entirely convinced that lives are not taken in some of the “events”…maybe “they” think it is a sacrifice for the “republic”. I believe they do it.

      Like I said to someone today, “If someone told me 10 years ago that our gubbermint was involved in [Fast & Furious], I would’ve said they were nuts.” I think they will do whatever it takes to control/take/etc.

    2. Very well said. Even in real disasters like OSO, OSO Strong? …it makes me wonder if this was not a pre-meditated disaster? and makes me sick that I have to wonder about that, there are players there trying to pull the heartstrings, collect the money, have us buy the T-shirt. A few days prior, the local news helicopter and helicopter pilot for Channel 4 that would have, could have provided local overhead coverage, mysteriously crashed and the pilot dies.

      1. Bewise…your comment on the helicopter crash reminded me of the lady in HA who released Obama’s supposed long-form birth certificate.

        The small plane she was in had crash-landed in the water – but everyone was fine, floating/hanging and talking while waiting for rescue. She is seen on video – looking just fine. Sure, could’ve had an internal is possible. Next thing anyone knew she was gone (slipped underwater). Suspicious…seriously. Autopsy? Hmmm, perhaps someone on board had hypodermic to finish her off? Just saying – it was so odd and the story buried. Move along, nothing to see here.

        Wouldn’t it be interesting to sit down and tally up the number of folks who met their demise while being in a position to know very damaging info, was involved in nasty conduct or otherwise? Like all of the Clinton associates – like an epidemic of death in that circle.

        Between your post today and the story today of the CIA agent who supposedly “jumped” out a window of the CIA building…it got me thinking about that sort of a “project”. Did a Benghazi file (or some other) go missing with him?

      2. Bewise..

        In follow-up to my note of a few mins ago – I found a story of Loretta Fuddy’s autopsy results. Hmm, same as Andrew Breitbart, perhaps?

        To me – it smells of a hypodermic but sure, a plane accident can cause a person a wee bit of stress, even though it was a fairly gentle dip into the water compared to what it could have been. The brother said she had no known heart issues.

        I don’t mean to stray off topic…but this one just picks at my brain at times (as does the list of deaths).

  21. How to get standing:

    1. donate to one of the infinite number of Sandy Hook media family “charities”.

    2. after the donation is accepted, request an accounting from the charirty as required by law.

    3. check that the specified purpose of the charity is being fulfilled. It won’t be in 99% of cases since they never thought anyone would check. For example the Emilie Parker art foundation has done everything BUT art so far.

    4. lawyer letter to charity requesting more info, docs, and accounts. CC the letter to the relevant state’s attorney general, SAIC FBI, chief of police, police serious fraud division, FBI cybercrime since all the charities are on the web in a big way. Also publicise the letter on your own blog, website, farcebook, twatter, etc.

    Net cost of activism: 50 buck donation to a fake charity to trigger events.

    If you pay a lawyer to do your letter, whatever the cost of that is. Otherwise get a lawyer to do it for free online or search legal precedents. It’s a better business bureau type letter. You paid a charity for a service- namely whatever charitable purpose they are masquerading under. They didn’t deliver.

    If even ten or let alone fifty armchair gasbags did the above, the entire situation would change in favour of research.

  22. So what is the authors point writing this article? Trying to help or what? Why don’t you pick up the phone get with Mr. Halbig to assist? I dont care if he is succesful in a lawsuit or not, he is rocking the boat and we are going to help the man all we can.

    1. Yes, why not ask Halbig himself? Let him try and defend himself. Meanwhile everyone is ignoring the sleeping giant – Boston, which had a lot more taxpayers’ dollars poured into it than SH. Lots of news the past few weeks including Dzhokhar’s lawyers want his brother’s records to show he had little to do with the smoke bombs and thus get him life instead of the chair.

      Question to Anonymous, Esq. isn’t there both prosecution and defense misconduct in Dzhokhar’s case? After all, he went back to classes and didn’t flee because he didn’t know he’d be fingered for a patsy. It seems both sides of the bench are right out of a film noir corrupt judiciary.

    1. That is a strange site – all kinds of stories on the blog section about various school incidents, SH, bomb threats at other schools. Why would a crisis actor site be blogging about school troubles – unless they were part of the cast for each story.

      Thanks for the link Tammie.

      1. I had visited this site before it was beefed up. I had to peak again and found their new blog interesting. But – I had to go back and look at this one, particular photo tonight.

        Check the list of crisis actors for the young lady with the long blonde hair. Her resemblance to a SHook child was a bit jaw-dropping (at least to me).

      1. funny – their disclaimer. Seems they felt it was “necessary to clarify”. Sorry, Crisis Actors – we’re not buying it!!

