The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Dave Gahary on Free Speech, Sandy Hook, & Trump’s Syria Withdrawal
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


First hour: Radio host, journalist and publisher Dave Gahary was featured today in a CBS News Good Morning report on the Wisconsin court decision ordering Jim Fetzer to pay Lenny Pozner $450,000 in libel damages. (I was in the courtroom Tuesday and published this report.) Dave, the publisher of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, decided to pull the book after he spent time with Lenny Pozner and came to believe that Pozner is telling the truth about losing his son Noah in the Sandy Hook school massacre. Though he now sympathizes with Lenny Pozner as a bereaved father, Dave still has questions about Sandy Hook. (Jim Fetzer will join me next Friday, same time, to discuss the case and related free speech issues.)

Dave and I will also discuss Trump’s amazing and praiseworthy decision to pull out of Syria. Will the Fed blow up the economy to deny him re-election, as William Engdahl speculates in his article Will the Federal Reserve Make Trump a New Herbert Hoover?

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Censorship, Conspiracy Theories, Syria 
Hide 34 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. onebornfree says: • Website

    K. Barrett says: “….the publisher of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, decided to pull the book after he spent time with Lenny Pozner and came to believe that Pozner is telling the truth about losing his son Noah in the Sandy Hook school massacre. ”

    Sounds like Fetzer needs to find a new publisher – one with some 1st amendment balls

    “Regards”, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  2. Sean says:

    Will the Fed blow up the economy to deny him re-election, as William Engdahl speculates in his article Will the Federal Reserve Make Trump a New Herbert Hoover

    The prospect of a Warren presidency will crash the stock market and lead to her inevitably winning. The Fed is helpless to prevent it,

  3. @onebornfree

    onebornfree (onefakename):

    Yes, that’s all it takes is “some 1st amendment balls” to fight this type of lawsuit.

    I sure wish you were part of our legal team.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  4. Amanda says:

    Sandy Hook was a HOAX!!!!!!

  5. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Dave Gahary

    Mr Gahary to [hopefully] clarify my position a little further for you , here are parts of two posts I made in the thread “The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial “:

    Post 346: “…..what Fetzer and Gahary probably do not realize at this point is that if they cave and “Pozner” wins…., then that immediately will open the door to many other frivolous lawsuits filed on behalf of the alleged families child victims, at least, as far as I can see.

    These people will not quit -once you admit you were/are “wrong” you are done for. Most likely,then, they’ll tear Fetzer and Gahary apart [and all of the other Moon Rocks books will also be withdrawn from publication].

    These people [Fetzer and Gahary] need a deadly serious, hard-core 1st amendment specialty lawyer team ,and to stop BS’ing around with minor “he said/she said”, “such and such document is a forgery” type nonsense arguments, or they are going to be in serious trouble.

    Post 325: “…you are fully entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe and to publish those beliefs here and elsewhere, even in book form if you wished [providing you can find a publisher, I suppose].

    The issue is: does Fetzer have the same right [ in the US] to write/publish a book about the events of Sandy Hook from his perspective , or is his point of view to be suppressed, “by any means necessary” [eg “defamation lawsuits” with pre-determined outcomes]?

    Nobody here or anywhere else is being coerced into believing any of Mr Fetzers [now censored] claims about the events of Sandy Hook – believing what he claims is a simple matter of individual choice, nothing more, nothing less. ….”

    Furthermore, retroactively withdrawing a book from publication because you, the publisher have now changed your mind about the authenticity of the identity of the plaintiff , although its your right [as publisher], is, nonetheless, irrelevant, or at the very least foolish. Are you now claiming that you, as a publisher, must agree with every “fact” in a book you are thinking about publishing before you will publish, and that if later you change your mind, the book will automatically be withdrawn?

    This does not sound like a particularly sound business model , as far as I can see.

