Propagandizing Falsehoods Old and New

fetzerJames Tracy joins Professor Jim Fetzer on the latter’s internet radio program The Real Deal (Revere Radio Network). The two discuss some of the most recent developments on the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre event and the corporate news media’s broader treatment of government conspiracies and false flag terror.

Fetzer is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and has applied his academic expertise to extensive research into JFK, the events of 9/11, the plane crash that killed Senator Paul Wellstone, and more recently the Sandy Hook massacre and Boston Marathon bombing. In addition to his radio program he is an editor and regular contributor at Veterans Today. Dr. Fetzer is a graduate of Princeton University and holds the doctorate of philosophy from Indiana University.

Part 1

Part 2

59 thoughts on “Propagandizing Falsehoods Old and New”

  1. On November 19, the evening news in Boston contained a story with an interesting post script for our studies. It was widely reported that a rescue had occurred of a woman from the iconic Walden Pond. The details came out at the eleven o’clock network news, reported as factual.

    The rescued woman had been sitting on a bench, and, fully clothed, suddenly threw herself into the water (which is probably close to freezing at the moment, though the pond has not frozen over yet). A “visitor from England” saw the event and rescued her.

    When first responders arrived and examined the contents of the woman’s purse for identification, they discovered she had “recently purchased objects for a small child”, so they (based on a study of her purse contents) concluded a child might still be in the water.

    A dive team was assembled and they covered the small lake “in a grid pattern” finding no one in the water.

    The woman was said to be “mentally ill” and seems to have immediately been sent to a facility, although the normal response would have been a “hold for observation.” But this is less important to the story – she was a means to the end in view. The fire chief or whoever managed the rescue operation of a non-existent child said it all, which I wrote down when I heard it, on a scrap of paper near me:

    “Fortunately, it turned out to be a very good drill.”

    And there you have it. A party admission.

  2. Request please do not refer to “Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre event.” “Massacre” is an emotion-laden media term.

    I realize the topic of this article and discussion is ” the corporate news media’s broader treatment of government conspiracies and false flag terror” and that the discussion between the two professors was objective and intellectual. My goodness, we certainly need that.

    However, I, from the beginning, was most interested in Wolfgang Halbig’s efforts to take legal action as I was at the end of the road on “refreshing and enlightening” discussion.

    Now, Mr. Halbig (WH) no longer has Internet access, according to this radio interview. We know that GoFundMe closed WH’s fund account whereby he had received over $26.000 in donations from people who wanted to see real steps taken toward court action. I personally liked his choice of GoFundMe because it completely bypassed PayPal. However, GoFundMe has proven itself to be no more legitimate than PayPal or Facebook or Microsoft as far as ethical conduct of business.

    So now WH’s donations have probably dwindled to almost nothing as people probably have to send donations via U.S. mail. Also he is making fewer radio guest shots over the last couple of months and that is when he could ask for donations and when his donations went up on GoFundMe. (There are several pay systems that can be used other than GoFundMe that do not involve PayPal, but that is a moot point if WH cannot have Internet access.)

    I would like to have an idea of what specific lawsuit is planned to be filed and when and does WH intend to continue vigorously pursue donations and more legal actions.

    The hope for Wolfgang Halbigs lawsuit efforts look very dim at present and I wonder if that door is closed for us.

    The State of Ct. was under a “civil preparedness emergency” status as of October 29, 2012 because of Hurricane Sandy. That status allowed “hundreds of National Guard personnel were deployed. On October 29, Governor Malloy ordered road closures for all state highways. Numerous mandatory and partial evacuations were issued in cities across Connecticut.” I have written to a person at the Ct. Secretary of State to find out when that emergency status for Ct. was officially lifted as it appears to me that that status could have still been in effect on December 14 2012, Sandy Hook school event date.
    If that status was still in effect, many of the local regulations and protocols for school emergencies such as being addressed by Wolfgang Halbig could have been in suspended status, which would remove the grounds for contemplated lawsuits by WH.

    I know all of the great articles by Dr. Tracey and Dr. Fetzer have greatly contributed to the cause of truth and are invaluable, I am at the point where I at least want to see some legal action taken and now even that is looking like a dead end.

    1. Dachsielady,

      Youtube interview with Wolfgang Halgib (November 19, 2914.) Your questions about lawsuits are addressed therein. Several other revelations, as well.

      1. Thanks, John. Just listened to the audio/video.

        At 11:25, Wolf said, close paraphrase follows, ‘tomorrow I am going to hire a Florida attorney to file the federal lawsuit. I am damaged and because I am in Florida the lawsuit needs to be a federal lawsuit filed from my home state. The suit will claim damages over $25,000. If I win, the money will go into the legal fund.’

        I am still unclear exactly what kind of lawsuit is to be filed. It will, I guess, be a federal civil law suit. The suit has not been officially filed yet and I think Wolfgang ought to keep people informed as to who the defendant is and exactly what kind of suit it is and for how much money and the exact date and place of filing and the estimated time it will take to be heard in court.

