PDF
10-04-2024DECISION AND ORDER SANCTIONING JAMES FETZER UNDER WIS. STAT. § 802.05PDF
08-22-2024DECISION AND ORDER DENYING JAMES FETZER’S MOTION TO RECUSEPDF
06-20-2024DECISION AND ORDER DENYING JAMES FETZERS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENTPDF
06-14-2024DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING LEONARD POZNER’S MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDSPDF
03-06-2024WITHDRAWL: Petition. Supreme Court of the United StatesPDF
02-27-2024Petition . Supreme Court of the United StatesPDF
02-08-2024COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 8, 2024 - Reversed and cause remandedPDF
01-23-2024The Supreme Couirt of Wisconsin - the petition for review is denied,PDF
09-14-2023LEONARD POZNER PLAINTIFF - RESPONDENT JAMES FETZER DEFENDANT-APPELLANTPDF
05-10-2023Transcript of March 17, 2023 Garnishment HearingPDF
04-25-2023PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDSPDF
01-18-2023Credits Objection to Answer and Demand for Hearing Non-Earnings GarnishmentPDF
01-03-2023Debtors Answer - Non-Earnings GarnishmentPDF
12-27-2022STATE OF WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IVPDF
12-27-2022UW Credit Union - Garnishee Answer Non-Earnings GarnishmentPDF
12-27-2022State Bank of Cross Plains - Garnishee Answer Non-Earnings GarnishmentPDF
12-21-2022SUMMIT CREDIT UNION - Garnishee Answer - Non-Earnings GarnishmentPDF
12-15-2022Summons and Complaint Non-Earnings Garnishment - James FetzerPDF
12-06-2022DECISION AND ORDER ON OBJECTION OF AN ELECTION OF AN EXEMPTION
09-06-2022 Application (22A200) DENIED by Justice Barrett. – FETZER’S APPLICATION FOR STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY PENDING DISPOSITION OF PETITION FOR A WRIT TO CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESPDF
07-29-2022 FETZER’S REPLY TO POZNER’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO FETZERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, MOTION TO VACATE & OBJECTION TO POZNERS VALUATION OF PROPERTY, & DAMAGES FOR ABUSE OF PROCESSPDF
07-29-2022 FETZER’S REPLY TO POZNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAYPDF
07-29-2022 PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAYPDF
07-29-2022 PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, VACATION [SIC] & OBJECTION TO POZNERS VALUATION OF PROPERTY & DAMAGES FOR ABUSE OF PROCESSPDF
07-18-2022 FETZER’S MOTION TO STAY POZNER’S “TAKING ORDER” UNTIL RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIPDF
07-13-2022FETZER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
VACATION & OBJECTION TO POZNER’S VALUATION OF PROPERTY, & DAMAGES FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS
PDF
07-08-2022 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF PROPERTY TO APPLY PROPERTY TO SATISFY JUDGMENTPDF
06-09-2022 PLAINTIFF, LEONARD POZNER’S, REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF PROPERTY TO SATISFY JUDGMENTPDF
02-16-2022 Order Denying Petition for ReviewPDF
06-07-2021 Plaintiff Opposition to Appellants Petition for review
05-07-2021 Petition for Review – James Fetzer Appeal
03-18-2021 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILEDPDF
01-07-2021 ALISON MAYNARD, attorney registration number 16561, is DISBARRED
12-08-2020 Fetzer Contempt of court Appeal
08-04-2020 Amended Order for the second Contempt
07-27-2020 Amended Judgement for Leonard Pozner
07-27-2020 RESPONSE BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT
07-27-2020 Agreed on the dollar amount of attorney fees for second Contempt
06-03-2020 Notice of Hearing – MOTION FOR APPLICATION OF PROPERTY TO SATISFY JUDGMENT
05-14-2020 Transcript of Contempt Hearing
04-03-2020 Plaintiffs Supplemental Fee response – Second Contempt
04-21-2020 Plaintiffs reply brief following hearing on motion to show cause
03-17-2020 Contempt Hearing – TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENTS PROCEEDINGSPDF
03-27-2020 Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief – following Motion for Order to Show Cause
03-10-2020 Supplemented Affidavit of Alison Maynard
03-17-2020 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR JAMES FETZER
02-26-2020 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
02-11-2020 Bolton Affidavit in response to Plaintiff’s motion for order to show cause
02-11-2020 James Fetzer affidavit
02-11-2020 Alison Maynard Affidavit
02-11-2020 Fetzer’s response to Plaintiff’s motion to show cause
12-17-2019 ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION
01-15-2020 Defendant’s Notice of Appeal
12-12-2019 DECISION AND ORDER ON POST-VERDICT MOTIONS
10-05-2019 D.305 — Transcript – Deposition of Dr. Roy Lubit
12-12-2019 Bill of Costs Judgment
09-26-2019 James Fetzer Contempt Order
08-09-2019 Petition for appeal is denied
06-18-2019 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary JudgmentPDF
05-21-2019 Deposition of H. WAYNE CARVER, II, M.DVideo | PDF
06-17-2019 ORAL ARGUMENTS/MOTION HEARING PROCEEDINGS
05-13-2019 ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS
04-15-2019 Fetzer Objection to DNA Supplemental
04-12-2019 Objection to DNA Testing
04-04-2019 DNA Test Report
11-27-2018 Leonard Pozner – Stamped Summons, Complaint & Ex. A
 