    Maybe you need a legal disclaimer in the front pages your publications, something along the lines of :

    DISCLAIMER: ” The publisher [Moon Rock books Inc.] does not endorse or necessarily agree with any/all of the claims made by the author of this book , however, we fully support the authors right to his opinions and to have them published in the US by Moon Rock Books” . [ Maybe even quote the 1st amendment too]

    You get the picture, and I’m sure you and your associates could come up with something that’s better worded than my example here.

    P.S. I have no affiliation with the defense attorney Robert Barnes, but he is nationally recognized and successful and even more important, he understands the 1st amendment :
    https://www.barneslawllp.com/about/

    P.P.S. I would also suggest that you hire a good Private Investigator to do a deep background check [eg past history, financial history, banking etc.] on the Pozner character. For even a cursory “investigation” reveals that this person [and alleged son], is not who he superficially appears to be.

    Regards, “onefakename” 🙂

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  6. @onebornfree

    Dear onefakename:

    This is not an Amendment 1 issue.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  7. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Dave Gahary

    I had already predicted [to myself] that that would be your position, but its still sad to see you confirm my suspicions. 🙁

    No doubt this position of yours is derived from your legal counsel, who would have a vested interest in long drawn out irrelevant “legal” arguments in court about the veracity of birth certificates etc.etc. etc., yadda yadda yadda.

    Your fate awaits. [ie more lawsuits filed by other “Sandy Hook parents”]. They’ll bleed you dry.

    And so it goes….

    regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  8. @onebornfree

    onefakename:

    It has nothing to do with my “position.”

    Amendment 1 exists to protect the States from the federal government.

  9. onebornfree says: • Website

    Dave Gahary says: “It has nothing to do with my “position.” Amendment 1 exists to protect the States from the federal government.”

    Of course! 🙂

    Which means [surely?] that it is a question involving the free speech provisions of the state constitution for the home state of the publisher [ Moon Rock books Inc.] of Fetzers book, wherever that might be. [I tried to look it up online, but was unsuccessful].

    Those [home state] free speech provisions were given in that states own original state constitution [ often as the 1st amendment for the state if it was one of the original 13 colonies].

    Of course, just as with the federal1st amendment, those provisions have been eaten away in each state, so in the end it boils down to the question of which state of incorporation has the best modern record for defense of publication rights?

    If your publishing company is incorporated in a state with a bad [modern] legal record for defense of free speech for publications made in that state, then you’re in big trouble, seems to me.

    Regards, onebornfree

  10. onebornfree says: • Website

    I said: “which state of incorporation has the best modern record for defense of publication rights? ”

    Sorry, should read : “which state has the best modern record for defense of publication rights? ”

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  11. If people really died at sandy hook, then where are they buried? Yes burials can be faked. If hey have real identities there must be a trail of there history, schools , outing, sightings..that can be determined. To have fake people killed requires allot of effort. We know some FFs have real deaths and some dont.
    To run a FF is a very big operation. There must be irrefutable evidence somewhere.
    What about the other kids? other than Ponzer why was he tho only one sueing Fetzer?
    Too many unknowns. If I lived in the USA and it was in my neighborhood Id know in 5 mins whether a school was really closed or not. You cant shutup the whole population.

  12. @onebornfree

    onefakename:

    It’s irrelevant where the publisher is located, as the lawsuit was filed in Wisconsin:

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/000226/000004

    Free speech; libel. Section 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

    This was a libel case, and the judge ruled for Pozner, that he was defamed by the book claiming the death certificate was a fraud, and that Noah Pozner did not die, and that Lenny Pozner does not exist.

    Pozner produced ample evidence—according to the judge—that he is real, that his son was real, that his son died, that his son was buried, and that the contents of the book defamed Pozner.

    Any more questions?

    • Replies: @eah
  13. onebornfree says: • Website

    Dave Gahary says:“..the judge ruled for Pozner, that he was defamed by the book claiming the death certificate was a fraud, and that Noah Pozner did not die, and that Lenny Pozner does not exist.”

    So Fetzer does not first have a [state] constitutional right to make these claims, and others, in good faith, in a book ? Is that what you are saying?

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  14. @onebornfree

    Obviously Jim Fetzer did make his seemingly outrageous claims in good faith. But although truth is an absolute defense against libel, simply believing that you are telling the truth (good faith) is not.