        Wolfgang said his now defunct GoFundMe donations for legal fund account had $31,000 in donations when it was closed. He said he is also planning to sue GoFundMe, which is a side matter that is unrelated to filing a suit regarding Sandy Hook shooting event. I do not know if I think that is the right use of the donation funds because the people who donated were seeking legal satisfaction against the perpetrators of the Sandy Hook false event.

        I would mention that I first started searching for this interview video with your first posting, John. I encountered quite a bit of difficulty finding the video. I first searched several terms in the search bar and got several pages of mostly unrelated hits and the first two or three pages did not contain the correct hit.

        I then searched on google for the video and even had difficulty phrasing the search term precisely so that I would get good hits.
        I think I finally searched on

        Wolfgang Halbig, interview, November 19, 2014

        and it was the first or second hit but it was at this url

        Sandy Hook: Wolfgang Halbig Interview and Chase video


        Professor Doom1
        Published on Nov 19, 2014

        Professor Doom! must have posted the same recording twice on YouTube because the address you provided in your second posting is correct too.

        I guess “Professor Doom1” is with “SandyHookHoax” website or people.
        He gave his email address on the recording so here it is.

        I have to say that I still do not have any recent solid information about a law suit being filed. It is all to take place some time in the future.

        I noticed Wolfgang did not request donations for the legal fund in this phone conversation but it was not really a radio broadcast so that may explain that. Not sure.

        It still very much appears that Wolfgang Halbig’s efforts are very much in limbo now. No new funds coming in and not solid date for a lawsuit filed.

        Just my personal opinions that unfortunately have drifted from the thread’s intended topic.

      2. Thanks, Dachsielady

        I can’t figure out what went wrong, but I’m glad you were able to find the video.

        I believe Halbig is planning to file federal suits, according to what I’ve heard him say in interviews.

        As for the closed GoFundMe account, I did read the termination letter that GoFundMe sent to him and it’s really pretty outrageous in light of all the accounts that they accepted from even the most obvious frauds from the Boston Marathon and, of course, Sandy Hook. In addition, there has been an increasing movement on YouTube and other social media to remove the videos that specifically address the problems with the “official” Sandy Hook report.

  3. We already know a little and it sounds familiar. He supposedly worked as a counselor for Taunton Children’s home, a corporate foster home venture.

    It will be very interesting to find out more concerning the background of this shooter.

    He was studying and planning to take the Florida Law exam. He was a former counselor at the Taunton Children’s home.

    “Last week he wrote on the Facebook page of the group conspiracy theory group Targeted Individuals International saying: ‘Has anyone ever been encouraged by your handler to kill with a promise of freedom. ‘

    However, last month an ex-girlfriend called police on May saying he was harassing her. The woman said May, who was living in Las Cruces, N.M., had developed a severe mental disorder, according to a police report, believing cops were after him, bugging his phone and putting cameras in his car and home.

    She said May had been diagnosed with ADHD and was taking prescription medication for it; but the affliction had worsened over the prior few weeks.”

    He also posted a video about Remote Neural Monitoring – a technique that involves monitoring someone’s brain from a different location.”

    May had also been reported to have worked for the DA in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

    The Virginia Tech shooter was also reportedly taking prescription medication.

  4. Good conversation on the state of our country. That new school looks like a prison and sadly our children will not recognize their enslavement for what it is.

    Our much beleaguered AG has declared he has made 24.7 billion dollars for our country, as if we are stupid enough to believe the government is actually capable of creating a red nickel.

    There is this endless circle of corruption, I’ll fine you, and will pay you back….


  5. Another obvious false flag at FSU – they are getting so easy to detect it’s almost comical. 1) Police kill shooter, and it’s accepted at fact with no question (just throw in a shoot out and it’s a slam dunk). 2) Statement issued that there are no other threat to other students – absolute certainty they have their man (read: no investigation needed folks). 3) Several different stories floating around with differing amount of people wounded and/or killed (ah, can’t control all aspects of the story because stuff leaks). 4) Random nurse (!) quoted as the authority of amount of wounded and types of wounds. (never mind a name with credentials, got too costly!) 5) In a day and age where everyone and their mother (especially on a college campus and in the library at midnight on a school night) has a cel phone, no recordings, pictures, etc. Shuffled to the back page story within 3 days. Stir and repeat. NEXT!

  6. Great radio show, really enjoy listening to the two of you discuss this. Thank you. Mr Fetzer you seem a lot more on point of late, probably because this is the first time I’ve listed to you on audio and like James, your intelligence really shines in this medium. I’m posting this interesting overview of the FSU shooting for your consideration. Hope you don’t mind synchro-mystic thought. I’m feeling oddly hopeful, although places of learning as sites of violence or alleged violence are so wrong always, and I wish this would stop. Obama’s amnesty sounds surprisingly reasonable. He is talking about people like the ones who live in my neighborhood, hard working, law abiding people with no criminal records with children who were born here and are already citizens. Ferguson is a wild card, the Mexican people and Thai people seem to have had enough. I think people are beginning to see the patterns with these school shooting drills. Man, we live in interesting times.

    1. Doesn’t freaking matter if it sounds reasonable, just that it is illegal. Perhaps anything that sounds reasonable should be the law, you are a troll, a shill, obombaminator.