STATE OF WISCONSIN

CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY

CASE TYPE:

DEFAMATION

LEONARD POZNER, c/o: Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 

Plaintiff, 

JAMES FETZER, 800 Violet Lane Oregon, WI 53575, 

MIKE PALECEK, 7545 Bear Trap Junction Road Saginaw, MN 55779, 

and 

WRONGS WITHOUT WREMEDIES, LLC, 6256 Bullet Drive, Crestview, FL, 32536, 

Defendants. 

SUMMONS 

To the above-named Defendants: You are hereby notified that the Plaintiff named above has filed a lawsuit against you. The Complaint, which is attached, states the nature and basis of the legal action. 

Within 45 days of receiving this Summons, you must respond with a written answer, as that term is used in Chapter 802 of the Wisconsin Statutes, to the Complaint. The court may reject or disregard an answer that does not follow the requirements of the statutes. The answer must be sent or delivered to the court, whose address is: Clerk of Circuit Court, Dane County, 215 S Hamilton St., Madison, WI 53703, and to The Zimmerman Firm, Plaintiff’s attorney, whose address is: 15 Crocus Hill, Saint Paul, MN 55102. 

You may have an attorney help or represent you. 

If you do not provide a proper answer within 45 days, the court may grant judgment against you for the award of money or other legal action requested in the Complaint, and you may lose your right to object to anything that is or may be incorrect in the Complaint. A judgment may be enforced as provided by law. A judgment awarding money may become a lien against any real estate you own now or in the future, and may also be enforced by garnishment or seizure of property. 

Genevieve M. Zimmerman (WI#1100693) MESHBESHER & SPENCE, LTD. 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 Phone: (612) 339-9121 Fax: (612) 339-9188 [email protected] 

THE ZIMMERMAN FIRM, LLC Jacob Zimmerman (MN#0330656) 1043 Grand Avenue #255 Saint Paul, MN 55105 [email protected]

STATE OF WISCONSIN                          CIRCUIT COURT                         DANE COUNTY

CASE TYPE:

DEFAMATION

LEONARD POZNER, 

vs.

JAMES FETZER,

MIKE PALECEK,

WRONGS WITHOUT

WREMEDIES, LLC 

CIVIL COMPLAINT &

 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT BY Leonard Pozner

Plaintiff Leonard Pozner (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint against James Fetzer, Mike Palecek, and Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC 

(hereinafter collectively “Defendants”) and, by and through his attorneys, alleges as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

  1. Plaintiff suffered a parent’s worst nightmare: his son, N.P., was killed in a mass shooting on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This case arises out of accusations made by Defendants in, among other places, their 2016 book, “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.” Defendant Fetzer has a long history of harassing Plaintiff and other Sandy Hook parents with defamatory lies and has slandered Plaintiff repeatedly in the years since the tragedy at Sandy Hook. This case focuses narrowly on one falsehood: that Plaintiff circulated a forgery of N.P.’s death certificate.

PARTIES 

  1. Plaintiff Leonard Pozner is an individual residing in the State of Florida. 
  2. On information and belief, Defendant James Fetzer is a resident of the State of Wisconsin and of Dane County. On information and belief, he resides at 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, Wisconsin. Mr. Fetzer is an editor of the “Expanded 2016 Revised” version of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.” Mr. Fetzer is a co-author of Chapter 11 of that book, titled “Are Sandy Hook Skeptics Delusional with ‘Twisted Minds.’” On information and belief, Defendant Fetzer is a co-founder of Moon Rock Books.
  3. On information and belief, Defendant Mike Palecek is a resident of the State of Minnesota. On information and belief, he resides at 7545 Bear Trap Junction Road, Saginaw, MN. Mr. Palecek is listed as an editor of the “Expanded 2016 Revised” version of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.” On information and belief, Defendant Palecek is a co-founder of Moon Rock Books.
  1. Defendant Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with a principal address at 6256 Bullet Drive, Crestview, FL,  Defendant Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC is the owner of a fictitious name, Moon Rock Books Publishing, registered with the State of Florida under registration number G16000003745. The “Expanded 2016 Revised” version of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” identifies the publisher as “Moon Rock Books.” The book lists the address for Moon Rock Books as 6256 Bullet Drive, Crestview, FL 32536

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

  1. Substantial and not isolated acts giving rise to the causes of action asserted herein occurred in the State of Wisconsin and within this venue.
  1. This Court has jurisdiction over both the parties and the subject matter because, on information and belief, a substantial number of the events giving rise to this complaint occurred in Dane County. On information and belief, Defendants Palecek and Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC coordinated publication of the defamatory falsehoods with Mr. Fetzer, who is a resident of this State and County. Additionally, Dane County is the proper venue for this action because, on information and belief, the underlying acts leading to the events giving rise to the Complaint occurred in Dane County.