    That is why the court needed to determine, rather than just assume, what the truth actually is. To do that would require a robust adversarial process in which both sides have plenty of scope to argue their case. Unfortunately Jim wasn’t given a chance to argue that his claims are true, so the result, however “correct” it may be, is unsatisfying.

    Lenny Pozner should be the most dissatisfied party of all. He says his motive, indeed his whole mission in life, is to put the conspiracy theories to rest. So he should have insisted that Fetzer have plenty of opportunity to make his case using deposition and discovery, expert testimony, and so on. In other words, give him enough rope to hang himself! Had that happened, it’s likely that Fetzer himself, faced with overwhelming evidence that he is wrong, would have recanted; and it’s even more likely that the Sandy Hook conspiracy movement would have been largely eliminated. Instead, the lack of balance in the courtroom left the empirical questions unresolved, and made Jim look like a martyr (at least to those predisposed to favor free speech and/or Sandy Hook conspiracy theories).

  15. onebornfree says: • Website

    K. Barret says: “Obviously Jim Fetzer did make his seemingly outrageous claims in good faith. But although truth is an absolute defense against libel, simply believing that you are telling the truth (good faith) is not.That is why the court needed to determine, rather than just assume, what the truth actually is.

    Sorry, but I completely disagree [for what that’s worth 🙂 ].

    If Fetzer and Gahary themselves do not themselves understand that the “truth”[ie Fetzers facts] about the Sandy Hook event, does not even matter in this case , and that attempting to argue these “facts” [most of which I agree with,by the way], in a hyper politicized”trial”, is a waste of time with an almost inevitable, predetermined outcome, then most likely, failing some sort of “divine intervention” they are done for.

    The fundamental question is:

    in a US state, does an individual have the right [via state free speech provisions] to publish, in good faith, [via a publishing co.] a book disputing the official version of an alleged event, or not, regardless of whether or not a particular individual is subsequently offended/disturbed by the books contents?

    It is very disappointing[ but somewhat predictable] for me to have confirmed [by yourselves] the fact that neither you, Fetzer, or Gahary [or their lawyers] have any real comprehension of the most important aspect of this affair [ ie “the big picture”] and have allowed themselves to be sidetracked/distracted by frivolous lawsuits where they feel obligated to try to prove minutia [specifically, Fetzers claims about the events of Sandy Hook] in an obviously politicized court.

    For if otherwise intelligent persons [Fetzer, Gahary et al] don’t “get it”, then individual state and federal free speech provisions are truly lost, as far as I can see.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  16. onebornfree says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    onebornfree says: “in a US state, does an individual have the right [via state free speech provisions] to publish, in good faith, [via a publishing co.] a book disputing the official version of an alleged event, or not, regardless of whether or not a particular individual is subsequently offended/disturbed by the books contents?

    And, following on, if an individual [and his/her publishing company] does have that right [via the home state of the publishing co.s constitution], then Pozners complaints are entirely irrelevant , regardless of whether or not his claims of being hurt/offended are genuine.

    And, if Fetzers publishing co. does not have that [state constitutional] free speech right, then it can expect many more frivolous lawsuits on behalf of supposed Sandy Hook parents, unless drastic, legal, evasive/defensive action is taken by the publisher [Moon Rock books], such as a re-incorporation in a more speech friendly jurisdiction , maybe even offshore.

    Regards,onebornfree

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  17. eah says:
    @Dave Gahary

    This was a libel case … Any more questions?

    Do you know why the rather contrived PTSD diagnosis was submitted for the plaintiff? — was this just to bolster the contention that Fetzer harmed Pozner by saying the death certificate was phony? — ie harmed more than just his reputation.

    “… the publisher of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, decided to pull the book after he spent time with Lenny Pozner and came to believe that Pozner is telling the truth about losing his son Noah in the Sandy Hook school massacre.”

    Is this accurate? — if so, why did the Pozner suit focus on the validity of the death certificate, and not simply on the existence and death of his son?