    2. Tammie – that is an interesting site! Did you catch this page?

      Story-driven simulation. Hmmm, sounds very interesting. Look out because their going to be doing it for the military now, too. I wonder which of our neighborhoods will be selected for this.

      Thanks for posting this – I had to bookmark it to watch their blogs.

  23. And this all could be cleared up in a MINUTE by Thousands of different sources.
    ONE verifiable crime scene picture,
    Answer a few simple questions.
    And MILLIONS of Americans are questioning the VERY STRANGE acts that took place in Sandy Hook can get on with their lives.
    There is absolutely no doubt in any independently thinking persons mind, that this was defiantly a horrible evil staged HOAX on AMERICANS.
    Why not CLEAR IT UP TOTALLY, so we do not have to be at odds with each other ?? ————— THEY CAN”T !!!!!

    1. You wouldn’t believe the pictures if produced, just like you swat down You Tube videos, pictures, interviews, so whats the point?

      Secondly, they don’t need to answer to you. Nor must everyone defend actionable event to based on circumstantial evidence. The “truth seekers” must understand that the truth must be rooted out (if it need be done) with hard evidence. If not, you have built an elaborate house of cards.

      Research the scientific method and its practice. Conclusion does not drive the process. Hence the purpose for blind and double blind studies.


      1. Here we go again with the little codes at the bottom of the comments. What was your name last go around, “Wilson?” Mike, was it? I can’t remember. In any case, you might want to switch up the language a little if people are going to believe you’re a different person, and you might consider a different marking process than the obvious code markers at the bottom of your comments. 🙂

        1. Michelle, What are code markers at the bottom? I am not familiar with. Just curious – thanks!

        2. Beth: See the little A at the end of his comment? There was another person posting here a couple months back–can’t recall the name–but they typed with the exact same style, wording, etc as “Wilson,” and they also put random letters or numbers at the end of their comments. I’m presuming it’s some sort of code system used to track their comments, possibly to show their employers they’re meeting quota? Or maybe trolls just like putting random letters at the end of their comments, lol. Just found it bizarre.

        3. Hi Michelle!

          Thank you for that – I had never heard of that before. I really appreciate your taking the time to reply. That’s one I’m going to look for in the future — especially when I read comments on other sites. Thanks again!

        4. Beth: No problem! I haven’t heard of it either, I just noticed the weird random letters and numbers at the end of the comments, and they only appeared on comments from this person now going by “Wilson.” I never saw anything like that anywhere else on any other forums or from different posters, so I can’t say for sure that is definitely what is going on, but that was the conclusion I drew. Makes sense, right? Unless, like I said, those pushing the official narrative of SH just like to put little letters at the end of their posts haha. Maybe “Wilson” will respond and clear it up for us;)

      2. Wilson,You are such an obvious Troll;nothing you say can be taken seriously…troll on out of here!(don’t forget to collect your check marked “A”)

  24. This legal opinion regarding Halbig’s standing to sue is confusing because it conflates Halbig’s standing with that of the parents, the most injured party other than the ‘victims’. It implies that the parents would not have standing to sue. This is nonsense. Anonymous states: ” The duties typically carried out by first responders such as police dept. fire dept. and paramedics are the classic type of public duty that no one can sue the government for failing to carry out.” An again: “If the Sandy Hook response was incompetent and thus failed to save lives, a lawsuit would be barred by the public duty doctrine.” So the paramedics can stand around doing nothing while all the injured children lie in a heap on the floor, ignoring all guidelines for terminating resuscitation efforts, and the parents are barred from suing by the public duty doctrine? So the paramedics could stop off on the way to the hospital and have a pizza and no one would have any legal recourse? This can’t be true.
    Halbig may have problems with his standing to sue, but the parents most certainly do have standing. This is important because their failure to sue anyone is a glaringly improbable flaw in this whole narrative. I don’t understand why this legal author is implying otherwise.

    1. I think you have made a very important point about the parents having standing to sue. In fact, the question of standing would come up first thing when an agency tried to defend itself and also claim that the parent failed to go through an administrative process first, to decide if some duty by the agencies were breached.

      But until that case was filed, the parent would not know that the outcome would be having it thrown out. There would be plenty of attorneys who would take such a case, and use it to publicize how badly the school, city and state let down the parents.

      So why hasn’t this happened at least once? A parent does not have to be a fanatic to bring such a case. Was there already a settlement to bar lawsuits? When did it happen?

      The movie script breaks down at just these edges, Halbig or not. So being overly broad about standing, basically saying everyone lacks it – may actually obscure the absence of normality in parental behavior which is perhaps a hallmark of any school shooting hoax.