  7. I had mentioned in an earlier comment that I had written to the Connecticut Secretary of States Office asking for a link to the official legal document showing the ending date of the federal emergency status that Ct. Gov. Milloy declared on 10-28-14 and received from the President Obama’s office on 10-29-14.

    The Secretary of State is the agency over this matter but I have received three emails from Catherine Mrotek. The first response was a non-answer to my specific request for a link showing the legal document ending the hurricane Sandy emergency status for the state.

    I wrote back and said I did not think her response was an answer to my simple request for a link to a legal document. She wrote back and said she would refer my question to their office’s unnamed “lead attorney.”

    Today I got my final non-answer, run-around, response, referring me again to press releases at the Governor’s office website, which IS NOT a source for a link to a legal document officially ending the emergency status.

    The Secretary of State office is definitely the proper legal one over this matter as that is the office Governor Milloy originally addressed his emergency status declaration to (pdf link above), yet now the SOS office is stonewalling a request for a simple link that should exist if the emergency status was rescinded at a certain time. I suspect the status is still in effect and never was legally ended as it should legally have been.

    Just wanted to highlight more Connecticut government flimflam in regarding to Sandy Hook event.

    Mrotek, Catherine
    Today at 7:53 AM

    You have contacted an incorrect agency for the information that you seek. We suggest that you contact the governor’s website at – Dannel Malloy – for answers to your questions.

    Catherine L. Mrotek

    License & Applications Analyst

    Office of the Secretary of the State

    (860) 509-6003

    1. Dachsielady: Not sure if this helps but It appears that the “civil preparedness emergency” status was still in effect on Dec 14, 2012. (Found on the governor’s website link)

      An executive dated Dec 17, 2012 says the declaration of civil preparedness emergency issued on Oct 27, 2012 “has remained in place for purposes of administering certain post-hurricane recovery efforts” and that while the Sandy Hook Elementary School event does not relate to the hurricane, “the Governor has determined … that a need to provide an immediate and safe facility…” (for the students to transfer to Chalk Hill school in Monroe) “is paramount.” Effective for a period not to exceed 30 days.

      1. It sure does appear suspicious that this hurricane, fortuitously named “Sandy,” came along right before the “Sandy Hook school shooting.” I think you are on the right track, dachsielady. There may be a lot more to uncover here, in terms of money freed up as well as emergency response.

        1. I am glad someone agrees with me.

          The more we look into Sandy Hook event, the more contrived and planned the event presents itself. I have heard estimates that the Sandy Hook event was well over a year in its sophisticated planning. It seems almost inconceivable that hurricane Sandy had absolutely nothing to do with Sandy Hook “shooting” false event and that the co-occurrence is simply and purely coincidental.

          Of course all of these weather events and false hoax type events are quite useable for multiple purposes and the win is accomplished not matter what the outcome or how it appears that their evil plan failed.

          This line of inquiry calls up many questions. Can the timeline of these hurricanes and these false events be coordinated? Can hurricanes, including their path and severity, be planned date-certain? Can false events be planned and implemented date-certain?

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

    2. dachsielady: Not sure if this helps but It appears that the “civil preparedness emergency” status was still in effect on Dec 14, 2012.

      An executive order dated Dec 17, 2012 says the declaration of civil preparedness emergency issued on Oct 27, 2012 “has remained in place for purposes of administering certain post-hurricane recovery efforts” and that while the Sandy Hook Elementary School event does not relate to the hurricane, “the Governor has determined … that a need to provide an immediate and safe facility…” (for the students to transfer to Chalk Hill school in Monroe) “is paramount.” Effective for a period not to exceed 30 days.

      1. I thank you. The emergency status may still be in effect to this day for all we know as we do not have the legal document link showing the official legal ending date of that status, but it is helpful to know that it was still in effect on day of Sandy Hook event.

        I am not well read on the subject but I think when federal emergency status is enacted for an area, many of the usual laws, regulations, protocols and limits and restraints are superseded by the emergency status which grants very much wider ranging authorities and privileges to the governor and other “officers” and local authorities.

        I was thinking that if Wolfgang Halbig tried to pursue any of his questions and complaints legally against the Newtown and Ct. governments, he might be told that the laws were in suspension because of the hurricane emergency status.

        The excuse the governor gave for extending the status 30 days sounded just like what it was — an excuse. The governor allowed the status to remain in place from 10-28 to `12-14 which seems like an inordinately long time since the hurricane passed through on Oct 29 and then at some point shortly after 12-14 SJES event day made the decision so as to facilitate the displaced Sandy Hook school students moving to Chalk Hill school. Sounds weak to me. So we know the status extended through 1-14-13 at least.

        I am not at all sure what Ct. laws were “suspended” by the hurricane emergency status, but I think some were.

        1. Wolfgang Halbig, in his latest radio inteview, said he is totally bypassing the Ct. State Claims Commissioner and does not need permission to file a federal civil law suit for personal injury and damages he sustained. He is reportedly acquiring a Florida attorney who will file the federal case from Florida, his residence. Apparently Ct. is being circumvented in this planned proceeding. WH is claiming damage, as I understand it, of an emaotional distress nature, and the suit is for over $25,000.