    Also, as you may have heard, Naomi Wolf’s book was just cancelled due to concerns about the accuracy of its content — did you not have any concern beforehand about publishing a book titled ‘Nobody Died At Sandy Hook? — perhaps you can understand why some may find your change of heart after talking to Pozner somewhat disingenuous, since at that point the lawsuit had already been filed and there was legal risk for you.

    Not that a reasonable person would blame you.

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  18. gsjackson says:

    The plan is for Trump to blow up the Fed in his second term. He has a very conspicuous portrait of Andrew Jackson, the scourge of central banks, right behind his desk in the Oval Office. He regularly trashes the Fed, trying to set the public up for such an event. If people ever knew how it operated — a cartel of private bankers who create our money out of thin air, then loan it to us with interest — the damned institution would be gone in no time. It’s a tall order for the corporate media to prevent such information getting out if a concerted effort is made to do so.

  19. @Dave Gahary

    The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with protecting the States. Jeez Louise!

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  20. @onebornfree

    onefakename:

    Free speech; libel. Section 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  21. @eah

    eah:

    No, this is not accurate. Where is that quote from?

    I did not hear about Naomi Wolf’s book.

    . . . did you not have any concern beforehand about publishing a book titled ‘Nobody Died At Sandy Hook?

    No, I didn’t. I was most concerned the book was banned, with no reason given. Plus, the book was available for nearly three years before the lawsuit surfaced.

    . . . perhaps you can understand why some may find your change of heart after talking to Pozner somewhat disingenuous, since at that point the lawsuit had already been filed and there was legal risk for you.

    I didn’t speak with Pozner; it was his testimony that allowed me the insight I was afforded. I imagine there is a wide spectrum of opinion on this matter. As I mentioned in several media interviews, I did not go to the deposition in May (they had canceled my deposition at the 11th hour) to settle the case, but for other reasons. It was only when I had the opportunity to witness Pozner’s testimony and company over two days that my gut told me he was authentic.

    • Replies: @eah
  22. @A Name or SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle

    A Name or SIMPLE Pseudonymic Handle:

    Please go read, and then come back. See you in a few years.

  23. eah says:
    @Dave Gahary

    No, this is not accurate. Where is that quote from?

    It’s right here in Barrett’s text (above) — if you dispute this, perhaps you ought to speak with Barrett and clarify things with him, so he can correct the text here if necessary.

    No, I didn’t.

    OK — a bit strange perhaps; after all, the book/its title is 100% against the media narrative about that event.

    I didn’t speak with Pozner; it was his testimony that allowed me the insight I was afforded.

    Was that his testimony in the the Pozner v Fetzer trial in Madison? — if so, was it the verdict or damages phase? — again: I think you ought to clarify this with Barrett.

    I did not hear about Naomi Wolf’s book.

    Do a quick search on that — she laughably misinterpreted a Victorian era sentencing rubric to claim some homosexuals were executed at that time — she was called out/embarrassed on-the-air about that.

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  24. @eah

    eah:

    OK, I thought it was from a media account, as I never said that.

    First hour: Radio host, journalist and publisher Dave Gahary was featured today in a CBS News Good Morning report on the Wisconsin court decision ordering Jim Fetzer to pay Lenny Pozner $450,000 in libel damages. (I was in the courtroom Tuesday and published this report.) Dave, the publisher of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, decided to pull the book after he spent time with Lenny Pozner and came to believe that Pozner is telling the truth about losing his son Noah in the Sandy Hook school massacre. Though he now sympathizes with Lenny Pozner as a bereaved father, Dave still has questions about Sandy Hook. (Jim Fetzer will join me next Friday, same time, to discuss the case and related free speech issues.)

    Looking at the section it is from, the bolded parts are incorrect:

    1. It’s CBS This Morning
    2. I never mentioned Sandy Hook when I stated that I believed Pozner

    Was that his testimony in the the Pozner v Fetzer trial in Madison? — if so, was it the verdict or damages phase?