      1. I meant to say – “until the case that was filed came before a judge” standing would not be an issue. You could still file the case.

    2. The public officers likely aren’t shielded if they stop off and get that pizza – as that’s willful malfeasance…but I do get what you mean. This CT form of government is scary – and they’re not the only state – much to my recent shock (thanks to a poster who informed us about this type of state government).

  25. Let me just interject something here after reading the comments that accuse people of attacking Halbig when all that is being done is simply showing how the legal system can be used to stymie people. Take the case of the current occupant of the WH who has not to this day been able to provide untampered and verifiable documentation that he was eligible to even run for president let alone prove he is a natural born citizen as required by Article II section I clause V of the constitution (which he isn’t). He may not even be a mere US citizen either.

    Countless cases have been presented to the courts by a wide variety of both lawyers and average citizens for the last 5 years asking that Obama and lawyers present evidence of a true copy of a birth certificate. Virtually all cases are thrown out due to standing! That means that we, the true citizens of the US and registered voters have no interest or claim (so says the courts) to KNOW that a person running for POTUS and ELECTED can be relied upon to be constitutionally eligible and we have no right to know! If that is true – that we have no right to know the candidate or POTUS IS eligible – then we are truly screwed, our vote is useless and we are not a nation of laws but of men and no one cares. We are corrupted beyond hope.

    And you expect Halbig to succeed in this with thuggish governance? It reminds me of Orly Taitz who being a lawyer herself has pursued the eligibility issue… but in a buffoonish and clownish way full of legal bumbling and mistakes with her filings. It has made many of us wonder if she is controlled opposition to make us “birthers” seem stupid. Just sayin’.

    The standing issue is real and they use it as a weapon.

    1. It was interesting that the video chat failed and they had to move the chat to an audio only site. One of the participants on the video chat made a comment that Wolf was having trouble keeping his eyes open.

      One of the people on the chat by the name of Jackie Truetown had her FB account erased while on the chat and now apparently has disappeared. She supposedly had new info about SH due to dating some guy from Newtown. I caught this comment over on Youtube where they posted 10 minutes of the chat. I only mention this comment being made because it’s along the same lines used by some posters as to why we need to trust Halbig – credentials (past gov’t employment and ex LE)

      The comment:

      Brent Devlin

      Hmm Jackie truth town. … what’s a k turn
      3 hours ago (edited)

      Is that your insult/implication that she is a teenager? She is a parent, worked in a government office, and a former police officer. She’s very astute and articulate. Some of us mothers are actually intelligent and good-looking. Get used to it.

      namesnotmary chimes in as well with her thoughts about Jackie’s research and disappearance.

      1. From the information here in regards to residents on Crestwood Drive, asking about the last time they heard children at the school prior to 12/14/12 will be dangerous to one’s health.

        1. True Anne B, one surely has to be careful…or they might end up in the same cell/cave/grave as the missing real estate appraiser who worked in a certain attorney’s office.

          It would seem logical there are certain real dangers there – if not the result of the powerful, one might encounter some passionate residents…with tire irons, etc.

  26. I am a retired educator like Wolfgang. I was also a medical corpsman in the military. What we need is to choose a “blue ribbon” panel of lawyers, educators, police officers and medical staff to put a plan together. A major problem like this requires a major plan.

    1. I share everyone’s general angst that Halbig’s plan is not robust. He’s like a little league ballplayer going into the World Serious.

      But, hey, he’s playing in a game that no one else has gotten into. We, the lonely blogging faithful, comprise a group of very few arm chair QBs and stat keepers passionate over micro managing a truth-destined strategy. But no one else is out there swinging. Nobody else is pitching. No one else is sweating. For now.

      Yes I wish Wolf would plan smarter. Maybe he is. And if all he musters is one hit in nine Newtown innings, then the scammers who have cheated our collective integrity will know we want to play another game.

      They cannot rule us just because they have more money. We want accountability. We want truth.

      I remain committed to justice and our children’s future.

      1. Old man, considering an odd connection in Halbig’s past that didn’t appear to lead anywhere on the surface…what if I were to propose to you the possibility that Halbig has bee engaged for the most interesting consulting project yet…by the gubbermint…rather, a certain facet of it. What if he were being paid to put on this show – and then fall on the sword? I’m not saying I firmly believe this – just throwing it out as one of the few possibilities…

        1. Beth D, of course this may all be a set-up. Clearly, the regulars here including our top notch academic mavericks will be all over the proceedings. I have confidence that you especially will not be fooled.

        2. OldMan…I’m sorry, of course you – as one of our regulars, have your radar up. Thanks for that.

Comments are closed.