          I guess this is good and may prompt some other individuals to file similar law suits, but it does not seem to directly address the conspiracy and deliberate gross falsehoods perpetrated on the public by the non-transparency and cover-up behaviors of those few who are seriously investigating the Sandy Hook false event.

          When you see that Lt J. Paul Vance Sr. is the Ct. Chief of Police for the State Police and his son, Claims Commissioner Paul Jr, must give permission for any liability lawsuit against the state, you have basically what looks not only like nepotism, but organized crime tightly controlling the corrupt state of Connecticut.

          But even when there is not nepotism and obvious cover-up and nontransparency and ignoring of evidence regarding Sandy Hook event, I think it is safe to say that filing a law suit against any of the state governments of the 50 US states is historically a no-win exercise and so futile and fruitless that very few even attempt it.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        2. “emotionional distress” is the term I chose to summarize what I presume is the nature of the “damage” WH sustained. WH does not speak in complete sentences and he appears to jump from one subject to another so I find it difficult to make logical sense of what he says. I do recall he made the statement “I was damaged.”

          Close to the time he made that statement, he spoke their [meaning I guess the plotters of the event] “creating emotional distress” and “panic and fear.”

      2. Re Anne’s comment about Vance: state officials will always tell you the state is immune from suit unless it has waived its immunity (and, in fact, all states have, to some extent, waived their immunity for certain torts, by legislation).

        What they don’t tell you is that states DON’T automatically have immunity from suit in federal court for violations of state officials of the Civil Rights Acts (42 USC Sec. 1983), RICO, or the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as other laws not relevant here. While plaintiffs must, again, meet rigorous standing requirements, notably that of injury to their own person or property, standing is different from immunity.

        Try as I might, I can’t figure out any way that Wolfgang Halbig has standing, other than as a federal taxpayer for misuse of his tax funds, and that’s a hard one to succeed on, because it’s an injury no different from that to other taxpayers.

        One possible plaintiff would be a contractor who was cheated out of his or her opportunity to bid on the demolition or construction projects authorized by various governments, under both RICO as well as the Sherman Act. Definitely there was bid-rigging in those contracts, to say the least. Someone who bought a Connecticut lottery ticket, but didn’t win a prize–while seeing multiple prizes go nonrandomly to people connected with the Sandy Hook incident–might be able to sue. Possibly schoolchildren who were cheated out of resource augmentation for their own schools, because of the inordinate emphasis on the “Sandy Hook School.”

        We need people who fall into the foregoing categories to bring a suit. There could be other categories I am not thinking of–the ticket is to find misappropriated public resources, then figure out who was injured by that conduct, to find a proper plaintiff.

        1. Dino: I’ve been wondering about Wolf’s standing since he started talking about suing; it’s good to have a lawyer’s view on this. And like you said, even if he could somehow prove his standing for an emotional distress or harassment claim (maybe for the Troopers’ visit to his house?), it wouldn’t warrant the kind of revealing discovery that he imagines.

          I worked as a legal secretary (civil law) for some years and in the course of my work dealt with all the standard discovery documents used for the civil discovery phase. I think the average Joe would be disheartened to see how little information is actually revealed during this very labor-intensive (read: “expensive”) process. I worked on a not-very-important case that had its discovery phase drag out for YEARS: multiple discovery requests went unanswered, and when they were finally responded to, we got boilerplate responses; when we arranged the depositions, no one would show up…it’s a bit of a circus, really, and only the attorneys came out ahead in the end. And this was a case in which all the participants were private individuals paying independent attorneys, not deep-pocketed public entities with multiple, well-staffed attorneys in their employ.

        2. You sum it up very well, Recynd. Except it’s even worse now: with new rules requiring mutual “disclosures” of witnesses’ names, addresses, and the subjects they will testify to, as well as pertinent documents– before discovery even is permitted to begin–the defendant sees the plaintiff’s hand and has time to destroy incriminating evidence, bribe or threaten witnesses to disappear or change their stories, etc., before any depositions go forward or interrogatories are served. This is called “expediting the proceedings.”

          Also, “conferral” is now required before you are permitted to file a motion, so additional time is spent, and wheels spun, fighting about whether there was appropriate conferral, instead of arguing the merits of the motion–or the case itself. The judicial process is not merely a joke, it is a racket.

        3. As for Halbig’s emotional distress claim, I’d forgotten about the troopers visiting his home. I agree that would constitute harassment. Because it is an intentional tort, it should not be covered by immunity, especially because it happened outside the Connecticut troopers’ jurisdiction (in Florida). (I did remember them being from Connecticut–if they were from Florida, a different analysis is required!) And he does have standing. But … right, it’s not going to produce anything relating to the Sandy Hook incident.

          Given the problems attending court suits, my inclination is he should at least demand publicly that these troopers be disciplined and make a much bigger stink about this incident than he has.

        4. The police who initially visited Halbig at his residence in Florida were from Florida, acting on behalf of CT police, Halbig alleges.

      3. I hadn’t seen dachsielady’s comment, posted at 3:38 a.m., about Halbig’s suit, before posting my own comment a few minutes ago.