    No, it was at the deposition in May. Here’s an article on that:

    https://www.thewrap.com/father-of-sandy-hook-victim-uses-dna-death-certificate-to-win-defamation-suit-against-nobody-died-at-sandy-hook-book-authors

    • Replies: @eah
  25. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Dave Gahary

    Dave Gahary says: “Free speech; libel. Section 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”

    Question [1] Exactly where/what is that quote from?

    Dave Gahary says:” being responsible for the abuse of that right”

    Question [2]: So you are claiming that Fetzer somehow abused “that right”?

    Question [3] : Whose side are you on?

    As I said before, Mr Fetzer apparently needs to get a new publisher, and the sooner the better.

    “Regards”, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  26. eah says:
    @Dave Gahary

    Thanks for the reply — not to belabor this, but if you look at my first comment, the text I excerpted only included this part: “… decided to pull the book after he spent time with Lenny Pozner …”, ie not anything about which CBS program it was — also, I (perhaps erroneously) took “spent time with” to mean you had personally spoken with Pozner — now it seems this is incorrect — ?

    No, it was at the deposition in May.

    A few specific questions to clarify this: were you also deposed at that time and in the same place? — did you observe Pozner as he was being deposed? — did you personally converse with Pozner? — in short: what exactly does the phrase “spent time with Lenny Pozner” mean?

    At least now it seems clear: you withdrew the book (and settled with Pozner?) after the lawsuit was filed, but before (any part of) the trial had begun.

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  27. @onebornfree

    onefakename:

    1. I placed the link in that post. You need to pay closer attention obviously.
    2. No, the judge did.
    3. I’ll leave that to you to decide, onefakename.

  28. @eah

    I was pointing out the errors in the intro to the interview is all.

    I did speak w/Pozner, but my decision was made up before that happened, which is why I wrote in a prior comment here:

    I didn’t speak with Pozner; it was his testimony that allowed me the insight I was afforded.

    Did you read the article?

    • Replies: @eah
  29. eah says:

    People interested in the Fetzer verdict/damages should see a recent piece on Fetzer’s own website:

    The Sandy Hook “Pozner v. Fetzer” Lawsuit: The Basic Documents

    It really shows what a farce the whole thing was — among other things, Fetzer notes:

    The great public interest in this case leads me to make some of the most important documents, from the Complaint to the Oral Hearing to the Order of the Court affirming the Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion …

    According to the Complaint, there are “no material differences” between the copy of the death certificate published in the book (above left) and the copy of the death certificate attached to the Complaint (above right). Notice, however, that the death certificate attached to the Complaint has a hand-written file number (top right), town certification (on left-hand side) and state certification (bottom portion), while the copy published in the book has none of those, which most would agree have to qualify as “material differences”.

    Moreover, during the course of discovery, Dave Gahary obtained a third death certificate from the town (above left) and I secured a fourth from the state (above right). We secured reports from two forensic document examiners, Larry Wickstrom from Minnesota, and A.P. “Ash” Robertson from California, both of whom concluded that all four of these death certificates were fabrications. Wickstrom’s Affidavit, Exam Report and Expert CV and Robertson’s Affidavit and CV were all in evidence prior to the Oral Hearing.

    During the Oral Hearing, I protested again and again about the absurdity of the case, where I was being sued over a death certificate–the one attached to the Complaint–that I had never before seen, commented upon or published about.

  30. eah says:
    @Dave Gahary

    The book has also been removed from shelves to settle litigation between Pozner and the publisher, Dave Gahary of Moon Rock Books.

    In a statement provided to TheWrap, Gahary said: “I sat across a table from Leonard Pozner for nearly 15 hours during his deposition, another deposition, and other discussions that took place over two days. I looked him in the eyes, listened to his testimony, had frank discussions about our respective concerns, and, in the end, shook his hand. I heard hours of testimony about his experience following the Sandy Hook shooting and the aspects of the event that have caused concerns for me and so many others. After his deposition, I expressed my condolences for the loss of his son, Noah Pozner. My face-to-face interactions with Mr. Pozner have led me to believe that Mr. Pozner is telling the truth about the death of his son. As a result, Moon Rock Books has decided to discontinue publishing and selling ‘Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.’ I extend my most heartfelt and sincere apology to the Pozner family.”