Factual Background 

  1. Plaintiff is the father of deceased minor, N.P. 
  2. N.P. was killed during the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting.
  1. Shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting, conspiracy theorists began to claim that N.P. was not killed in the tragedy, that Plaintiff was not N.P.’s father, and that Plaintiff was complicit in a grand conspiracy to fake the massacre. Plaintiff undertook efforts to respond to and debunk such falsehoods, and such effort is ongoing today. Those efforts included releasing his son, N.P.’s, death certificate to rebut claims that his son was not killed at Sandy Hook.
  1. Prior to undertaking such responses, Plaintiff had no meaningful public presence.
  1. Defendant Fetzer has claimed for years that the Sandy Hook shooting was a government conspiracy. Defendants Fetzer and Palecek released the original edition of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” in October of 2015.
  1. In that book, Defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s son, N.P., did not die at Sandy Hook. Defendant Fetzer has alternatively claimed that N.P. was not a real person. Defendant Fetzer has alternatively claimed that N.P. was not Plaintiff’s son. Plaintiff has undertaken efforts to respond to and debunk false statements and denigration of the memory of his murdered son.
  1. The harm to Plaintiff arising out of Defendants’ wide-ranging accusations is neither imagined nor limited to emotional distress or mental pain. Plaintiff has had to move on several occasions. Conspiracy theorists, fueled by, among others, Defendants’ falsehoods, have threatened Plaintiff’s very life.
  1. In January of 2016, Florida resident Lucy Richards left menacing voicemail messages and sent violent online threats to Plaintiff, including messages stating: “you gonna die, death is coming to you real soon” and “LOOK BEHIND YOU IT IS DEATH.” When Richards was later sentenced, Senior U.S. District Judge James Cohn stated: “I’m sure [Plaintiff Leonard Pozner] wishes this was false, and he could embrace [N.P.], hear [N.P.’s] heartbeat and hear [N.P.] say ‘I love you, Dad’…Your words were cruel and insensitive. This is reality and there is no fiction. There are no alternative facts.” As part of her sentence, Ms. Richards will not be permitted to access a list of conspiracy-based websites upon her release, including websites maintained by James Fetzer.
  1. Defendants published a second edition of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” in 2016. That edition does not purport to be a mere reprinting of the first edition, but is instead described as “Expanded” and “Revised.” The copyright page of that book states that it was published in May of 2016 by Moon Rock Books.
  1. The second edition of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” accuses Plaintiff of issuing and/or possessing a forged copy of N.P.’s death certificate. In particular, page 183 of Nobody Died At Sandy Hook states: “Noah Pozner’s death certificate is a fake, which we have proven on a dozen or more grounds.” At page 232 the book states, [Mr. Pozner] sent her a death certificate, which turned out to be a fabrication.” At page 242, the book states, “As many Sandy Hook researchers are aware, the very document Pozner circulated in 2014, with its inconsistent tones, fonts, and clear digital manipulation, was clearly a forgery.”
  1. Mr. Fetzer’s publication of this false accusation against Plaintiff was not limited to the book. He repeated that false statement on one or more blog posts, including, e.g., https://phibetaiota.net/2018/08/james-fetzer-in-solidarity-with-alex-jones-how-we-know-sandy-hook-was-a-fema-drill-nobody-died-obama-officials-confirmed-it-was-an-anti-gun-propaganda-exercise. That post is dated August 5,  There, Defendant Fetzer made the following false statement: “It [N.P.’s death certificate] turned out to be a fabrication, with the bottom half of a real death

certificate and the top half of a fake, with no file number and the wrong estimated time of death at 11 AM, when ‘officially’ the shooting took place between 9:35-9:40 that morning.” That statement is false, both in its particular fact and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in which it was made, because N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery or fake. The context of that statement referred specifically to Plaintiff, as confirmed by the previous sentence, which, while also false, identifies Plaintiff by name. 

  1. The Connecticut Department of Public Heath maintains official death records for the State of Connecticut. The Connecticut Department of Public Heath, Vital Records Division, issued an official death certificate for N.P. A true and correct copy of that death certificate (sensitive information redacted) is attached hereto as Attachment A. The official death certificate attached hereto does not differ in any material respect from the one released publicly by Plaintiff.
  1. Distribution or possession of a document one knows to be a forgery of a written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public servant or governmental instrumentality is a crime in Connecticut.