        I don’t know where Halbig’s emotional distress comes from. The way the school board treated him at that meeting? The way it’s failed to respond to his records requests? A suit with those types of allegations is not going to bring to light any information about the Sandy Hook School Shooting, and undoubtedly will be kicked out of court well before it gets going.

        Emotional distress Wolfgang may have suffered from the school shooting itself, being no different from that suffered by any other citizen of the U..S., will not confer standing. He is not the parent of a student at the school.

        (I would put “school shooting” in quotes above, of course, except that the overuse of quotation marks distracts from the points being made!)

        1. Wolfgang Halbigs recorded and YouTubed recent conversations vaguely describe two completely different contemplated law suits. In neither description does he give us specifics. I do not know what the charge is. I do not know who the defendant would be and I do not know the nature of Wolfgang’s “damages.”

          I am disappointed that Wolfgang’s donations do not appear to be bringing forth a lawsuit that will give us “information about the Sandy Hook School Shooting.” “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

      4. Finally, about the “Claims Commissioner” who must “give permission” for a suit against the state: as far as I am aware, every state has a similar provision in their law, where their own risk management agency will evaluate the claim and decide whether to make a settlement offer. The reason for it is to avoid a protracted lawsuit. You usually have only 180 days to give notice of your claim, after the injury event, to the State so that they can make that evaluation and offer. However, if you comply with the notice condition, and the State refuses or does not respond to your claim, you can still file a suit on your tort claims in state court, at least in other states I am aware of (and I have not checked Connecticut law).

        Whatever the case with state law, state officials do NOT have the right to preclude you from going to FEDERAL court, and cannot put any limitations on your claims arising under FEDERAL law. If you bring a suit in federal court which includes both federal claims, as well as tort claims arising under state law, and have not complied with the 180-day notice requirement, your state law claims may be booted, but your federal claims will not. The federal claims would arise under Acts of Congress such as I noted earlier, being RICO, Sherman Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983).

        1. Excellent helpful information, dinophile. Thank you.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

      5. From what I could gather from listening to two videos (tapes), of Wolf and an interviewer, he was claiming to have two suits he was going to file in federal court.

        He spent quite a bit of time discussing his former lawyer from Nevada. He claimed that he was defrauded. He was asked why he hadn’t filed a writ of mandamus and said that none of his lawyers knew what that was. I find that rather hard to believe.

        Dino is, as usual, quite correct. Any “harm” he claims is very unlikely to be acknowledged by a judge. His current suit appears to be against “Go Fund Me” for canceling his account. I imagine that he is saying that his reputation was damaged.

        Just like the rest of this episode, the reasoning is all over the map. He wants documents. He’s not going to get them from “Go Fund Me”. He has no standing for a suit in Connecticut. I can think of a couple of approaches to this but they are pretty weak. He claims that the police visited (intimidated?) him at the behest of the Connecticut cops. Of course, he would have to prove that. He might get some records on discovery if he pursued that angle.

        He claimed that Lenny Posner had been stalking him. He is having bouts of “The Sandy Hook Syndrome”. He says he wants to be left alone but he keeps giving interviews.

        Did I mention that he also claimed to be preparing a “John Doe” lawsuit against any and all who “defamed” him? I frankly have a difficult time understanding his goals and he does not articulate them well.

        If the goal is for the authors and directors of the SHES fiasco to confess, that seems fairly unlikely. I admit that I would like to see a suit that would allow discovery. I’m not holding my breath. I only have his account of what “Go Fund Me’ accused him of. Does that rise to “defamation”? I don’t know.

      6. Yes, I didn’t say that they were Connecticut troopers. He said that they paid him a visit at the behest of the Connecticut police. I was trying to point out that he would have to prove that were true. If they admitted it, fine. If they didn’t they could say that they were “concerned” or something by his behavior and were checking on him for his own safety.

        My thought went to “standing”. If he could show that he was harassed by Connecticut authorities he might even be able to bring charges in federal court and bypass the requirement to get their permission to sue.

        I’m afraid, however, that he would need more than his assertion that they came to his house at Connecticut’s request. There may even be records of this that he could get in discovery. But, of course he has to pass that hurdle to get to discovery.

        He mentioned more than one attorney. I’m not clear on what that means, exactly. While laws vary from state to state, general procedures aren’t that much different, generally. Advise is advise and the principles involved are pretty standard stuff.

        In any event, when someone sets out to enter the legal process they should have a strategy. They should be clear about what they plan to do and what remedy they seek. In this case there is the matter of jurisdiction as well.

        If you have deep pockets and all the planets align, you might be able to draw a nexus between events in Connecticut and Florida. There are a lot of obstacles, however, to convincing a judge.

        1. I’m puzzled why the Florida state troopers would have done anything at Connecticut’s request. There was no arrest warrant. He did not engage in any criminal activity, at least if what he has said about this incident is true. I have not understood he threatened anyone. And yes, he should be able to get records from Florida about their contacts with Connecticut, right now, without waiting to file suit.