    Did you read the article?

    I did, before and again just now; above I excerpt the part about you — but your language is a bit confusing/it seems there is some subtly here.

    I also note this from you in an earlier comment:

    … As I mentioned in several media interviews, I did not go to the deposition in May (they had canceled my deposition at the 11th hour) to settle the case, but for other reasons. It was only when I had the opportunity to witness Pozner’s testimony and company over two days that my gut told me he was authentic. …

    Again, sorry to be a pedant — above you wrote: I didn’t speak with Pozner; … — I took this as a standalone statement; but it seems you meant: ‘I did not speak with Pozner before deciding to settle the case and stop selling the book; …’ — is this correct? — because it seems you did personally speak with Pozner (?), but only after his deposition, and after your decision to settle.

    It seems: you went to Pozner’s deposition in May, not to be deposed yourself (cancelled), or to settle the case (you say), but for “other reasons”; while there, you either saw Pozner deposed live, or maybe on video (?); seeing Pozner’s deposition testimony convinced you he was sincere, honest, telling the truth, so you decided to settle the case, including no longer selling the book; after this decision you spoke personally with Pozner.

    Is the above correct? — if not, please make any needed corrections.

    Also, if not to be deposed yourself or to settle the case, what were the “other reasons” you went to Pozner’s deposition? — if you don’t mind me asking, since re your part in this case, it appears these “other reasons” were fateful, ie otherwise you would/may not have seen Pozner’s deposition and decided to settle before the trial.

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  31. @eah

    No problem. Glad you’re looking to understand the issue thoroughly. It’s a shame most of the media fails to do this.

    Again, sorry to be a pedant — above you wrote: I didn’t speak with Pozner; … — I took this as a standalone statement; but it seems you meant: ‘I did not speak with Pozner before deciding to settle the case and stop selling the book; …’ — is this correct? — because it seems you did personally speak with Pozner (?), but only after his deposition, and after your decision to settle.

    Correct.

    It seems: you went to Pozner’s deposition in May, not to be deposed yourself (cancelled), or to settle the case (you say), but for “other reasons”; while there, you either saw Pozner deposed live, or maybe on video (?); seeing Pozner’s deposition testimony convinced you he was sincere, honest, telling the truth, so you decided to settle the case, including no longer selling the book; after this decision you spoke personally with Pozner.

    Correct. I was with him in a conference room for nine hours on May 28 and six hours on May 29.

    Also, if not to be deposed yourself or to settle the case, what were the “other reasons” you went to Pozner’s deposition? — if you don’t mind me asking, since re your part in this case, it appears these “other reasons” were fateful, ie otherwise you would/may not have seen Pozner’s deposition and decided to settle before the trial.

    Yes, the decision to travel to the deposition was fateful. I definitely would not have even thought of settling. My attorney suggested I settle several times. I refused.

    Some factors that weighed on the decision were:

    1. I already purchased the airfare, hotel & rental car
    2. Jim was keen for me to come
    3. I was interested in attending and meeting those I hadn’t (my lawyer, his secretary, Mike Palecek, his wife, Jim’s wife, Jim’s daughter and her family, Pozner’s lawyers) and spending some time w/Jim, after a grueling six months of legal work
    4. I wanted to be there and witness firsthand that Lenny was a no-show
    5. It’s always good to get away

    • Replies: @eah
  32. eah says:
    @Dave Gahary

    So it’s all clear now — thanks for that.

    It’s a shame most of the media fails to do this.

    These days I pay so little serious attention to mainstream outlets …

    • Replies: @Dave Gahary
  33. @eah

    My pleasure.

    Yes, of course, but the mainstream media disaster is not you or I tuning them out, but the unwashed masses (or as a friend calls them, the ignorati) who still pay serious attention to them.

    • Agree: eah
  34. eah says:

    Perhaps relevant to the Fetzer case … ?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS