MHB Hit With Pozner Copyright Infringement Claim

youtube-pozner By James F. Tracy

On March 26 Memory Hole Blog was notified via its internet service provider that a copyright infringement claim was filed against MHB by Lenny Pozner and “HONR Network” on March 22. The aggrieved party claims that this violation arose from use of an image of his son, Noah Pozner in a January 2, 2015 post. This post addressed use of the same image in international news coverage of the December 16, 2014 Peshawar army school massacre.

In February Pozner filed a similar claim with YouTube against Infowars for using the same or similar image, even though this very photo was initially carried by the BBC and other international news organizations in their coverage of the Peshawar attack’s aftermath.

In fact, the BBC has since admitted to the photograph’s incongruous presence in Peshawar reportage. According to the DC Clothesline, “here is what the BBC had to say about Noah Pozner’s photo:

Meanwhile, another picture has been circulating online of victims of the Peshawar massacre – but the montage of images includes the photo of a young boy, Noah Pozner, who died in the Sandy Hook massacre in the United States in 2012.

In the complaint to MHB’s ISP, Pozner states the following:




Memory Hole’s ISP has stood firm, arguing that “because we believe that this instance falls under fair use protections, we will not be removing it at this time.” This is nevertheless a chilling example of how copyright infringement claims brought under potentially fraudulent pretexts can be used to stifle free speech.

Other YouTube channels belonging to researchers doing important research yet far less prominent than Infowars have been summarily shut down because of Pozner’s DMCA grievances. For example, in December 2014 Pozner’s HONR Network stymied online distribution of the We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook documentary. Despite these attempts the film’s producer maintains the documentary has already been viewed several million times online.


Leave a Reply

138 thoughts on “MHB Hit With Pozner Copyright Infringement Claim”

  1. Fair use of an image used in news reports is all that Memory Hole is doing. The idea that you cannot dissent from an official story and illustrate that dissent with an image widely disseminated through news broadcasts would tend to chill First Amendment free expression.

    Any exceptions from this as special pleading from a parent or the idea that the already widely disseminated photo of their alleged child is to be sold only through licensing agreements is something which has a very high barrier to meet. I have heard that Marilyn Monroe’s heirs have control over her image today. But would that be true for investigative journalists discussing her possible murder? Would they have to pay money to her family to use one of her already disseminated photos? I don’t think that would be true. But if her image is used to sell a product, to be put for instance, on a purse, then you’d have to pay them.

    To approach one’s service provider with a potential lawsuit may be dirty pool (what did one expect?) but it should be thrown out of any court as failure to state a claim under which relief may be granted. Injunctive relief to make this site stop using the photo would not be granted.

    That Pozner kid’s image is in the fair use domain since the man willingly provided it to news services without restriction. He continues to participate in this story every chance that he can, so the photo continues to be used in news, though Pozner clearly wants only news of which he approves. If you were to emblazon that photo on a backpack for sale it would fall into another area, like the Marilyn Monroe image her family controls.

    That’s my opinion, but as we know with network television which used to cave a lot to demands of certain parties, the internet may be heading for a similar status.

    Maybe there is something about Pozner image we ought to know. It was perhaps generated by a child model decades ago and might therefore have been in reality a product which was, at one time, sold. After all, it seemed to fit the bill for the intelligence services in Peshawar as a fit image for the vulnerable child they needed for their own propaganda, calling into the question the massacre at the school there.

    1. Musings,
      I agree with you 100%. I don’t think he has a leg to stand on. Did you see that Canadian Company using Noah’s image to promote their business?

      A Youtuber made it his avatar and was threatened with copy write infringement.

      Was does this statement really mean?

      What? Who authorization did you need to get Lenny? Or, maybe Lenny didn’t write this at all.

      But, doesn’t this open the door to Depose Mr. Ponzer to prove that Noah is in fact his deceased 6 yr old son and ALL the events that transpired on 12-14-12 were real?

      Just a thought

      1. If you are referring to the child in the Niagara advertisement, I have no idea if it is he. My own theory (and it could be wrong) is that the fact he is wearing a shearling jacket in the photo and other photos seem to be of children dressed how I dressed mine in the 1980’s, means that kid is long since grown up and unrecognizable. It would be a problem with a child model who is still young – he might get recognized and outed. You don’t have that problem if you apply K.I.S.S. with a grown-up’s child photos do you?

        When I saw the family photos of Sean Collier, it was clear to me that anyone dressed as the boy said to be he in the photo would be about 50-55 years old – another good way to disguise the person whose image was used. Even the photos of Sean Collier look like a weird computer generated face, with a certain androgyny to it. Perhaps it has been shown that such a face arouses compassion in the viewer.

    1. I believe any picture you take, anything you uniquely create (write, paint, photograph) is automatically copyrighted by you. Your family pictures would automatically carry copyright. When you use the services of a photographer, the issue has to be clarified in writing as to who then owns the copyright.

      1. ando: You’re wrong on this. You must specifically designate that the image or whatever is copyrighted by using the word “copyright, your name” or © your name.

        No copyright designation, then it’s not coprighted. That’s why you should never post pics online unless with metadata that can be proved later, like burning it along with its creation date to a disc (should someone remove the metadata) or include a watermark directly in the image.

        1. Tammie have you investigated the revenge porn issue? It’s my sense that Holly Jacobs, who started the Cyber Civil Rights non-profit after becoming a victim of revenge porn, was able to get most of the naked pics of her taken down through DMCA, even though she hadn’t copyrighted them when her ex boyfriend posted them. A tech guy told me that if you take a photo with your own camera, you own its copyright:

        2. In both Canada and the U.S. copyright is automatically granted to the creator of the work (unless the work was created at a place of employ). However, your point about registering copyright is the pertinent one here. Wikipedia: “Copyright is automatically granted to the author of an original work (that otherwise meets the basic copyright requirements, discussed above). Registration is not necessary. However, registration amplifies a copyright holder’s rights in a number of ways. Registration is required before a lawsuit can be filed, and registration creates the possibility for enhanced ‘statutory’ damages.”

        3. In both Canada and the U.S., copyright is automatically granted to the creator of the work (unless the work was created at a place of employ). However, your point about registering the copyright is the pertinent one here. Wikipedia: “Copyright is automatically granted to to the author of an original work (that otherwise meets the basic copyright requirements, discussed above). Registration is not necessary. However, registration amplifies a copyright holder’s rights in a number of ways. Registration is required before a lawsuit can be filed, and registration creates the possibility for enhanced ‘statutory’ damages.”

  2. Our children are counting on us. The duty of each citizen is to expose this lie. MHB has provided the facts. Hold a town hall meeting in your neighborhood and lets have courage to stand against tyranny. Remember if they get our guns just like in history we will be systematically destroyed thats you me and our familys. If we do nothing we die.

  3. The walls are closing in on the Sandy Hook Hoax perpetrators. Wolf is kicking some ass on the FOIA requests. Those latest crime scene photos prove the school board was either negligent on maintenance or closed for years. Just the general look of the place, no sign of Christmas coming. I think eventually the people of Connecticut will have had enough of the “in-your-face” corruption as opposed the low level humming of the evil machine of government.


    Dear Mr. Pozner,
    I, as an American Citizen am placing you under Citizens Arrest for Fraud. Bring your Toothbrush…..

      1. Oh, they are watching us…

        “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Honr Network.

        Note to Honr Network: The truth will set you free.