          He has a substantial civil rights claim, if all of this is true, against both CT and FL law enforcement–and he certainly does not need CT’s permission to sue. The federal court has federal question jurisdiction (meaning the claim arises under an Act of Congress). He does not need to rely on diversity of citizenship to bring this suit.

          Go get ’em, Wolf.

        2. The only “State Police” in my experience are, in fact, state troopers (who are State Patrol). “Police departments” are municipal entities.

      7. Dino, you’ve summarized what I was trying to say nicely. At the risk of incurring “The Wrath of Fetzer” (although I still admire his work), it is precisely the “claim” by Mr. Halbig that is the wild card.

        He “says” he was visited by Florida troopers at the behest of Connecticut police. He could have a First Amendment case there….if that is what happened.

        I have no way of verifying that. If, indeed that happened, and, depending on what they said to him, he may have a federal case. Of course, unless it was recorded, it would be his word against theirs.

        The federal route is the way to go. Of course, Holder is “federal”. If an IRS official cannot be persuaded to deliver emails with national attention focused on her, what do you think the odds are of Mr. Halbig acquiring any useful information?

        I am, of course, interested in seeing where this goes. I am simply being realistic with regard to the way things work in real life. Several obstacles would have to be overcome. This would be expensive. There would be so many motions filed you’d need a program just to keep track of them.

        Lastly, as some of us know, lawyers have to eat too. Even someone willing to provide their services “pro bono”, would be devoting a tremendous amount of time to an undertaking like this. This is easier to do when there is a monetary settlement at the end of the rainbow. In this case I don’t see a rainbow.

        Truth and right are noble concepts. I wish him well. It is just, in a practical sense, unless he gets a group that is willing to help him with this it is unlikely that he’ll be able to sustain this over time.

      8. Dino and Recynd, in the most “conciliatory” fashion I can muster (lest I release another firestorm of righteous indignation), I have commented on what he SAID (I wish I could underline! (sigh!).

        I obviously was not there. It OF COURSE makes a difference exactly what police entity both “allegedly” paid the visit and which “allegedly” requested it.

        In my opinion there are a whole separate set of problems with this alone. I am not saying that it didn’t happen. I am not saying that it did. If we simply go with what he says, he is a bit “imprecise” to able to determine anything solid.

        The subject of the two (as I understand it) presumptive lawsuits, have to do with “defamation”. One was the funding site, the other was a “John Doe” affair that was to include any and all who he believes damaged his reputation.

        If he were merely speaking as a layman about his troubles, fine. It starts to get decidedly muddy when he starts to talk about his legal advice. While I can’t absolutely rule out incompetence (it happens!), I would expect anyone serving as his counsel would be advising him not to talk about these pending cases.

        That leaves me wondering whether he is actually being advised, or if he has “Cliff Claven Syndrome” and can’t help himself. I have worked with people like that and it happens as well.

        From sitting in our catbird seat trying to speculate on the odds of this being successful, it presents too many challenges to adequately address. I would love to see him go forward with this, if possible. I’m not sure I’ve heard the “Aha statement” that would seal the deal.

        He was talking about federal court. I didn’t get the sense that he understands the ramifications of that. If he has this representation he/she (them?), should be working with him. If I were he/she (them?) I wouldn’t want him giving anymore interviews about pending cases.

        1. Helpful reasonable thoughts, Lophatt. Thank you.

          I too have thought that an attorney would advise WH not to reveal his hand. Yet many of us have wanted “updates” from WH and these recent recorded phone conversations that were put on YouTube have interviewers asking the status of his legal pursuits. Just maybe the reason WH’s words in the phone interviews seem so ambiguous and disjointed and inconclusive is too keep concealed the specific legal plan.

          I personally was wanting to see the pursuit of at least one lawsuit that would shed light on the Sandy Hook “plan” and “planners.” I think that is what motivated many of us to be supportive, via donations and otherwise, of Wolfgang Halbig.

          I do not feel reassured that WH has quality steady legal advice. If there was little or no chance for a lawsuit that offered insight and justice regarding the event itself, it would seem that a competent, well intentioned attorney could have laid that reality out to WH early on, and I do not regard defamation as the kind of charge that would offer direct insight and justice regarding some aspect core to the event itself.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

      9. Dachsielady, thank you. I’ll stop now. We all have our thoughts on this. Everyone would like to see it exposed. We may have to content ourselves with what we can find on our own. It is frustrating because at least some of it should be easy to validate. Sometimes I think what’s needed is a skillful detective.

  8. Folks, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for Wolfgang Halbig’s lawsuit to unravel the Sandy Hook puzzle. Like Jim Fetzer and the recently interviewed Andrew MacGregor, Halbig seems to be convinced that the school has been closed since 2008. This is simply not the case. A quick look at the archives for the Newtown Bee yields numerous references to the school, its principal, its vice principal, its events and programs, etc, etc.This paper is read by many people who were uninvolved in the fraud. The entire town would have to have been in on it. Halbig, Fetzer, and MacGregor could easily have checked this information. Ask yourselves why none of these “investigators” have done this. It is because they have been put there to mislead and misdirect.
    Take a look at this enrollment chart for the Newtown school district:
    It shows a total of 1,600 students in the district class, which is divided into four groups at the elementary school level. Each elementary school has approx. 360 to 400 students. Where would all the Sandy Hook students have gone if the school had really been closed since 2008?The Chalk Hill Middle School, perhaps? The Newtown Bee wrote that the Chalk Hill Middle school was “mothballed”. How could it have claimed this if the parents of 400 Sandy Hook students were sending their kids there?

