RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Dad of Sandy Hook victim wins suit against conspiracy theorists - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Dad of Sandy Hook victim wins suit against conspiracy theorists Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,129
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 18 June 2019 - 05:18 PM

Dad of Sandy Hook victim wins suit against conspiracy theorists

Amanda Woods
NY Post
6/18/19

EXCERPT:

The dad of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim won a defamation lawsuit this week against conspiracy theorists who wrote a book claiming the 2012 shooting — in which 26 people, including 20 kids, lost their lives — never happened.

The book, “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook,” was pulled as the publisher settled claims filed by Lenny Pozner, whose 6-year-old son, Noah, was killed in the shooting.

A Wisconsin judge on Monday issued a summary judgment against the co-authors, James Fetzer and Mike Palacek. A trial to decide damages will begin in October.

The book claimed, among other things, that Noah’s death certificate was faked, said Pozner’s lawyer, Jake Zimmerman.

“If Mr. Fetzer wants to believe that Sandy Hook never happened and that we are all crisis actors, even that my son never existed, he has the right to be wrong. But he doesn’t have the right to broadcast those beliefs if they defame me or harass me,” Pozner said. “He doesn’t have the right to use my baby’s image or our name as a marketing ploy to raise donations or sell his products. He doesn’t have the right to convince others to hunt my family.”

Before Pozner’s case even reached a judge, Fetzer previously said “evidence clearly shows this wasn’t a massacre, it was a FEMA drill.”

“If you believe otherwise, then you are being played,” he added.

To prove the theorists wrong, Pozner even attached a redacted copy of his son’s death certificate to the lawsuit — and shared DNA samples to compare with those provided by the medical examiner, as evidence that Noah was his son.

He also placed his son’s birth certificate, report cards and medical records into the public file in his legal actions — to ensure that “normal people” can access the truth and don’t fall for the hoaxers’ claims.

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,042
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 18 June 2019 - 06:51 PM

GOOD

The slimeballs who promoted the vicious lie that Sandy Hook either "never happened" or was a "false flag" exercise are the lowest of the low, the slimiest of the slime, and need to face some serious music for their purposeful garbage.

I've scraped substances off my shoes more worthy of respect than Fetzer and Palacek.

<_<
0

#3 User is offline   searcher 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,818
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 18 June 2019 - 07:14 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 18 June 2019 - 06:51 PM, said:

GOOD

The slimeballs who promoted the vicious lie that Sandy Hook either "never happened" or was a "false flag" exercise are the lowest of the low, the slimiest of the slime, and need to face some serious music for their purposeful garbage.

I've scraped substances off my shoes more worthy of respect than Fetzer and Palacek.

<_<



I hope they live long lives and pay the whole time.

Mark
0

#4 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,738
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 18 June 2019 - 07:31 PM

Is this the same lawsuit that also had Alex Jones as a defendant?

EtA: Oops, I should have read further into the article...

Quote

Pozner and other victims’ families earlier this year filed similar defamation lawsuits in Texas and Connecticut against Alex Jones, host of the conspiracy-driven Infowars website.

Christopher Mattei, a lawyer who represents the families in the Connecticut case against Jones, said he wants the theorists to know they are affecting real people, who are already going through severe emotional pain.

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 18 June 2019 - 07:35 PM

0

#5 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,067
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 18 June 2019 - 08:28 PM

So much for the 1st Amendment I guess.
0

#6 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,042
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 18 June 2019 - 09:04 PM

View PostSeverian, on 18 June 2019 - 08:28 PM, said:

So much for the 1st Amendment I guess.


Seriously? I can't deny being curious.

B)
0

#7 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,129
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 18 June 2019 - 10:34 PM

View PostSeverian, on 18 June 2019 - 08:28 PM, said:

So much for the 1st Amendment I guess.

You oppose defamation laws?
0

#8 User is online   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,180
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 19 June 2019 - 04:28 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 18 June 2019 - 09:04 PM, said:

Seriously? I can't deny being curious.