    1. Just another “Weekend at Bernie’s” moment. Reminds me of that “free-range chicken” commercial. Like Chicken-man, he’s everywhere.

      I wonder what the Canadian infringement laws look like? Maybe we should go to the site and report it. In fact, maybe we should report all such found images. For that matter, ANY image will do.

        1. Noah pozner does not have a birth certificate or death certificate. No socisl security number.

          The image looks to be from 1998 or 2000 due to the style and make of clothing.

          As a media professional i seriously doubt this picture is from the timme it says. Definitly looks european not an a typical period from the time of the drill.

        2. I was watching the commercial for the twenty hotels in a row at Falls Avenue Resort and I asked myself – would there be casino gambling there? And yes, there is. Which we know is pristinely uninvolved with mobs and money laundering, and people who took “Mohammed Atta” out on a gambling boat. With 20 hotels in a row, all badly in need of fresh linen changes daily, how could there ever be any mob involvement? But I don’t think even so that this is a fruitful path for unmasking the deception.

          I still don’t think this kid is Pozner, Jr. however. That picture was an old one of a grown-up who you’d never recognize. Just like that group portrait of SHES kindergartners or first graders in the kind of clothes kids wore who are now thirty years old (I was there, I know how they dressed). It really saves trouble not to use current children – too hard to control the message.

        3. I don’t believe this Niagara Falls boy is good ol’ Noah. Lenny would have claimed ownership long ago if that was the case. I see that two videos among these comments have been removed by HONR Network. Keep on keeping Lenny busy.

  5. this kind of harassment and repression will increase as American power becomes more oppressive under the War on Terrorism. Washington is now supporting the Nazis in Ukraine, who are celebrating the holocaust conducted by their predecessors. Washington has sent troops to train the Nazis for war against the Noverussians in the east. Fascism abroad can only be legitimated by fascist methods domestically, and this is occurring in a variety of areas.

    A significant portion of the American people identifies with it, since most people prefer power to truth. In the War on Communism of the 20th century, socialism was stigmatized, and when it segued into the War on
    Terrorism of the 21st, liberalism was stigmatized as well. Ideological reaction now rules in the mainstream truth tradition, and dissidence will be increasingly eliminated by repressive actions like this one.

    1. Judging from the language used by Pozner or whomever, it appears that there is advice being rendered from “higher places”. Sandy Hook is an enormously protected collection of events and actions, protection that comes from the top. As such, “they” are not going to give those that write about the SH event much wiggle room and will do everything they can to obstruct and denigrate.

      1. So Lenny and his network now care about hoaxers being abused. I knew there was something special about the fella with the many names. Thanks Lenny for caring.

        1. Anne, did you click on “about”? WE’RE “delusional”, etc.. They want to get us into the “clutches of the authorities”. Oh my!

          You see, WE are hoaxers. Got that? Veritable HERETICS, I say. I could feel Llordia’s hot breath on my neck as I read it (shudder!).

          That’s quite a little testimonial they have there on that site. The only thing better than stoning doubters is sending money. Money makes everything better.

        2. I love the distortion of language. They used to call us “truthers” but that made themselves sound vaguely sinister. Better to project the hoax onto us, when we accuse them of perpetrating one.

          For a certain period of time, googling Boston Marathon hoax, one would come up to a solid wall of the story of a woman’s prosecution for faking her injuries and collecting money from the Boston One Fund. See, faking injuries to take money from the public is illegal. They WILL prosecute. And she is called the hoaxer, not them. It serves the dual purpose of redirecting queries away from skeptics about the bombing itself.

    1. Kind of interesting that all of the Honr Newton faces are Asian at the website. Also, the language is that of someone who came from a place (like John Yoo’s Korea) where people are unaccustomed to free-wheeling free speech in the American political and literary tradition, under First Amendment protection. Just a thought – but perhaps the whole thing is also a hoax. Or Moonies. (Not that Sandy Hook is the work of a cult – more likely just a very bad government psyop).

      1. Ha, ha! Remember the Mandarin in the schools discussion? It does look a little out of place with the New England scenery and the firetruck. If you replaced the signs with “Little Red Book’s” it would “take me back”.

        It just goes to show that there aren’t any elements of this extravaganza that aren’t weird. I thought Lenny lived in Florida. That “office” is probably ran from a deli.

        You guys always find the good stuff (sigh!).

  6. Dr. Oz is now having the same experience Professor Tracy had with his university about Sandy Hook. In the case of Dr. Oz, his exposing GMOs led to probably a backlash by Monsanto, and the resulting attack by a Stanford led doctor. Stanford has received over 17 billion in research grants from the federal government, so guess it’s only natural they’d spearhead the phony attack on Dr. Oz.

    1. What the heck.., Dr. Oz, are you kidding, really, please take york meds, by all means feel free to watch the good ole oz, am I missing something, are you for real, curious as to… Well, please tell me more ma’am.

      1. We all need to take our meds, according to these ‘doctors’ you seem to invest such faith in:

        Also, on the subject of Dave Hodges (who I know very little about), he recently accused a pro-white blogger of ‘plagiarizing’ his work even though the blogger acknowledged he was quoting, and then criticizing, Hodges’ writings. Mostly Hodges was asking to have his work taken off the blogger’s site (who I don’t want to give publicity to) and to not have his site linked to the pro-white guy’s. The anonymous blogger is a serious sleaze and an incredible hypocrite to boot, on this specific issue even. He’s taken a defiant stand on the issue, and I suppose that ‘fair use’ establishes his right. Still, it’s another angle from which to consider these things. I guess people taking your words and using them, with acknowledgement, to their own aim is par for the free speech course.

        I myself have had to contend with chronic lifting of my ideas, opinions, insights and at times, even phrases and what’s become intellectual property, by the pro-white milieu. They distort to their own purposes, often. Sometimes it offends or even outrages me, sometimes it doesn’t, although infringing and defaming of what *is* my registered intellectual property has been the worst and true oppression. But that at least has some legal redress. I guess I feel for Hodges even though there’s likely little legal grounds for him to do anything about it.

        1. On second thought, one might find some grounds for Hodges’ complaint (surely not plagiarism) in Wikipedia’s explanation of fair use:

          Criteria #4 seemed to have some potential, but its terms are broad and vague, and I have no idea how they’ve been interpreted by the courts. The internet is like the Wild West, an IT person said to me recently. It will be increasingly regulated and perhaps in some respects should be. Cyber abuse of kids by other kids has been addressed already in most states, but violations of adults is still being hammered out.

          If Hodges work can be seen to be less marketable because of a blogger’s use of it (merely being associated with and linked to it), could that be seen as ‘unfair?’ He said,

          “This is from Dave Hodges.This is a friendly, non-legal, for the time-being, warning. You do not have permission to plagiarize my articles by posting them to your site- I do not want my articles appearing on this site for any reason. Take down all articles associated with me and remove any links from this site to my web site.”

          The blogger criticized Hodges for refusing to locate orchestration of Jade Helm (I’ve not studied this) in a certain ethnic group. The specifics of this criticism don’t offend me, but the higher principle is one I’m sort of not firm on. I’m just putting this out for anyone’s contemplation, not as a fixed posture I’ve taken up. The internet’s megaphone really throws a wrench into the whole free speech and intellectual property debate.

        2. hodges is a known disinfo agent who uses scare tactics. He is worthy of no further mention. the plagiarizing is either hodges himself, or simply a repercussion of hanging out with birds of his own feather.