    It would be much more helpful to try to explain why most of the 400+ students were not at the school on that particular day. An existing state of emergency would not explain it, as too many people would have been aware of this, and someone from the town of Sandy Hook would have brought it up. Instead, I suggest we look at the school calendar for the week of 12-14-12. What was going on that week, and that day?Here is the calendar for Sandy Hook Elementary School:
    Scroll back to the month of Dec. 2012 by using the arrows at the upper left. Voila, the students at the school were taking their “PTA Geography Tests” all day, all week. In addition, there was a math test due on the 14th. Click on the math test, and it also was “all day”. So how many of the students were taking these tests, and where were they taking them? This is the $64,000 dollar question.

    We can start by eliminating the kindergarten students, because they came for only a half day starting at noon. See this:
    The school was K-4, so that is five classes of approx. 80 students. So 80 students were not due until noon on 12-14-12, that leaves 320. Can we figure out how many were taking the PTA Geography test? Take a look at this:
    Notice that the first graders were not among the participants in the PTA geography test. Only the students in grades 2 through 4 took the test. If these students were taking the test at another location, or were given the day off after taking it on a previous day, they would also have been absent on the 14th. It is worth noting that the Sandy Hook PTA apparently had its office at the Chalk Hill Middle school. Did the students take the test there? So now we are down to possibly 80 or so first grade students.
    What about this math test? The calendar says it was due on the 14th but it was scheduled for “all day”. What could this mean? Was this something students did at home and brought in? Perhaps some of the students had a “late arrival day” on one of the last fridays before the christmas vacation, which would mean that they were expected at 10:30 am. Just in time for the media circus.
    It is also possible that all 80 or so first graders were at the school, and were kept inside their classrooms. These are all five and six year old kids, and unlikely to question the story they were told. When the recording of gunshots was played over the intercom system, the students were told that there was a”wild animal loose” so as not to frighten them. They were then evacuated, with only one group of fifteen kids photographed. This was done on purpose, to provide the germ of a “conspiracy theory” which alleges that the school was closed. This claim can be easily disproved, as I have shown, and everyone in Newtown will likely dismiss it out of hand, along with any alleged conspiracy.
    Obviously I am speculating here, but I think that this is an angle which is worth looking at. It is clear that the school was in session, yet only a fraction of the students were present, so where were they? I think that something like this is a plausible explanation. The idea that the school was closed since 2008 is misdirection, which will ultimately backfire, discrediting the entire Sandy Hook Truth project.

    1. But what about all the video of the official report that showed a dilapidated building with a multitude of fire hazards, many buckets catching leaking water spouts, mold and mildew and a boiler room that showed zero pressure, as in it was not producing heat in this cold weather? And the rusted, crushed up thing that was supposed to be the playground? Yes sir ye, I will be happy to send my child to this school and make sure they get all their shots so they do not get tetanus from all the rusted play things…..

      Certainly, if I pay 20k in property taxes, I will assume that buys only the best for my child.

      1. Was the official video report of the School ever questioned, it was obvious and ‘in your face ‘ who any one who watched this Video…. that this dirty old dilapidated school did not house any 6 and 7 yr old children.. why would any one believe this was a functioning school.. Its laughable.!! You are right Pendantic .. everything you say is true..nobody in their right mind would send their child to a run down school like this..

  9. Christo, the first link doesn’t work. I agree that whether the school was operational or not is a major issue. There has been discussion that SHES was actually transferred to one of the other school campuses in 2008.

    I don’t know about “the whole Sandy Hook Truth project”, but what the actual status of the school was on the day in question is important.

    Given Dr. Fetzer’s information on internet usage, the pictures contained in the state’s reports and other observable oddities, it seems entirely likely that it was not in use.

    is that “conclusive proof”, no. On the other hand, to believe the official story one would have to believe that parents willingly sent their children to a rundown, dilapidated school with bad housekeeping and unsafe conditions with little concern.

    The pictures showed no sign of Christmas decorations. it seems unlikely that they would stage a “Capstone Event” at a functioning school that was in session. There can be little doubt that they did.

    If they were simply “arriving late”, what would the parents have made of all the official vehicles and emergency apparatus staged at the firehouse? After all, who would have been there to be the victims of such an attack?

    While I would love to see conclusive proof that it was closed, it seems that the preponderance of the evidence points to that conclusion. If there is another explanation I would welcome it.

    1. SHES may have been located in a different building than the one on Dickinson Drive. The location may have been in Monroe for some time and the mothball history another layer of disinformation. Or located in another building in town or one of the surrounding towns. Newtown has a history of playing musical chairs with their schools (see Wikipedia).

      This brings me to the Hawley School in Newtown. It was built in 1921, 35 years older than the Dickinson Drive SHES. Yet photos show a school well maintained from the roof to the grounds, a stately building.