COUNT ONE

DEFAMATION (BY ALL DEFENDANTS)

  1. All previous allegations are incorporated by reference. 
  2. Plaintiff is a private individual and is neither a public official nor a public figure.
  3. The statements excerpted from “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” are false, 

both in their particular facts and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in which they were made, because N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery. 

  1. The statements excerpted from “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” refer directly to Plaintiff by name, and the surrounding context likewise indicates that the comments implicate Plaintiff. Given the surrounding assertions, a reasonable reader would understand the statement to imply that Plaintiff knowingly possessed and distributed a fabricated death certificate.
  1. The statements excerpted from “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” are continuations and elaborations of an underlying false assertion which Defendants have advanced for several years.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications were designed to harm Plaintiff’s reputation and subject Plaintiff to public contempt, disgrace, ridicule, or attack.
  1. Defendants acted with actual malice. In particular, Defendants’ published their statements knowing that the statements were false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications were not privileged. 
  2. Defendants’ defamatory statements constitute defamation per se. The harmful nature of the defamatory statements is self-evident. The defamatory statements implicate Plaintiff in criminal conduct.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications have and will continue to cause harm to the Plaintiffs. Due to Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT TWO

DEFAMATION (DEFENDANT FETZER)

  1. All previous allegations are incorporated by reference. 
  2. The statements excerpted from Defendant Fetzer’s August 2018 blog post are false, both in their particular facts and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in which they were made, because N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery. The surrounding context implies that Plaintiff knowingly distributed a falsified death certificate.
  1. The statements excerpted from Defendant Fetzer’s August 2018 blog post refer directly to Plaintiff by name, and the surrounding context likewise indicates that the comments implicate Plaintiff.
  1. The statements excerpted from Defendant Fetzer’s August 2018 blog post are continuations and elaborations of an underlying false assertion which Defendants have advanced for several years.
  1. Defendant’s defamatory publications were designed to harm Plaintiff’s reputation and subject Plaintiff to public contempt, disgrace, ridicule, or attack.
  1. Defendant Fetzer acted with actual malice. In particular, Defendant Fetzer published his statements knowing that the statements were false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements.
  1. Defendant’s defamatory publications were not privileged. 
  2. Defendant’s defamatory statements constitute defamation per se. The harmful nature of the defamatory statements is self-evident. The defamatory statements implicate Plaintiff in criminal conduct.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications have and will continue to cause harm to the Plaintiffs. Due to Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT THREE

CONSPIRACY

  1. All previous allegations are incorporated by reference. 
  2. With regard to the statements in “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook,” 

Defendants acted together, as a cabal, to accomplish their defamation. Defendants had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action underlying their recklessly defamatory publication. 

  1. As a result of this meeting of the minds, Defendants collectively committed the unlawful overt acts detailed above.
  1. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injuries Plaintiff suffered due to Defendants’ wrongful actions.

DAMAGES

  1. Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages, including a severe degree of mental stress and anguish which have disrupted his daily routine and caused a high degree of psychological pain.
  1. Plaintiff has also suffered damage to his reputation and image, both up to the present and into the future.
  1. Because Defendants’ conduct amounts to defamation per se, Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of presumed damages.
  1. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of nominal damages and a judgment clearing his name.
  1. Plaintiff is also entitled to exemplary damages because the Defendants acted with malice.
  1. Plaintiff is also entitled to pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of court, and attorney’s fees.

JURY DEMAND

  1. Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury of twelve persons on all claims so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

  1. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendants as follows:

     A. Ordering compensation for all general, special, incidental, and consequential damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of the defendants’ conduct;

     B. Awarding plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, to the fullest extent allowed by law; and 

     C. Granting all such additional or further relief as this Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances. 

Dated: November 27, 2018 /s/ Genevieve M. Zimmerman 

Genevieve M. Zimmerman (WI#1100693) MESHBESHER & SPENCE, LTD. 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 Phone: (612) 339-9121 Fax: (612) 339-9188 [email protected] 

THE ZIMMERMAN FIRM, LLC /s/ Jacob S. Zimmerman Jacob Zimmerman (MN#0330656) 1043 Grand Avenue #255 Saint Paul, MN 55105 [email protected] 

Attachment A: Official Death Certificate of N.P. (sensitive information redacted) 

 

Leonard Pozner. James Fetzer Lawsuit
Dane County Case Number 2018CV003122 Leonard Pozner vs. James Fetzer et al

[table id=1 /]

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN

CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY

CASE TYPE:

DEFAMATION

 

LEONARD POZNER, c/o: Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 

Plaintiff, 

JAMES FETZER, 800 Violet Lane Oregon, WI 53575, 

MIKE PALECEK, 7545 Bear Trap Junction Road Saginaw, MN 55779, 

and 

WRONGS WITHOUT WREMEDIES, LLC, 6256 Bullet Drive, Crestview, FL, 32536, 

Defendants. 