        3. Expecting someone to simply accept your edict is unrealistic. I’d have to have at least some reason or proof for Hodges’ being a ‘disinfo agent’ to even contemplate the notion.


    Khalil Gibran

    Thanks James, you are an inspiration that should not fade away!

  8. The American people do not understand, or want to understand because the truth is Un-Patriotic, how America is sinking into despotism. This suit is a minor form of repression that is steamrolling historically very rapidly. But before it is implemented in the USA, it is tried out first in foreign countries.

    In Ukraine, Washington is sponsoring an oligarchical-Nazi junta that came to power by a Washington engineered coup. It can only survive in the face of decreasing support of the people by homicidal repression. There has arisen a death squadron called the Ukraine Insurgent Army (UPA) that is currently assassination dissident journalists and editors. This cannot be done without at least the knowledge of Washington, and most likely the backing.

    The people being murdered are WHITE. Since the geo-racism of American power historically has been ideologically repressed in the mainstream truth, the American people do not understand the significance of this fact. In the USA, generally the people murdered are non-White, the White cops currently killing unarmed Blacks.

    But American power has begun assassinating White journalists as well, Michael Hastings being an obvious example. White Whistleblowers have been put in prison, but the truth problem for American power is accelerating. Recently the head of the investigation for the anthrax murders accompanying the 9/11 homicides has called the entire FBI investigation “bullshit.” American power cannot function effectively while the dissident truthers uncover the lid of silence on staged homicidal operations.

    So this attempt at censorship of Sandy Hook, no matter how minor and bullshit it is, must be fought because it is leading to the kind of fascism that Washington is imposing in Ukraine against White people. The murder and oppression of non-Whites has been routine in the USA, but White people have to understand that they are next. This will be difficult since America Whites are so racist, and are increasingly so instigated by the presidency of Obama. Like Patrick, they are increasingly justifying geo-racist violence.

    But although the White oligarchy has used geo-racism historically to divide and rule, they have crossed a Rubicon in the War on Terror that requires that they turn their terror on Whites as well historically. First Ukraine, then America. Cowering in fear won’t do any good; it is necessary to unite and fight the fascism that American power is imposing.

      1. Agreed. Mark, that made your whole rant seem fake. Why the unnecessary jab at Patrick? He brings race up about 50 times less than you. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of times Patrick mentioned race. Likewise, the same can be said of your comments that didn’t have race brought up. So. Mark. Mind telling us what’s really going on in that head of yours?

        1. I am not interested in Patrick, who is just a vulgar religious bigot, Reprehensor, I am interested in people like you. The American people identify, or at least accept, racist violence, both domestically and in Foreign affairs. As a consequence, White cops are currently shooting, chocking, or beating unarmed Black persons to death, with the support of a significant portion of the American people, possibly a majority of White people. Patrick has argued that it is not the cops that are to blame, but that the victims, who are usually thugs. This in addition to slurs he has on non-Whites, and his view that racism is fun, fun, fun.

          Not one commenter, outside of myself, has objected to these views, and your objection to my Mentioning it is typical. The most effective racism is SIILENT racism, because most people consciously know that it is wrong. It is SILENTLY taught in the schools and universities. In the fraternity SAE in Oklahoma, the students sang on the bus:

          There will never be a nigger in SAE,
          There will never be a nigger in SAE
          You can hang him from a tree, but he will never sign with me,
          There will never be a nigger in SAE

          The two leaders of the singing, who were expelled from the college, were graduates of expensive prep schools in Texas, one a Jesuit prep school. They were located in what was called ‘The Bubble,’ where cops routinely harassed Black and Brown people who entered it. The head of the Jesuit school Proclaimed that the school was against racism, but in his argument, this too second place to birth control. The point is that it is not just the working class cops that are racist, this is being taught, implicitly and covertly, to the upper classes in schools, universities, and other learned bureaucracies.

          And people will not voice their objections because they will be attacked by people like yourself. The pretense is that we are Colorblind, because we do not Mention race or racist violence because it is part of the American truth consensus. A lynch mentality is instilled in American people by the White oligarchy to divide and rule the population. And the Progessive view emphasizes class, not race, when they are both important and intermixed. Race has always been used in American history to unite the White people around White power, but implicitly rather than explicitly, because it will be attacked if it is out in the open.

          So the idea is to keep it hidden and unstated, as you wish to do.

        2. mark. your right. everybody wants to keep the lid on racism because no one wants a confrontation. no one wants to deal with it. we expect others to be civil and not have to play a card to get their way.

          it is unfortunate that people can be grouped into categories, one of which is race, and then stats can be used to get people focusing and blaming that category for their injustices (real or perceived). maybe we just turn a blind eye to it because it isn’t really productive to constantly harp on everyone about anti-Semitism or real racism because the race baiters (Sharpton, Holder, et al) breed division via emotion. everyone sees through their tactics – yes, some are even people of the race in question.

          why perpetuate a known divide and rule tactic? why give it any steam at all?

        3. If this asinine slander of me comes as a shock, and if Mark’s overall narrative is incomprehensible to the non-brain addled reader, here’s the great Pat Condell’s short primer on the mind of the “progressive.” It will explain everything you need to know:


          Hope that helps.

          Meanwhile, in the real world, white racism against blacks is largely a figment by now. Americans breathed a sigh of relief when they proved it, by elevating Barry Sotoero to the throne in 2008. Unfortunately, that heart felt sentiment served only to reveal where racism truly lies in America in the 21st century: in the hearts of people like Al Sharpton and Eric Holder. No matter how wonderfully successful their lives have been in this country, they hate white people with an irrational intensity. Mark is not black, but he fits right in with that crowd.

        4. Pat Condell’s videos are hilarious…

          My silence doesn’t make me racist. I’ve been wanting to say this to you for a longtime.

          I think you’re spot on on most of your opinions about “American Power” which I hope your including all Elites in Europe in that group But….

          When you always(most of time) end your statements with some super offensive racial nonsense it just makes me cringe that all the good things you said were just over shadowed by the Racist Rant.

          Just leave it out.
          Americans are bombarded with the Progressive agenda day in and day out from Race to Trans-Gender to White Privilege. I don’t even know what that is and it offends me as pure slander by the self hating Left Nut Bags.

          Just my opinion

        5. And while all my comments are sitting in the Moderation Que,
          I just want to say I now stand in the middle as an Independent who quit the Republican Party when Bush invaded Iraq for his daddy.

          I stand in the middle and look both ways before I cross. But as of lately the Left have move so far from center that when I look to my left now I can’t even see them anymore they moved so far away, and when I look to my right I see so many have moved to the center it looks like thousands of people just wanting all this non-sense to go away.

          I really hope many people on the left will become Independents and move a little closer to the middle so we can hear each other without Yelling….

        6. I’ve seen this before, best friend is married to a girl whose daughter is half black. When around his fam I have to talk about how hot Beyonce is, how wonderful Obama is, and how f’d up racism is, or i lose my friend. Its fascinating how much race means to these types, its their identity. One site I used to frequent calls it the black grievance industry, which is a reference to the entitlement, blame shifting, and apologist attitudes that come with the territory.

          Mark, its tiring man. Here’s something to chew on: what poses the greatest risk to anyone’s survival? A young black male. This is fact. And guess what? It isn’t the one in a shirt and tie, its the one in a hoodie. Find me one person that isn’t instinctively on guard when coming into contact with one. Why? Because of the instinct called survival, or fear. Stereotypes exist because of instincts that gather information about surroundings. Those who look closest to you are perceived with the least amount of threat. This makes perfect evolutionary sense and there’s no reason to fix it. On behalf of everyone else who doesn’t care for implicating race as a reason for every thought, I stand unapologetic. Fit in or suck it up.