B)

Me too. Standing by and hoping he comes back to explain.
0

#9 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,743
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 19 June 2019 - 04:41 AM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 18 June 2019 - 07:31 PM, said:

Is this the same lawsuit that also had Alex Jones as a defendant?

EtA: Oops, I should have read further into the article...


That is this one:
Alex Jones hit with sanctions by judge in Sandy Hook lawsuit as case gets a proposed trial date
By Oliver Darcy and Lauren del Valle, CNN Business

Updated 4:43 PM ET, Tue June 18, 2019

Excerpt:
New York (CNN Business)A Connecticut judge on Tuesday sanctioned right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for suggesting that a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families, who are suing the InfoWars founder for his past claims that the 2012 shooting was staged, tried to frame him with child pornography.
The ruling, handed down from Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis, came after attorneys representing several Sandy Hook families in their lawsuit against Jones filed a motion on Monday asking the judge to review footage of Jones lambasting one of the attorneys in a Friday segment.
Bellis called Jones' behavior on the broadcast "indefensible," "unconscionable," and "possibly criminal behavior."
Bellis sanctioned Jones by denying the defense the opportunity to pursue special motions to dismiss moving forward in the lawsuit. The court will also award attorneys fees and filing fees to the Sandy Hook families' lawyers related to the issue that Jones went off about in his broadcast: child pornography that Jones' team inadvertently turned over to the plaintiffs.

Jones is being sued by families of Sandy Hook victims in both Texas and Connecticut courts over his past claims that the 2012 shooting was staged. He has since acknowledged that the shooting was real. At the hearing, a proposed trial date of November 2020 was settled on by both sides and agreed to by the judge.

Jones suggested on a broadcast last Friday that an attorney for the Sandy Hook families tried to frame him by planting child pornography in emails that Jones' team then turned over to the plaintiffs as part of the discovery process. He later backed off the claim.
In their Monday court filing, the plaintiffs said they discovered "numerous images of child pornography" in the cache of discovery documents Jones provided them and immediately contacted the FBI.
The plaintiffs, however, noted the images "had apparently been sent to InfoWars email addresses."
In other words, it appeared a person or persons sent the images of child pornography to InfoWars email addresses and then, as part of the discovery process, those emails with the images were turned over to the plaintiffs.
It did not appear that Jones or anyone on his team solicited or even had knowledge of those images. Jones' attorney, Norman Pattis, said on an InfoWars broadcast that the FBI was treating Jones as a victim in the case, describing the emails that included the images of child pornography as "very hostile" toward him.

"I spoke to federal prosecutors last week," Pattis said on the broadcast. "They report that there is no indication anyone at InfoWars knowingly possessed child pornography."
In the Monday court filing, the plaintiffs added that it did not appear Jones' team had "engaged in even minimal due diligence" and "actually reviewed the materials before production."
In one of his trademark on-air tirades, Jones suggested without evidence on his Friday show that the child pornography was part of a plot by the lawyers for the Sandy Hook families to set him up.

<snip>

Link
0

#10 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,067
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 19 June 2019 - 07:38 AM

The 1st doesn't apply, I was merely pointing out the somewhat hypocritical stance of being against the Left's definition of Hate Speech and the jumping in to support the suit against the Sandy Hook Conspiracy nuts. Perhaps they did libel or slander the families enough to make a case, but libel and slander laws are too often used to shut down speech that's disliked by the Left and precedents set can be bad news. I've not followed this at all, but the sudden and gleeful jumping on the bandwagon here kind of surprised me. How soon before someone sues someone who says a shooting is not going to be solved by gun laws, because it makes the victims family feel bad?
0

#11 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,249
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 19 June 2019 - 08:04 AM

View PostSeverian, on 19 June 2019 - 07:38 AM, said:

The 1st doesn't apply, I was merely pointing out the somewhat hypocritical stance of being against the Left's definition of Hate Speech and the jumping in to support the suit against the Sandy Hook Conspiracy nuts. Perhaps they did libel or slander the families enough to make a case, but libel and slander laws are too often used to shut down speech that's disliked by the Left and precedents set can be bad news. I've not followed this at all, but the sudden and gleeful jumping on the bandwagon here kind of surprised me. How soon before someone sues someone who says a shooting is not going to be solved by gun laws, because it makes the victims family feel bad?


It is a slippery slope. Either way this definitely meets the definition of Libel and Slander because people have been hurt and suffered because of it. AND... Jones has definitely experienced gain from it. Typically a free speech argument doesn't see people having to move due to harassment and threats. Much less denying a personal loss ever happened.
IE if I said something completely false about you or criticized your beliefs or your family that would by in large be free speech.
BUT, if I continued to say something that's demonstrably false, was asked to stop because it's causing serious emotional trauma and even threats, and on top of this I am profiting or experiencing gain that crosses the line. Jones has been right a handful of times on things, I will give him that. BUT, throw out enough wild predictions and a few are bound to come true. Hate to say it but he is simply a shrewd businessman of sorts who understands how to cater to and profit of a segment of society, small as they may be he has profited quite well of them.

Oki
0

#12 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,738
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 19 June 2019 - 08:28 AM

View PostSeverian, on 19 June 2019 - 07:38 AM, said:

The 1st doesn't apply, I was merely pointing out the somewhat hypocritical stance of being against the Left's definition of Hate Speech and the jumping in to support the suit against the Sandy Hook Conspiracy nuts. Perhaps they did libel or slander the families enough to make a case, but libel and slander laws are too often used to shut down speech that's disliked by the Left and precedents set can be bad news. I've not followed this at all, but the sudden and gleeful jumping on the bandwagon here kind of surprised me. How soon before someone sues someone who says a shooting is not going to be solved by gun laws, because it makes the victims family feel bad?


It's not about 'just' making them feel bad. It's about doing so by making specific FALSE allegations against specific persons with the specific intent of damaging their reputations/credibility and/or inflicting emotional distress. (The word 'specific' is important.)

Long story short: In 2017 Jones called these families "liars", mere 'actors' who staged the whole thing and faked the deaths of the children. It crossed the line: He didn't merely question the events, he flat-out called specific persons 'liars'. Two examples: He specifically accused parent Neil Heslin of lying about holding his son’s body and seeing a bullet hole in the child’s head, and he specifically accused parents Veronique de la Rosa and Leonard Pozner of faking their son Leonard Pozner's death and lying about it in a 'staged' interview.

A person's reputation and credibility has 'value'. Alex Jones tried to damage this with false accusations.
0

#13 User is online   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,180
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 19 June 2019 - 08:55 AM

View PostSeverian, on 19 June 2019 - 07:38 AM, said:

The 1st doesn't apply, I was merely pointing out the somewhat hypocritical stance of being against the Left's definition of Hate Speech and the jumping in to support the suit against the Sandy Hook Conspiracy nuts. Perhaps they did libel or slander the families enough to make a case, but libel and slander laws are too often used to shut down speech that's disliked by the Left and precedents set can be bad news. I've not followed this at all, but the sudden and gleeful jumping on the bandwagon here kind of surprised me. How soon before someone sues someone who says a shooting is not going to be solved by gun laws, because it makes the victims family feel bad?


Sorry, but I see no relation between what you are saying here and this:

“If Mr. Fetzer wants to believe that Sandy Hook never happened and that we are all crisis actors, even that my son never existed, he has the right to be wrong. But he doesn’t have the right to broadcast those beliefs if they defame me or harass me,” Pozner said. “He doesn’t have the right to use my baby’s image or our name as a marketing ploy to raise donations or sell his products. He doesn’t have the right to convince others to hunt my family.
0

#14 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,129
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 19 June 2019 - 08:57 AM

View PostSeverian, on 19 June 2019 - 07:38 AM, said:

The 1st doesn't apply, I was merely pointing out the somewhat hypocritical stance of being against the Left's definition of Hate Speech and the jumping in to support the suit against the Sandy Hook Conspiracy nuts. Perhaps they did libel or slander the families enough to make a case, but libel and slander laws are too often used to shut down speech that's disliked by the Left and precedents set can be bad news. I've not followed this at all, but the sudden and gleeful jumping on the bandwagon here kind of surprised me. How soon before someone sues someone who says a shooting is not going to be solved by gun laws, because it makes the victims family feel bad?