 

SUMMONS 

To the above-named Defendants: You are hereby notified that the Plaintiff named above has filed a lawsuit against you. The Complaint, which is attached, states the nature and basis of the legal action. 

Within 45 days of receiving this Summons, you must respond with a written answer, as that term is used in Chapter 802 of the Wisconsin Statutes, to the Complaint. The court may reject or disregard an answer that does not follow the requirements of the statutes. The answer must be sent or delivered to the court, whose address is: Clerk of Circuit Court, Dane County, 215 S Hamilton St., Madison, WI 53703, and to The Zimmerman Firm, Plaintiff’s attorney, whose address is: 15 Crocus Hill, Saint Paul, MN 55102. 

You may have an attorney help or represent you. 

If you do not provide a proper answer within 45 days, the court may grant judgment against you for the award of money or other legal action requested in the Complaint, and you may lose your right to object to anything that is or may be incorrect in the Complaint. A judgment may be enforced as provided by law. A judgment awarding money may become a lien against any real estate you own now or in the future, and may also be enforced by garnishment or seizure of property. 

Genevieve M. Zimmerman (WI#1100693) MESHBESHER & SPENCE, LTD. 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 Phone: (612) 339-9121 Fax: (612) 339-9188 [email protected] 

THE ZIMMERMAN FIRM, LLC Jacob Zimmerman (MN#0330656) 1043 Grand Avenue #255 Saint Paul, MN 55105 [email protected]

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN                          CIRCUIT COURT                         DANE COUNTY

 

CASE TYPE:

DEFAMATION

 

LEONARD POZNER, 

vs.

JAMES FETZER,

MIKE PALECEK,

WRONGS WITHOUT

WREMEDIES, LLC 

 

CIVIL COMPLAINT &

 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 

COMPLAINT BY Leonard Pozner

Plaintiff Leonard Pozner (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint against James Fetzer, Mike Palecek, and Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC 

(hereinafter collectively “Defendants”) and, by and through his attorneys, alleges as 

follows: 

 

INTRODUCTION 

  1. Plaintiff suffered a parent’s worst nightmare: his son, N.P., was killed in a mass shooting on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This case arises out of accusations made by Defendants in, among other places, their 2016 book, “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.” Defendant Fetzer has a long history of harassing Plaintiff and other Sandy Hook parents with defamatory lies and has slandered Plaintiff repeatedly in the years since the tragedy at Sandy Hook. This case focuses narrowly on one falsehood: that Plaintiff circulated a forgery of N.P.’s death certificate.

 

PARTIES 

  1. Plaintiff Leonard Pozner is an individual residing in the State of Florida. 
  2. On information and belief, Defendant James Fetzer is a resident of the State of Wisconsin and of Dane County. On information and belief, he resides at 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, Wisconsin. Mr. Fetzer is an editor of the “Expanded 2016 Revised” version of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.” Mr. Fetzer is a co-author of Chapter 11 of that book, titled “Are Sandy Hook Skeptics Delusional with ‘Twisted Minds.’” On information and belief, Defendant Fetzer is a co-founder of Moon Rock Books.
  3. On information and belief, Defendant Mike Palecek is a resident of the State of Minnesota. On information and belief, he resides at 7545 Bear Trap Junction Road, Saginaw, MN. Mr. Palecek is listed as an editor of the “Expanded 2016 Revised” version of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook.” On information and belief, Defendant Palecek is a co-founder of Moon Rock Books.
  1. Defendant Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with a principal address at 6256 Bullet Drive, Crestview, FL,  Defendant Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC is the owner of a fictitious name, Moon Rock Books Publishing, registered with the State of Florida under registration number G16000003745. The “Expanded 2016 Revised” version of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” identifies the publisher as “Moon Rock Books.” The book lists the address for Moon Rock Books as 6256 Bullet Drive, Crestview, FL 32536

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

  1. Substantial and not isolated acts giving rise to the causes of action asserted herein occurred in the State of Wisconsin and within this venue.
  1. This Court has jurisdiction over both the parties and the subject matter because, on information and belief, a substantial number of the events giving rise to this complaint occurred in Dane County. On information and belief, Defendants Palecek and Wrongs Without Wremedies, LLC coordinated publication of the defamatory falsehoods with Mr. Fetzer, who is a resident of this State and County. Additionally, Dane County is the proper venue for this action because, on information and belief, the underlying acts leading to the events giving rise to the Complaint occurred in Dane County.