        7. Chris and Dave are some of my favorites Racists then…Haha

          Everybody has feelings of self, Brotherhood, ect., Its Not Racism

          It’s the people who can’t feel empathy for their fellow brother(s) are the true Racists and regardless of color.

          These lies Have to end and our Govt. is responsible. There isn’t One Slave owner alive today and it was only the less than 1% who could even afford a slave. AND…..

          It was the stronger northern Tribes in Africa that captured the southern Tribes and sold them to ANYONE who would pay. Teach that in school!!

          They teach all our kids a bunch of crazy white cowboys on horses roped all the Africans and brought them here to be slaves..

          What a LIE.

          I am so tired of hearing this racist fantasy repeated by Govt. Officials or on the MSM, in our classrooms and in many homes from their Elders.

          I hate to say this but I think most Whites are less Racist than Blacks.

        8. Patrick, that’s a great video. It’s spot on. Only white people are capable of racism. When White people are the victims, they deserve it.

          Why aspire to higher standards when we can sink into tribal violence and squalor. It is much better to celebrate the diversity of raucous neighbors and hope that cannibals don’t move in next door, than it is to expect acceptable behavior. Why, that would be racist.

          I’m afraid I’m plagued with the inability to feel shame for my whiteness. It is precisely my refusal to admit guilt for the shortcomings of others that must cause much concern.

          The only thing I don’t understand is why these victims choose to live among the “White Devils”. Oh, I remember, these better living standards cost money. Somebody has to earn the money to pay for it. Serve’s ’em right.

        9. I find it interesting that this article is about Censorship and the last Comments I’ve made are still in Moderation 5 hours ago. Nothing I said would be deemed offensive.

          JAMES, I know WordPress is cheaper than having your Own Website but why can’t you just let ANY comment go through and Delete if it is offensive like Most sites do.

          This keyword or whatever the algorithm is useless and discourages conversations. We’re grown ups here and can handle a Rant.

          I’m sure this will never see the light of day.

          3 Times today my comments have vanished that were nice.

        10. Au contraire, granite. The “greatest risk to anyone’s survival” is not in reality the potentially violent individual in a hoodie, black and most likely in his own neighborhood. He may be a local threat to people working at the counter of a 7-11, he may be unpleasant to encounter on your way to your car, but the greatest threat is, indeed, represented by the well-turned-out sociopath in a suit. They really can rob you with the stroke of a pen, and they understand that image and charm will get them everywhere. That’s why criminal defendants dress like them when they come to court. Because their lawyers know how to bias the jury in their favor. The jury is a collective sucker for good manners and a pleasant appearance. They have been trained by their “betters” for years in front of the tv screen.

        11. folktruther, or Mark, didn’t slander you, Patrick. I chime in here to make a point. I’ve been called all sorts of outrageous names on the planet in a relatively brief stint on the net, and it’s never really bothered me much. But defamation, which is slander or libel depending on whether it’s written or orally conveyed, is different: And:

          Not much discussion there about defamation of a business or trademark, however. But for individuals you get the point.

          I assume when someone calls someone a name or characterizes a person or their views, it’s just that – a subjective characterization that reveals as much about the author or speaker as it does about the subject. This is common sense to most adults.

          But lying about someone’s actions, etc., is an entirely different matter.

        12. musings, it’s not just the hoodie-wearing black male at the 7Eleven who likes to cloak his sociopathy in fine attire when expedient. The chameleon act goes both ways. Neither profile of criminal is really just him (or her) self. Both like to play dress up to fool their victims, one just dresses ‘up’ where appropriate and the other ‘down.’ Really what I’m trying to say is these characters aren’t separable from one another and work together. The violence being acted out by so many black men isn’t theirs alone, just as the indirect violations committed by those in lofty positions aren’t discreet to ‘privilege.’ And don’t be so sure that young black hoodie-wearers are content to haunt only their own neighborhoods.

          Nowhere was this truth more obvious than in the very tony section of our nation’s capitol, where I attended college for a few years.

        13. Well, Sue, I beg to differ.

          As the great Andrew Brightbart said to the execrable Max Blumenthal, (starting around minute 6) “accusing a person of racism is the worst thing you can do”:


          It is indeed slander, of the most despicable kind, and I will have none of it. Mark is a vile slanderer, and if this were my site, his vile lies would have him banished forever. Not just because he has marked me for his false accusations, either. He has actually called James Tracy a racist, if you can imagine.

          Maybe, I’m thinking, Mark is actually Max Blumenthal.

        14. Oh my word James,

          Mark Potok is the worst insult you could possibly come up with.

          This Guy is Lower than infected Amoebas in a Petri dish at the CDC.

          But then again, I do believe that “some” of us alive today really did evolve from from Hot Slime in a Pool of boiling Muck hitting against Hot Rocks 17 Trillion years ago.

  9. again my comment, relating Sandy Hook censorship to the increasing fascism in the USA, has been sent down the memory hole.

  10. Notice how “Lenny Pozner” never shows up “in court?” That’s because DHS won’t let him. USGOV doesn’t want their Shills under oath, on the record — b/c that risks exposing their scam(s).

  11. Have we proof that this man Pozner actually applied for a copyright and was granted one? One can’t simply “say” they have a copyright on a material. One has to actually HAVE the copyright granted to them. Don’t they? Perhaps there could be an organized day on YouTube where people tag every single video as “copyright infringement.” I’d love to see what would happen then.

    1. Ramona, I am under the impression that you may copyright an original piece of writing that you might post at a blog just by writing that you have applied a copyright to it. No intermediary is necessary. However, when people I know write scripts that will then circulate in Hollywood, I believe they file a copy at the Screen Actor’s Guild to make sure the date on which it is filed is set, and they can prove it was their original work, and not someone else’s. But that is a special case.

      I have not studied the law on this, but if you anticipate that other people might try to pass off your creative work as their own, you might have to take some formal measures.

      As for photo images, where I suppose Pozner is trying to assert that the photo taken of his child was his intellectual property – well nobody’s trying to pass it off as his own work, merely quoting from news sources. Since that photo got into the news outlets because it is newsworthy (although you and I may believe it is newsworthy for a different reason – fraud), Pozner is not allowed to pick and choose who can and cannot display it. If he is trying to say that he signed with each and every outlet that showed his son’s picture – that is impossible. It could easily be anticipated that there would be differing opinions, for instance, about gun control or even about the validity of the news about Sandy Hook, but he had no right to limit access to the image only to those who agreed with his stated interpretation of the event.

      1. It is a fair use issue; It is the management of YouTube who are wrong and at fault.
        Copyright is one of the most abused issues in a corporatist state, especially when used as a tool for censorship, and covering up state crimes.

      2. Yes, I don’t claim to know all of the ins and outs of patent law. I was forced to take a couple of classes on it once and, of all other subjects, I think I found it the most boring. Maybe it was the lawyer teaching it.

        At any rate, the root reason for copy write laws are to protect the intellectual or artistic product from being used by someone, without the owner’s consent, for profit. Just like when the boys from ASCAP descend on a bar and assail the local garage band for playing other people’s music. If they were playing for free, no problem.

        As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, the problem is the nature of the internet. If one can make a case for the readership being related to the site’s content, and part of the content belongs to someone else, if the site makes money it can be stretched into an infringement case.