The short of it is the persons in question wrote a book about Sandy Hook being faked. They attacked the father as a liar and accused him of forging a death certificate, claiming his child that was murdered in fact never existed. They used the child's name and image as part of their campaign. They harassed him to the point that some of their readers became enraged and were sending the father death threats. All the guy wanted to do was grieve, and they crushed him.


Using your example, it'd be more akin to your kid being killed in a mass shooting and liberal writers using your kid's image and name to push a gun control agenda, then harassing you to the point that people threaten to kill you for not getting on the gun control train.
0

#15 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,757
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 19 June 2019 - 10:02 AM

How did these extreme conspiracies even start? Don’t people think before they put lots of energy into these stories they concoct?

Yes, I get that it can be “fun” or “interesting” or “cool” or “scary” to start saying stuff like, hey buddy, imagine if everything you’ve been told is just a bunch of lies used to control you, wouldn’t that like really freak you out?

Yeah, it would freak people out, but most normal people grow out of that teenage phase and become adults, and develop a healthy level of skepticism while still not becoming unrealistic and crazy. (Notice the careful phrasing “normal people”, thus leftists are automatically excluded. Just a quick clarification there.) Therefore, normal people understand that something like Sandy Hook or 911 aren’t “fake-able”. The opportunities for the truth to be discovered are too numerous that - in an otherwise relatively open and free and orderly and law-abiding society - you just can’t keep these level of tragedies from being exposed as fakes, if they’d be fakes.

My only conclusion is that these conspiracy nuts are simply just nuts. Occam’s Razor.
0

#16 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,249
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 19 June 2019 - 10:19 AM

View Postzurg, on 19 June 2019 - 10:02 AM, said:

How did these extreme conspiracies even start? Don’t people think before they put lots of energy into these stories they concoct?

Yes, I get that it can be “fun” or “interesting” or “cool” or “scary” to start saying stuff like, hey buddy, imagine if everything you’ve been told is just a bunch of lies used to control you, wouldn’t that like really freak you out?

Yeah, it would freak people out, but most normal people grow out of that teenage phase and become adults, and develop a healthy level of skepticism while still not becoming unrealistic and crazy. (Notice the careful phrasing “normal people”, thus leftists are automatically excluded. Just a quick clarification there.) Therefore, normal people understand that something like Sandy Hook or 911 aren’t “fake-able”. The opportunities for the truth to be discovered are too numerous that - in an otherwise relatively open and free and orderly and law-abiding society - you just can’t keep these level of tragedies from being exposed as fakes, if they’d be fakes.

My only conclusion is that these conspiracy nuts are simply just nuts. Occam’s Razor.



I think there are a couple scenarios. Facts don't add up in a way that people find acceptable or rock solid, truth of coarse is things rarely ever do add up %100. There are political or even financial aspects, some one or some group seeing a way to exploit or gain, the official narrative is just to painful to accept as truth. Or, in many cases I think it's a mix of all of the above.
When you don't want to believe something is correct and look for proof that it is incorrect a person can easily be lead astray and down conspiracy rabbit holes. Throw in something which you are emotionally attached to and even the smartest most logical person can be fooled.

Oki
0

#17 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,042
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 19 June 2019 - 10:45 AM

View PostSeverian, on 19 June 2019 - 07:38 AM, said:

The 1st doesn't apply, I was merely pointing out the somewhat hypocritical stance of being against the Left's definition of Hate Speech and the jumping in to support the suit against the Sandy Hook Conspiracy nuts. Perhaps they did libel or slander the families enough to make a case, but libel and slander laws are too often used to shut down speech that's disliked by the Left and precedents set can be bad news. I've not followed this at all, but the sudden and gleeful jumping on the bandwagon here kind of surprised me. How soon before someone sues someone who says a shooting is not going to be solved by gun laws, because it makes the victims family feel bad?