 

Factual Background 

  1. Plaintiff is the father of deceased minor, N.P. 
  2. N.P. was killed during the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting.
  1. Shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting, conspiracy theorists began to claim that N.P. was not killed in the tragedy, that Plaintiff was not N.P.’s father, and that Plaintiff was complicit in a grand conspiracy to fake the massacre. Plaintiff undertook efforts to respond to and debunk such falsehoods, and such effort is ongoing today. Those efforts included releasing his son, N.P.’s, death certificate to rebut claims that his son was not killed at Sandy Hook.
  1. Prior to undertaking such responses, Plaintiff had no meaningful public presence.
  1. Defendant Fetzer has claimed for years that the Sandy Hook shooting was a government conspiracy. Defendants Fetzer and Palecek released the original edition of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” in October of 2015.
  1. In that book, Defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s son, N.P., did not die at Sandy Hook. Defendant Fetzer has alternatively claimed that N.P. was not a real person. Defendant Fetzer has alternatively claimed that N.P. was not Plaintiff’s son. Plaintiff has undertaken efforts to respond to and debunk false statements and denigration of the memory of his murdered son.
  1. The harm to Plaintiff arising out of Defendants’ wide-ranging accusations is neither imagined nor limited to emotional distress or mental pain. Plaintiff has had to move on several occasions. Conspiracy theorists, fueled by, among others, Defendants’ falsehoods, have threatened Plaintiff’s very life.
  1. In January of 2016, Florida resident Lucy Richards left menacing voicemail messages and sent violent online threats to Plaintiff, including messages stating: “you gonna die, death is coming to you real soon” and “LOOK BEHIND YOU IT IS DEATH.” When Richards was later sentenced, Senior U.S. District Judge James Cohn stated: “I’m sure [Plaintiff Leonard Pozner] wishes this was false, and he could embrace [N.P.], hear [N.P.’s] heartbeat and hear [N.P.] say ‘I love you, Dad’…Your words were cruel and insensitive. This is reality and there is no fiction. There are no alternative facts.” As part of her sentence, Ms. Richards will not be permitted to access a list of conspiracy-based websites upon her release, including websites maintained by James Fetzer.
  1. Defendants published a second edition of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” in 2016. That edition does not purport to be a mere reprinting of the first edition, but is instead described as “Expanded” and “Revised.” The copyright page of that book states that it was published in May of 2016 by Moon Rock Books.
  1. The second edition of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” accuses Plaintiff of issuing and/or possessing a forged copy of N.P.’s death certificate. In particular, page 183 of Nobody Died At Sandy Hook states: “Noah Pozner’s death certificate is a fake, which we have proven on a dozen or more grounds.” At page 232 the book states, [Mr. Pozner] sent her a death certificate, which turned out to be a fabrication.” At page 242, the book states, “As many Sandy Hook researchers are aware, the very document Pozner circulated in 2014, with its inconsistent tones, fonts, and clear digital manipulation, was clearly a forgery.”
  1. Mr. Fetzer’s publication of this false accusation against Plaintiff was not limited to the book. He repeated that false statement on one or more blog posts, including, e.g., https://phibetaiota.net/2018/08/james-fetzer-in-solidarity-with-alex-jones-how-we-know-sandy-hook-was-a-fema-drill-nobody-died-obama-officials-confirmed-it-was-an-anti-gun-propaganda-exercise. That post is dated August 5,  There, Defendant Fetzer made the following false statement: “It [N.P.’s death certificate] turned out to be a fabrication, with the bottom half of a real death

certificate and the top half of a fake, with no file number and the wrong estimated time of death at 11 AM, when ‘officially’ the shooting took place between 9:35-9:40 that morning.” That statement is false, both in its particular fact and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in which it was made, because N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery or fake. The context of that statement referred specifically to Plaintiff, as confirmed by the previous sentence, which, while also false, identifies Plaintiff by name. 

  1. The Connecticut Department of Public Heath maintains official death records for the State of Connecticut. The Connecticut Department of Public Heath, Vital Records Division, issued an official death certificate for N.P. A true and correct copy of that death certificate (sensitive information redacted) is attached hereto as Attachment A. The official death certificate attached hereto does not differ in any material respect from the one released publicly by Plaintiff.
  1. Distribution or possession of a document one knows to be a forgery of a written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public servant or governmental instrumentality is a crime in Connecticut.

 

COUNT ONE

DEFAMATION (BY ALL DEFENDANTS)

  1. All previous allegations are incorporated by reference. 
  2. Plaintiff is a private individual and is neither a public official nor a public figure.
  3. The statements excerpted from “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” are false, 

both in their particular facts and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in which they were made, because N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery. 

  1. The statements excerpted from “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” refer directly to Plaintiff by name, and the surrounding context likewise indicates that the comments implicate Plaintiff. Given the surrounding assertions, a reasonable reader would understand the statement to imply that Plaintiff knowingly possessed and distributed a fabricated death certificate.
  1. The statements excerpted from “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” are continuations and elaborations of an underlying false assertion which Defendants have advanced for several years.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications were designed to harm Plaintiff’s reputation and subject Plaintiff to public contempt, disgrace, ridicule, or attack.
  1. Defendants acted with actual malice. In particular, Defendants’ published their statements knowing that the statements were false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications were not privileged. 
  2. Defendants’ defamatory statements constitute defamation per se. The harmful nature of the defamatory statements is self-evident. The defamatory statements implicate Plaintiff in criminal conduct.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications have and will continue to cause harm to the Plaintiffs. Due to Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

COUNT TWO

DEFAMATION (DEFENDANT FETZER)

 

  1. All previous allegations are incorporated by reference. 
  2. The statements excerpted from Defendant Fetzer’s August 2018 blog post are false, both in their particular facts and in the main point, essence, or gist in the context in which they were made, because N.P.’s death certificate is not a fabrication or forgery. The surrounding context implies that Plaintiff knowingly distributed a falsified death certificate.
  1. The statements excerpted from Defendant Fetzer’s August 2018 blog post refer directly to Plaintiff by name, and the surrounding context likewise indicates that the comments implicate Plaintiff.
  1. The statements excerpted from Defendant Fetzer’s August 2018 blog post are continuations and elaborations of an underlying false assertion which Defendants have advanced for several years.
  1. Defendant’s defamatory publications were designed to harm Plaintiff’s reputation and subject Plaintiff to public contempt, disgrace, ridicule, or attack.
  1. Defendant Fetzer acted with actual malice. In particular, Defendant Fetzer published his statements knowing that the statements were false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements.
  1. Defendant’s defamatory publications were not privileged. 
  2. Defendant’s defamatory statements constitute defamation per se. The harmful nature of the defamatory statements is self-evident. The defamatory statements implicate Plaintiff in criminal conduct.
  1. Defendants’ defamatory publications have and will continue to cause harm to the Plaintiffs. Due to Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

COUNT THREE

CONSPIRACY

 

  1. All previous allegations are incorporated by reference. 
  2. With regard to the statements in “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook,” 

Defendants acted together, as a cabal, to accomplish their defamation. Defendants had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action underlying their recklessly defamatory publication. 

  1. As a result of this meeting of the minds, Defendants collectively committed the unlawful overt acts detailed above.
  1. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injuries Plaintiff suffered due to Defendants’ wrongful actions.

 

DAMAGES

 

  1. Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages, including a severe degree of mental stress and anguish which have disrupted his daily routine and caused a high degree of psychological pain.
  1. Plaintiff has also suffered damage to his reputation and image, both up to the present and into the future.
  1. Because Defendants’ conduct amounts to defamation per se, Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of presumed damages.
  1. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of nominal damages and a judgment clearing his name.
  1. Plaintiff is also entitled to exemplary damages because the Defendants acted with malice.
  1. Plaintiff is also entitled to pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of court, and attorney’s fees.

 

JURY DEMAND

 

  1. Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury of twelve persons on all claims so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 

  1. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendants as follows:

     A. Ordering compensation for all general, special, incidental, and consequential damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of the defendants’ conduct;

     B. Awarding plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, to the fullest extent allowed by law; and 

     C. Granting all such additional or further relief as this Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances. 

 

Dated: November 27, 2018 /s/ Genevieve M. Zimmerman 

Genevieve M. Zimmerman (WI#1100693) MESHBESHER & SPENCE, LTD. 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 Phone: (612) 339-9121 Fax: (612) 339-9188 [email protected] 

THE ZIMMERMAN FIRM, LLC /s/ Jacob S. Zimmerman Jacob Zimmerman (MN#0330656) 1043 Grand Avenue #255 Saint Paul, MN 55105 [email protected] 

 

Attachment A: Official Death Certificate of N.P. (sensitive information redacted) 

 

 

 

 

Minden az online kaszinókról

Az online kaszinók népszerűsége az utóbbi években robbanásszerűen nőtt Magyarországon is. Egyre több játékos dönt úgy, hogy otthonról, kényelmes körülmények között próbál szerencsét az internetes platformokon. Az internet kaszinók világában azonban nem mindig könnyű eligazodni, hiszen a különböző oldalak eltérő szolgáltatásokat, bónuszokat és játékokat kínálnak. Ebben a cikkben áttekintjük, mire érdemes figyelni egy online kaszinó kiválasztásakor, valamint bemutatjuk a legfontosabb szempontokat, mint például az engedélyezés, a bónuszok, az új kaszinók, a játékok, a sportfogadás, a fizetési módok, a mobil kaszinók és az ügyfélszolgálat.

Az online kaszinó kiválasztásának egyik legfontosabb szempontja az engedély megléte. Egy megbízható internet casino online engedéllyel rendelkezik, amelyet egy elismert szerencsejáték-felügyeleti hatóság bocsát ki. Ez biztosítja, hogy a kaszinó működése szabályozott, a játékok tisztességesek, és a játékosok pénze biztonságban van. Magyarországon számos online kaszinó érhető el, amelyeket a Szerencsejáték Felügyelet ellenőriz, de a nemzetközi kaszinók is elérhetők, amennyiben rendelkeznek megfelelő engedélyekkel.

Bónuszok: A játékosok vonzásának eszközei

Az online kaszinók egyik legnagyobb vonzereje a bónuszokban rejlik. A bónuszok típusai közé tartoznak:

  • Üdvözlő bónuszok: Ezeket az új játékosok kapják, amikor először regisztrálnak és befizetnek az oldalon.
  • Befizetési bónuszok: Amikor a játékos befizetést hajt végre, a kaszinó extra összeget ad hozzá a számlájához.
  • Ingyenes pörgetések: Ezek a bónuszok lehetővé teszik a játékosok számára, hogy egy adott játékon ingyen pörgetéseket hajtsanak végre.
  • Cashback bónuszok: Ha a játékos veszít, a kaszinó egy részét visszatéríti a veszteségének.

Ezek a bónuszok remek lehetőséget biztosítanak arra, hogy növeljük a játékra szánt keretünket, és kipróbáljunk új játékokat.

Új kaszinók: A változatosság garanciája

Az online kaszinók piaca folyamatosan bővül, újabb és újabb platformok jelennek meg. Az új kaszinók gyakran innovatív funkciókat, friss dizájnt és egyedi bónuszokat kínálnak annak érdekében, hogy kitűnjenek a versenytársak közül. Érdemes időnként körülnézni, milyen új kaszinók érhetők el, mivel ezek különleges ajánlatokat is tartalmazhatnak, amelyek vonzóak lehetnek a tapasztalt játékosok számára is.

Játékok: A szórakozás központi elemei

Az online kaszinók játékpalettája rendkívül széles. A legnépszerűbb játékok közé tartoznak a nyerőgépek, a blackjack, a rulett és a póker. Emellett sok kaszinó kínál élő kaszinó játékokat is, ahol valódi krupiék vezetik a játékot, így otthonról is átélhetjük a kaszinók hangulatát. A különböző játékfejlesztők, mint például a NetEnt, a Microgaming vagy a Play’n Go, különböző tematikájú és funkciójú játékokat kínálnak, így mindenki megtalálhatja a neki tetszőt.

Sportfogadás: Nem csak kaszinójátékok

Sokan nemcsak a kaszinójátékok miatt keresik fel az online platformokat, hanem sportfogadásra is használják őket. Az online kaszinók többsége kínál sportfogadási lehetőségeket is, ahol a játékosok különböző sportágak mérkőzéseire tehetnek fogadásokat. A futball, a kosárlabda és a tenisz a legnépszerűbb sportágak, de sok platformon számos egyéb sportág is elérhető.

Fizetési módok: Rugalmas lehetőségek

Az online kaszinók különböző fizetési módokat kínálnak, hogy minden játékos megtalálhassa a számára legmegfelelőbb megoldást. A leggyakoribb fizetési módok közé tartoznak:

  • Bankkártyás fizetés (Visa, MasterCard);
  • E-pénztárcák;
  • Banki átutalás;
  • Kriptovaluták.

Ezek a fizetési módok lehetővé teszik a gyors és biztonságos tranzakciókat, így a játékosok könnyedén kezelhetik pénzügyeiket.

Mobil kaszinók: Játék bárhol, bármikor

A technológia fejlődésének köszönhetően ma már bárhol és bármikor játszhatunk az online kaszinókban, hiszen a legtöbb platform rendelkezik mobil verzióval is. A mobil kaszinók lehetővé teszik, hogy okostelefonon vagy tableten keresztül játszhassunk, anélkül, hogy a számítógéphez lennénk kötve. Ez különösen praktikus azok számára, akik sokat utaznak vagy egyszerűen csak a mobil eszközöket részesítik előnyben.

Ügyfélszolgálat: Segítség minden helyzetben

Az online kaszinókban kiemelten fontos az ügyfélszolgálat szerepe, hiszen a játékosoknak bármikor szükségük lehet segítségre. Egy jó kaszinó 24/7 elérhető ügyfélszolgálatot biztosít, amely többféle módon, például élő chaten, e-mailben vagy telefonon keresztül is elérhető. Az ügyfélszolgálat gyors és hatékony válaszokat ad a felmerülő kérdésekre, legyen szó technikai problémákról, pénzügyi kérdésekről vagy bármilyen egyéb témáról.