      The building that now houses Hawley School was built from donations to Newtown by Mary Elizabeth Hawley in 1921, and was in fact named after her parents. It was a modern building for the time, having as it did central heating, an auditorium, a chemistry laboratory, and fireproofing; however nowadays it lacks facilities with respect to other schools in the district, such as a cafeteria. By 1950, the school had become so overcrowded that an extension was built at the rear of the building and some of the old one-room schoolhouses were re-opened. The Newtown high school was located in this building from 1921 to 1953, when it was moved to a new building on Queen Street. The Hawley building was re-used as an elementary school, serving kindergarten to grade 8. The high school moved from Queen Street in 1974, and the Queen Street building became what is today Newtown Middle School, with the Hawley elementary school reduced to serving kindergarten to grade 5.[6][7][8]
      The playground facilities used by Hawley School were once the Newtown Fairgrounds. They became Taylor Field, owned by Cornelius Byron Taylor, who donated the field to the town at the same time as Hawley donated the building.[7]

      While we are in Sandy Hook, and Robert Hoagland is not, he could be in Myrtle Beach:

    1. Christo, as Anne suggested, one theory is that the name “Sandy Hook” remained but at another location. Dr. Fetzer’s internet usage is pretty good. It has the correct address for the alleged old Sandy Hook and shows the usage dropping to zero in 2008.

      In your chart 363 seems the current enrollment. During the height of the debacle the enrollment number seems all over the map.

      The police report, contains photos allegedly taken at the old SHES. That most certainly does not look like an open school.

      I am not persuaded by the “exams” angle. These are elementary school students. They are not doing “finals”.

      As has been pointed many times, where did all the kids go? Of course the pictures could have been taken at any time. That still doesn’t explain the condition of the building.

      As your link shows, they make no effort to separate individual usage of services between schools. Even if they did, if SHES were simply in another location it would still register costs.

      This is the sort of thing a good detective should be able to get to the bottom of without much trouble. If you have an open school you have records. You have employees. They pay taxes, etc..

      I have an open mind on this. Even if it were categorically proven to be open as advertised, it still would not explain much of the rest. If, on the other hand, it were shown to be closed it would certainly go a long way to let the air out of their balloon.

  10. The school, built in 1954, was ready to be replaced. The official video deliberately made it look even more decrepit than it was in order to support the false claim that it was closed. Hence the odd and seemingly irrelevant pictures of buckets and clutter. Christmas (and Hanukah) decorations were left off to give further credence to this impression, and perhaps because they can be controversial. We did see candle decorations in the front window.

    You can see from the bar graph that the enrollment at the other three elementary schools, Head O Meadow, Middle Gate, and Hawley, did not increase by 400 students. The Chalk Hill Middle school was “mothballed” according to a published account in the Newtown Bee. So where did the 400 students go?

    The fact that the internet activity at the Sandy Hook School seemed to cease after 2008 could be explained by a change in the internet address. This is further evidence that the misdirection of a closed school was planned.

    If you follow my argument, I am claiming that most of the upper grade students were either at another location, or given the day off, after taking their geography or math tests. We can confirm that they were taking these tests by looking at the calendar and the other links. If this had been the case, most of the upper grade teachers might also have been absent. While the geography tests were voluntary, I suspect that most of the students took them, and the few who did not were not expected to come to school.

    It may well have been the case that all 80 or so first graders were there that day. I suspect that they were, and were deliberately evacuated without being photographed. Hicks was allowed to photograph only one group in order to add to the intrigue. My point is that this disinformation is deliberate, and built in from the outset. I think that it is very telling that Fetzer, Halbig, and MacGregor have all endorsed this misconception unanimously without looking at the evidence I found so easily. “Space beams” Fetzer is a proven disinfo. agent, who claims that mini-nukes, directed energy beams from space, and holograms were used to demolish the twin towers on 911. Anything he ways should be looked at with great skepticism.

  11. Re: dachsielady’s earlier inquiry as to where any document can be found showing when Gov. Mallory officially ended the civil preparedness emergency order that began on October 27, 2012, it can be found here:

    It is an Executive Order dated March 18, 2013.

    It also states that:

    “Nothing in this order shall be construed to invalidate any actions taken pursuant to or in reasonable reliance on such orders, whether such activities have concluded or are ongoing.”

    Wonder what he means by “or are ongoing”??????

    1. Thank you ever so much, arsrchr. Just what I was looking for.

      I keep remembering Wolfgang Halbig’s “16 questions” which mostly were of the category of why were not certain protocols followed and standard actions taken during the Sandy Hook school event. It seems to me that if he were ever to address to the appropriate place each of those questions and to actually receiving a response, the answers to his questions might rely on are call upon the hurricane emergency status being in place that superseded following of standard protocols.

      To my knowledge, WH has not even received responses to any of his open records (FOIA) requests nor has he had any of his 16 questions formally answered.

      Getting these answers is, as I understand it, necessary to and preliminary to the filing of a lawsuit that relates to the core issues of the Sandy Hook event anomalies.

Comments are closed.