Thanks for the answer. :) I see others have already responded, most of them saying what I'd have said, so I'll try to keep this short:

This particular crackpot conspiracy was causing direct harm to innocent people. That's what distinguishes it from most other conspiracy theories: If idiots wanna convince themselves that 9-11 was an "inside job", LOL, or that chemtrails in the air and flouride in the water are "plots", LOL, who cares? Let 'em make fools of themselves. They aren't actually harming anybody with their silliness.

But this one IS causing direct harm to specific innocent individuals and families.

That's the difference.

B)
0

#18 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,067
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 19 June 2019 - 01:42 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 19 June 2019 - 10:45 AM, said:

Thanks for the answer. :) I see others have already responded, most of them saying what I'd have said, so I'll try to keep this short:

This particular crackpot conspiracy was causing direct harm to innocent people. That's what distinguishes it from most other conspiracy theories: If idiots wanna convince themselves that 9-11 was an "inside job", LOL, or that chemtrails in the air and flouride in the water are "plots", LOL, who cares? Let 'em make fools of themselves. They aren't actually harming anybody with their silliness.

But this one IS causing direct harm to specific innocent individuals and families.

That's the difference.

B)

I understand y'alls points, as I said I haven't paid enough attention to the story to really know what was up, and I agree this went into libel and slander and real harassment and damages if what is said is true, and there appears to be ample evidence of that. But it still is a slippery slope, this may be onerous enough that the perpetrators of the conspiracy theories need punished, but I also see this akin to families suing the rifle manufacturer, whether these things are justified or not teeters on a razor blade at times.
0

#19 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,042
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 19 June 2019 - 02:09 PM

View PostSeverian, on 19 June 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

I understand y'alls points, as I said I haven't paid enough attention to the story to really know what was up, and I agree this went into libel and slander and real harassment and damages if what is said is true, and there appears to be ample evidence of that. But it still is a slippery slope, this may be onerous enough that the perpetrators of the conspiracy theories need punished, but I also see this akin to families suing the rifle manufacturer, whether these things are justified or not teeters on a razor blade at times.


Yeah, I get the caution, the reluctance to jump to conclusions, the disdain for slippery-slope bait, etc. Nothing wrong with any of that. And I'm glad you openly admit you haven't really been following this, because for me EVEN WITH all that caution & stuff taken into account, this SPECIFIC case goes way beyond all reasonable bounds.

B)
0

#20 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,129
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 19 June 2019 - 02:31 PM

View Postzurg, on 19 June 2019 - 10:02 AM, said:

How did these extreme conspiracies even start? Don’t people think before they put lots of energy into these stories they concoct?

Yes, I get that it can be “fun” or “interesting” or “cool” or “scary” to start saying stuff like, hey buddy, imagine if everything you’ve been told is just a bunch of lies used to control you, wouldn’t that like really freak you out?

Yeah, it would freak people out, but most normal people grow out of that teenage phase and become adults, and develop a healthy level of skepticism while still not becoming unrealistic and crazy. (Notice the careful phrasing “normal people”, thus leftists are automatically excluded. Just a quick clarification there.) Therefore, normal people understand that something like Sandy Hook or 911 aren’t “fake-able”. The opportunities for the truth to be discovered are too numerous that - in an otherwise relatively open and free and orderly and law-abiding society - you just can’t keep these level of tragedies from being exposed as fakes, if they’d be fakes.

My only conclusion is that these conspiracy nuts are simply just nuts. Occam’s Razor.


For Alex Jones, I think its a combination of some from of an undiagnosed mania (watch his interview on Joe Rogan's podcast, its an epic crapshow) and a desire for profit.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users