        Now, you could make the same argument for a newspaper, or television. The internet, however, is now used to being given letters ordering private information, etc.. Rather than incur legal costs, they think that it is safer to just pull whatever someone complains about.

        As “ECON” says, the language is crafty. He isn’t actually claiming ownership. In a sense he is threatening that if the site doesn’t remove the offending item, “someone else” may take further action.

        Censorship has become commonplace. I notice that the current generation does not have a visceral reaction to it. Apparently they didn’t read Voltaire. “While I disapprove of what you are saying I’ll defend with my life your right to do so”.

        Just like proponents of “trickle down economics” can’t stand a “leak”, controllers can’t stand a medium they can’t control. If established law and procedure won’t get them where they want to go, they’ll get creative. The main problem is the lack of due process.

    2. Regarding trademarks, you can either have a registered TM or just a TM. That is, if you want to register it so it has more legal oomph, you go through the govt. patent and trademark office. If you want basically word of mouth trademarks, you just use TM in a circle as an emblem , registered TM’s have an R in a circle as their official emblems.

    3. If you took a photo and you had permission or the right to shoot the imagery (i.e. your own house, your own kid, your artwork, etc.) all you have to do is put a copyright sign on the image or in the metadata and it’s copyrighted. However, Mr. HONR-able (what a joke!) has no claim as the use constitutes fair use. Sheesh these Sandy Hookers are immoral.

  12. In the time it takes to blink, there has in all probability been another move on the markedly lopsided Sandy Hook chess board. I wonder how many of these were anticipated and written into the script before 12-14-12.

    Tim McGraw cares about the safety of children, but is also a supporter of second amendment rights. So…….lets just have Timmy say he is pro gun, BUT….only for the responsible usage of said weapons. And who, blessed with such prodigious talent and influence, wouldn’t want to participate in an event that would raise awareness of said issues, potentially saving lives vulnerable to future depraved indifferences.

    My nephew recently informed me that David Wheeler spoke at Kutztown University, about an hours drive northwest of Philadelphia. The school newspaper headline was “Sandy Hook victims father stresses mental health research, attitude change on guns.”

    I would not have been aware of Wheelers engagement at the university if I had not been alerted by my nephew. My point here is that I wonder how many of these “Sandy Hook parents” are circuiting the route, pitching the mental health and gun propaganda at whatever venue available, AND WE ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF IT?

    If Tim McGraw’s engagement date with SHP is perceived to be a success, how many other headliners will jump onto the nearest stage to help “save children’s lives?” Lets not be naïve. For all of those country twangers who vow to boycott McGraw for this, there will be just as many who will now support him, who beforehand couldn’t pick Waylon Jennings from a one man line-up.

    On another note, and I am wondering aloud here.

    Today marked the 20th anniversary of the OCB. Tim McVeigh has been executed, and his alleged accomplice Terry McNichol will die in jail. Case closed? 911 culprit and Al Qaeda arch villian Osama Bin Laden killed by U.S. special forces. Case closed? Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza dead by his own hand. Case closed? BMB mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev killed in an 8 minute shootout, and his brother Dzokhar tried, convicted, and WILL be sentenced to die. Case closed?

    There are certainly others. My troubling thought is this; it seems clear to me that we have slipped unawares into the “case closed” age. It is reported, and it is received and believed.

    The old admonition was, “you gotta read between the lines.”

    I am wondering if the monsters even care about that anymore.

    1. Awesome, thank you for the video, John–this is well worth sharing, folks! Others on the subject on the same channel, too…


    The fair use clause has some potentially broadly interpreted dimensions of what’s deemed ‘fair.’ I’m not the slightest bit surprised that copyright harassment has become a weapon for those in power, as intellectual property right law is the only means to silence otherwise free speech. Defamation is something that can be sued for, but I don’t think it can actually silence free speech beyond monetary punishments.

    That said, as someone who’s studied some of these issues as of late, the courts are issuing injunctions in cases of defamation on the internet when the defendant is seen as not having any means to compensate victims. Free speech advocates are not happy with this, but I personally think it okay. If publishers of newspapers can be held to contributory liability for a defamatory article when they profit from the sale of their whole paper, it seems just that an ISP should be held liable for loudmouths who want to use the free internet as a megaphone for their vendettas. At some level, providers like WordPress or whoever else do profit from blogs that they don’t necessarily make direct money from. Even when they don’t charge for the most basic blog hosting or advertise on a specific blog, they can both advertise that they have ‘over 43 million users’ and also allow users to reblog other blogs that they do profit directly from either by charging or via advertisements.

    I’ve even seen cases where an ISP has a blogger that pays them and also advertises for them, who then uses not-for-provider-profit users’ blogs to promote their product. It’s just not a wholly separable dynamic.

    To furnish someone the megaphone that the ISP provides and then disable a plaintiff/victim some avenue of relief is just tipping the scales too much. People with beefs who don’t have the means to make their gripes either known or somehow weighted in enough people’s minds are resorting to the internet and piggybacking off of other people’s work and gravitas – and off of the ISP’s. It’s simply unfair and violates basic civil rights. Judges are awarding injunctions to these types of people who have no assets and don’t fear civil liability, I’d think most americans would approve.

    This organization seeks to instill some balance in the area of revenge porn and other cyber civil rights areas:

    The Tyler Clementi Foundation is also working to develop advocacy for cyber victims, based in New Jersey and NYC.

    1. I’d add to my point about defamation that not only do I think judges should be allowed to issue injunctions against individual defamers who are unable to pay damages, but that ISP’s should also be targets for injunctions in such cases, even when they don’t moderate content (which I think is standard operating procedure as of now). Some reprobates duck the system and use the internet as their revenge against the world and whoever therapy. If a blogger not only has no assets but is difficult and/or costly to locate, the ISP should have no choice but to be forced to force whatever modification or even repression a judge orders. A side note is that trademarks can be defamed as well as individuals, which comes to play in cases of cybersquatting – using a trademarked phrase as a domain name. Right now the cybersquatting federal law only applies to primary domains, not secondary or tertiary ones, whose proprietorship has to be resolved either by applying actual trademark infringement laws, or by taking the dispute to the agency listed in this link:

      But the second avenue may still only apply to primary domain disputes.

      1. Just curious Sue, about your sense of how defamation is treated. Did you grow up in a Commonwealth country or in the US? “Some reprobates duck the system and use the internet as their revenge against the world and whoever therapy,” seems to indicate an attitude which does not feel that the First Amendment entitles you to broad protection of free speech (or its written equivalent). Trademarks are another matter – if they really are trademarks and copyrights with protections.

        I know that the sense that you cannot keep proper order unless speech is properly curbed, is held by some people who speak English as we colonists do, but I think our heritage as a refuge for dissenters (who then sometimes moved on to yet another colony before they could speak freely) is perhaps unique in the English speaking world (though maybe Ireland in recent years could give us a challenge). I am so biased in favor of free speech because I honor and respect those who gave their lives that I might speak freely (cf. recent “Wolf Hall” and the dissident clergyman reading out the prayerbook in English while a priest is intoning in Latin – he is eventually burned at the stake for disobeying the law against teaching his fellow men).

        One man’s “loudmouth with a vendetta” is another person’s liberator.

        1. I’m at least fifth generation american by three grandparents, maybe fourth by another. The reason I put a lot into my ‘tirade,’ is because I think these issues are more complex than many seem to assume. To boil things down, I’ll reiterate that I don’t consider the internet as totally ‘free,’ in the sense that it’s assumed to exist like air or something, when it doesn’t. So the same standards should apply that govern older forms of publications. When a newspaper makes money by selling newspapers, it can be held liable for defamatory statements it publishes – because it profits from the sale of the whole paper. Similarly, an ISP is publishing, whether it wants to admit this or not, articles, etc., and making money from them. A key issue is whether a blog that doesn’t *directly* generate profit for an ISP should be somehow viewed as existing in free airspace. I don’t think it should be, since it’s reliant for a platform (the megaphone) on the *profit* the ISP is making from its other users, who either do pay the ISP (WordPress charges for upgraded user features, but not for basic as of now) or whose blogs generate direct profit for its owners and the ISP through advertisements.

          Since WordPress, like many other ISP’s, encourages reblogging and cultivates an environment of sharing between bloggers, it seems clear to me that even non-profit-generating blogs should be viewed as partial contributors to the overall profit margins of the company. So when some disgruntled malcontent runs a blog on WordPress, who doesn’t have any money to pay damages for speech that would accrue civil liability for the ‘old fashioned’ publishing platforms, I personally think they shouldn’t be indulged as if the internet is free like air. The malcontent has no money and doesn’t care about violating civil law, as they have no assets and therefore ‘nothing to lose.’ That doesn’t mean their speech is somehow immune from civil adjudication. So if a judge decides that the speech meets the criteria for what’s been considered defamation for years before the internet, and then finds that the defendant has no assets (and could be assumed to be reckless precisely because of their penury) he/she is only silencing someone who couldn’t pay for their own publicity to begin with.

          Why should ISP’s be treated differently from old style publishing companies, is my point. A newpaper would edit content in part out of fear of civil judgments. The sheer scope of ISP publishing prevents most companies from being able to moderate content, but that scope doesn’t somehow exempt them from liability, which in the specific case of defamation should be prosecuted through injunctions against both the user and the company. Trademark defamation implies liability for both the ISP and the user/blogger, although the dimension of it may vary. Defamation of a person only applies to the user when content isn’t moderated, *but,* if that user is a no show delinquent who can’t pay, the court should force the ISP to stop ‘profiting’ from or ‘publicizing’ the civil violations.

          Property has more rights in the US than people. I also think there are ramifications for speech about people on the internet that aren’t defamation but should still be ‘governed’ in some way. What if someone publishes something about another person, like that they’re gay or something, that disables them from getting a job or a place to live? The internet shouldn’t be used to stalk people or to violate their civil rights.

          I don’t have all the answers and I *think* there may be civil relief in instances where someone’s internet speech leads to such civil rights violations.

          I know way more about trademark law as it’s being applied to the internet because of an imbroglio I’ve had with a nutcase anonymous blogger. But copyright is more interesting and far-reaching, it seems. So I have to read the other comments and learn more.

        2. Musings – excellent comment!

          But this is directed to Sue (intentional double entendre?). Sue, in your world, you would have it so that anyone who “defames” you would be held monetarily liable to your lawsuits, correct?

          I’m not going to go into your obvious blindness to your narcissist, bratty, entitled upbringing, but suffice it to say, nobody else wants to live like you would have it.

          Let me explain. If someone reviews your product/copyright/family name, and you feel you have been slighted, you can then sue them for defamation? And if they can’t pony up your expected dough, then you can seek further compensation from the content provider ( a blog ), and/or the distributor ( an ISP ) until you feel they have learned their lesson. In your world, amazon would be out of business, yelpers would be jailed, and anyone with an opinion would be broke.

          We are not buying the Ukrainian land you are selling, however ISIS is looking for women to marry, I believe you would love it there. If you decide not to pack up, then I suggest you quit dressing your words up like Hillary, throw out the diaper, and put on your big girl pants. Its a shame you didn’t have a dad to let you know that your not the center of the universe, but your going to have to get used to the fact that it ain’t going to go your way all the time, and life aint fair.

          Good day to you.

      2. Don’t worry Sue,

        Free speech will soon be censored.

        The corrupt Obama Democrats via the FCC have taken over the FREE Internet and ALL your dreams of censorship and shutting down ISP’s and individuals will all be true soon!!

        What a wish………….

        1. Ric I’m just stating for the record that your characterization of my posture on these issues is a serious distortion of what I said and believe.

        2. Sue,
          You can’t go after the ISP which has Ten’s of Thousands of subscriber’s
          to read and regulate what can or cannot be posted.
          That’s an impossible burden and would be censorship.

          That’s now the NSA’s and FCC’s job and it’s NOT good.

          I understand you want to get somebody who is posting garbage.
          I’m sure through a civil suit the ISP would have to reveal who the person is so you could sue them for defamat6ion or whatnot.

        3. Also Sue,
          If the person you sue and win doesn’t have any money you can still get a 10 year judgement against them for any future earnings/winnings/inheritances.

        4. I’m not going to respond to the bizarre non-sequitur rantings of reprehensor.

          But since you appear to sincerely misunderstand me, Ric, I’ll try to clarify. Defamation is something that can be committed against two entities – private individuals and trademarks (I don’t know if there are others). An ISP has contributory liability when it moderates content, which as of now most ISP’s seem to be avoiding doing. I *think* that there might be more possible gray areas in terms of this contributory liability for the defamation of a trademark, particularly as it plays out on the internet, but I’m not sure. The actual definition and criteria for defamation are the same as they’ve always been, they’re just being applied to the internet. Some ISP’s already require court orders to remove defamatory content (or impersonation) as things stand.

          Apparently that wasn’t always so; I think with WordPress, for example, that’s a new policy. Judges have been granting injunctions, which I imagine are the same as these court orders, to force a blogger or ISP to remove defamatory material. There have been situations where judges have awarded plaintiffs injunctions when a defendant is considered liable but has no money or assets to effect relief. I have assumed these situations involved defamation, but maybe there have been incidents of some kind of damaging speech that weren’t ‘defamation’ but could somehow still be civilly actionable. Perhaps this might be the area in which free speech is being repressed. I don’t know much more.

          What if a plaintiff simply can’t be found or doesn’t show up in court, but is guilty of defamation or some other type of infringement? An ISP can’t just enable such fugitives from civil justice. In such cases the ISP should be forced to take down the offending (legally) content. Again, I don’t know if there is a different threshold for liability in trademark defamation.

          Mostly it seems as if you’re not bothering to read my comments carefully. So why respond?

      3. Very informative, however I just couldn’t put myself in the position of “victim who wants to be paid because bloggers are defaming me.”

        You made valid points, but the tone of your tirade was reminiscent of alanis morrisette (you know, the vindictive “go down on you in a theater” alanis).

        That said, I guess I really don’t like what you were saying and subsequently choose to down vote it. Perhaps an Oprah or Rosie blog may be more to your liking?

  14. I need to see the entire complaint to be sure, but I find Pozner’s statement in the complaint to be interesting. I am guessing the HONR Network (“HONR”) filed the complaint with the ISP and that it was HONR that alleged infringement, not Pozner. After HONR alleged infringement in the complaint, Pozner added the relevant following language to complete what appears to be a very misleading complaint:


    Notice that Pozner, as the presumptive copyright owner, does not in fact state that he, himself, has a “good faith belief” that MHB or the ISP is indeed infringing on his copyright. He merely states that the “alleged infringement” was not authorized by the copyright owner (i.e., Pozner).

    This phrasing is important. Pozner likely cannot have a good faith belief that MHB is infringing on his copyright, since he probably knows with a legal certainty that MHB is not infringing on his copyright because of the fair-use provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976. That is why, I suggest, Pozner uses the term “alledgedly infringing.” Again, to be clear, he never says, as the copyright owner, that he alleges an infringement.

    Alas, the relevant fair-use language found under 17 U.S.C.A. § 107 (West) provides that the use of copyrighted work for “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

    That Pozner did not authorize MHB to use his copyrighted photo is obvious and goes without saying. That’s why we have the fair-use provision in the first place — it allows people who do not have permission to use a copyrighted work to use it for certain purposes.

    Pozner appears to be well advised regarding his handling of these copyright complaints. He couches his language in such a way so as to avoid directly alleging infringement, presumably because he knows it is not indeed infringement.

  15. What is so infuriating to any serious research into this “event” are the sheer number of apparent trolls, shills, and cointel sock puppets to any serious research and outside inquiry. Never-mind the guys who still knowingly promote debunked arguments and false data as any kind of “smoking-gun-truths.”

    The “Pozner” chap (if that is his real name; there are reasons to doubt) has become the exact same sort of obsessive net-goon for his chosen cause that one Seth C. Kalichman has for his; a champion shill for the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy and who specializes in habitual HIV-“skeptic” and “denier” character assassination, and who seemingly cannot demonstrate personal understanding of some of the simple scientific arguments which downplay or demolish the role of so-called “HIV” in chronic Human immunodeficiency pathogenesis, or that he even comprehends very simple facts such as- that even Dr. Luc Montagnier (actual discoverer of cultured particles obtained in-vivo he labelled LAV; but who is I.E. by “political convention” called the “co-discoverer of HIV”) has perhaps come to the realization that this misidentified and elusive (some would say “contrived”) retrovirus is insufficient alone in otherwise healthy people to cause chronic t-cell depletion and sufficient viremia in any of the surveilled syndromic illnesses; this is still an oddity and there are several papers about this and the consequences for the present day theory.

    Even if you have strong feelings about so-called HIV’s role in either Western or African “AIDS,” guys like Seth doth protest too much; way too much; and rather coincidentally- he’s a psychology professor at the University of Connecticut.

    My latest thoughts on the SHES matter are basically that the real conspiracy here is still “who framed the patsy?” There are oddities and inconsistencies within the final report, especially the DNA section which raise more questions that they answer. Think basics, really, until you find a workable motive, you can’t sell me a “weird home-schooled kid just snapped and went berserk at home and elsewhere” story.

    It’s “untidy”- and nakedly implausible.

    If there was a police entry-round fired from a shotgun (and there is evidence to that effect in the released crime scene pictures) how were those acquired and by whom? The Saiga type shotgun was found locked in the trunk of the alleged-perp’s (mother’s) car, with at least one round in the chamber. Was no slug fired from that shotgun, or was no shotgun shell found on the scene? I find it a little curious that the gun with the least “lethality” ( a .22 Marlin) was used in the home homicide (compared to the clip fed shotgun anyway). Other questions remain, sufficient to warrant more investigation, apart from those launched by Mr. Halbig and a few, credible others.

    Thanks for reading.

    1. idk about the hiv, but he probably shot his mom with the 22 because it was the most quiet? Also, lanza was known to be an avid dance dance revolution enthusiast, with stamina that lasted for hours. In regards to the shotgun in the trunk, apparently it was moved there by the cop, then moved again. I have not seen anything alluding to the shotgun ever being used that day.

      1. Hello.

        AL’s DNA was excluded on the Marlin rifle however (iirc, unless it was part of a mixture from the stock; and even then, we’d still want to know what DNA source from AL), and the trigger, guard, and stock were all allegedly wiped and clean (i do not recall hearing about the brass). One can survive multiple shots from a 22 rifle, even to the face area, and it is quite likely that the first shot suffered by the victim’s target in the home scenario (yes, even a sleeping one) would have provoked a sudden survival response from the body- to sit up or flee, or to at least attempt to cover one’s head. So it is rational to think that either Mrs. Lanza was drugged, or was in such a very very deep sleep cycle that the “amazingly precise” first shot either struck her and totally paralyzed and incapacitated her, or outright killed her, making all the subsequent shots rather unnecessary, no matter how loud they may have been. Besides, the question is of “weapon lethality,” and surely one shotgun report would have been sufficient to achieve the intended result(s) and made little discernible difference, decibel-wise (sound level); any gun with a full “standard” powder grain load will seem very VERY loud in a bedroom, and would’ve carried some appreciable distance outside as well.


        Games such as “DDR” are beneficial to fitness in an aerobic sense (helping to elevate heart rate, respiration and metabolism) but they do not build strength necessary to carry out the feat that AL allegedly did alone, much less- supreme marksmanship, firearm stoppage recovery, mere “trigger finger stamina,” or the mental focus and acuity to over-ride innate social memes and mores (such as “NOT shooting unarmed and defenseless persons, much less, mere frightened children”). Not one so-called “Violent” Video game that I’m aware of rewards players for slaying children (not even the lowgrade “racist” versions of 3D shoot ’em up games) and most, in fact, deduct points for “collateral damage” to bystanders or non-threatening “Mobs”; and it would take deliberate, prolonged, direct exposure to violence with multimedia programming directed towards “innocents” sufficient to desensitize an individual of our (American) society ENOUGH to even contemplate executing such an unthinkable and unsurvivable combat mission as this AL kid “must have” planned and carried out.

        As for the shotgun in the trunk, I agree that it most likely was planted there (quite likley by a blue collar individual or a police worker) but that, as of this time that I am writing this, there appears to be quite convincing pictorial evidence that at least one “breaching round” was indeed fired (left to right) through the front entrance’s glass window.

        Whether that was to give arriving forces greater area to enter the school building is unclear; it could just as easily have been another patrolman’s shotgun which dealt the observable damage to

        Thanks for sharing and thanks for reading.

        1. “[,,,] another patrolman’s shotgun which dealt the observable damage to the front lobby window and bookcase.”

          Cut and paste failure, lol, sorry for that!

        2. What the? Shotgun vs 22? She is still dead, who cares? The total weight of all gear was 34lbs – def well within anyone’s ability to carry. Bad, misleading logic used throughout your comment.

        3. Granite: I say this with no malice and with love in my heart: You’re doing it again.

          There is a HUGE difference between a .22 and a 12- or 20-gauge shotgun. Like a WORLD of difference, not only in the ammunition they use and the damage they cause, but in the noise each creates. To discount these factors is simple-minded. “She is still dead, who cares?” You sound like Hillary Clinton.

          Further, it is not illogical to consider the effect that 34 lbs of gear would have on a kid like AL, especially in light of his phenomenal kill rate and his alleged disability. I mean, seriously, Granite? Do YOU have some form of disability?

          Unlike many here, I never thought you were actually a shill, but you’re really starting to toe the line.

        4. Recynd, yes, Grannywhatever is indeed “doing it again,” even though James Tracy told him/her to stop wasting our time. Once more, the assumption behind the comment is that something happened that day (outside of a media pageant), and that deaths occurred, even though there is no evidence of it.

          Last time around ( he/she said this, and I replied:

          “Did anyone care to check out the dozens of photos of hundreds of students evacuating”

          Uh, no. My bad. Must have slipped my mind.

          Wow. You know, granny, years have passed since the day of that fake event, and no one–NO ONE has posted those “dozens of photos” here. No one here has even seen them! It must be because James Tracy is everything that article you posted says he is: he censored them! Brave people like you tried to post them here, but he refused to let us see them. The bastard!

          I know that that tyrant has asked to to stop attempting to bring truth to this benighted website (damn his name), but perhaps, if I ask really politely, James might accede to my wish and allow you one last post: please, I want to see those “dozens of photos”!!!!!! Where can I go to find them?


          Well, good ole’ granny DID come back, but without a link to those dozens of pictures of actual children being evacuated. Why is he/she “dissing” me dat way? I begged granny for those dozens of pictures, and even intervened on his behalf with the owner of this site to enable it to be done. I’d hope to be thanked for that. I’d also hope to be allowed to look at those dozens of photographs.

          Trolls. They are tricky beasts. Crafty.

        5. Can’t believe I got that one off. To all the gullible I emplore you to do what’s called “due diligence”

        6. “Bad, misleading logic throughout your comment.” -granite

          Oh, well, you seem to have trouble identifying a single fact in which I have erred; from the DNA analysis of the actual evidence, to the alleged assassin’s curious first-choice of weapon, to the fact that aerobic exercise is not quite the same as strength building exercises (even if you contend that an untrained kid in average physical condition could carry one quarter- or more- of his body weight and still pull off his alleged marks without assistance); for it is not a simple matter of carrying all that, plus a shotgun with a breaching round or “entry slug(s)”- as you portray…

          It is strapping it on strategically, over time, somewhere, and then carrying it all while using the selected gear in such a coordinated, sustained, precise manner for many minutes- that it strains credibility that there was no other assistance whatever to AL, before, during, or after the “event.”

          You are free to disagree, but on what intellectual “meat,” Sir?

          And To What- do “non-skeptics” attribute the apparent “Shotgun pellets and gray/lead powder” immediately inside the front glass window and to the right on the book case or display stand, easily seen in official released crime scene images? And to whom? And when?

          The elegance and tenacity of “bad, misleading logic” appears to be– that in order to defeat it, one must use it..

          Thanks for commenting, =)

        7. carroll:

          “the DNA analysis of the actual evidence, to the alleged assassin’s curious first-choice of weapon”

          the dna – there was none right? whats the problem? either he wiped it or he didn’t. the shotgun wasn’t used. as I stated.

          curious first choice – I’ve heard your arguments. they don’t prove anything of substance. the claim is he used a 22 a bunch of times. he’s a psycho – I don’t know why he picked the 22 but I did posit that the reason was because it was more quiet. the fact that she didn’t raise her hands or not is pure speculation – maybe she did and things got dicey but he had the gun and was on top so she was at a huge disadvantage to begin with. what exactly are you alleging? that it is taboo to speak anything but the consensus here?

          lastly – weight. as a senior I weighed 135 pounds. I could bench my own weight easily and lift 350 with one leg. 34 pounds distributed evenly over the body (as was reported) would be zero hindrance.

          first graders. 6 years old. I could nail each one with my left hand without even trying – anyone could. more than likely they froze. headshots would have been obtained easily as that is the biggest part on their bodies.

          look, in retrospect I am beginning to think that my coping mechanisms simply would not allow for those kids to be killed in my world. the previous paragraph was something hard to write and I am actively shutting out the imagery as I type this. maybe all of us have something going on that makes us rationalize that someone wouldn’t have the inhumanity to do this, maybe we cannot fathom the reality of those little kids being slaughtered. maybe that’s how we deal with stuff. i’m not sure, Im just throwing out questions in good faith and you guys are ridiculing me like textbook denialists. not to mention the censorship I have had to endure, using 6-7 different names and having jft lie about me and then delete my comments so I have no rebuttal. geez you guys just answer the questions, we have already established im a troll.

  16. A certain tone of voice: We have all remarked upon the odd intonations in the voices of the Sandy Hook parents. I just heard it today in a different context. There’s a new book out, Ashley’s War, by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, about women special forces members operating in Afghanistan.

    The author (and likely embedded reporter) was talking to PBS News Hour reporter, Margaret Warner. Warner asked Lemmon what qualities were shared by the women who volunteered for this kind of duty, and as she spoke of them, she showed a picture of one woman who was “the best of the best” and who paid for it with her life.

    As she spoke of the woman’s death, a kind of weird smile came to Lemmon’s lips (as though there might be a cognitive dissonance in fighting for our “freedoms” and simultaneously letting women die for the likes of our chicken hawks in a public not yet fully broken in). Her blissful tone of voice was as though she was one remembering a dear departed friend, who will never be forgotten. I doubt she ever met the living woman, but maybe I am wrong and she is even odder than I thought. Anyway, it was something to make us care yet feel no real pain for the loss. Maybe someone can find this and find the moment midway through the broadcast when that kind of mask slips onto her face and it stops being a straight story about something factual and becomes the fulfillment of a pre-set agenda by someone higher up.

    1. There’s a name for that exact expression that truthers have, I can’t recall it now. It’s supposedly because they feel some satisfaction in deceiving everyone.

      1. I’m also wondering if it is some kind of conventional way of talking about fallen soldiers, a “eulogistic” form of expression. But in this case, and you may be on to something, you can sense a little swallow of a kind of chuckle.

        It is a sort of performance meant to seem a spontaneous reaction to the question, as though someone has died sanctified and is now enjoying the bliss of paradise (what we accuse suicide bombers of going for), for which we should smile of course.

        That parents should have applied this to recently dead children was really creepy, and as we know from Robbie Parker’s blooper, totally fake.

        I just saw a parallel and wondered how the training in talking about military deaths might have transferred over to SHES, a psyop. Of course, traditionally, all talk of the dead in wartime involves deliberate mystification so as not to give satisfaction to the enemy. It’s an act, acknowledged as such. But it is also military propaganda for the population at large.

        1. I just watched a youtube on the NYC cop shooting hoax. The slight smile they can’t repress is called ‘duping delight’ by some.

  17. We need to have another talk.

    Hopefully this stuff stays. If not hopefully someone will see it before its taken down.

    1. I got terminated last time I tried to link to his site so I will try another avenue. attribute all the below pics and vid link to the following:
      initials are: see doubleyou wade
      site is: SHanalysis (where SH are spelled out in full)

  18. Recently, an Oregon school active shooter drill traumatized students and faculty alike. A teacher, who has been at the school for over thirty years has now been diagnosed with PTSD, and, can’t return to work. She has been ostracized by her colleagues, after filing a lawsuit, according to NBC news:

    And they ask us how can we question such events as Sandy Hook? And I ask them how can we NOT question such events?

  19. A History Of State-Sponsored Terrorism

    In her famous speech “What is Patriotism,” Emma Goldman points out the “patriotic lie” where “innocent boys are morally shanghaied into patriotism” and are thusly lured to their death. Goldman is suggesting that the very notion of patriotism is a trick; in present times, patriotism has been morphed into a false dichotomy where “either you are with us, or you are with the enemy.”

    War is woven into the very fabric of our nation—in fact the US national anthem celebrates war, and you don’t need to look far to learn that each war the US has been involved in since its founding could not have been entered without an event of mass deception that brings about public support, thusly allowing entrance into the desired conflict. We know that for the Civil War to occur, the Fort Sumter attack in 1861 was needed in order to gain public support; Lincoln told his soldiers what to do to provoke the attack. The USS Maine was exploded in May 1898 in order to gain public support for a war against Spain. Similarly, the RMS Lusitania was sunk in 1915 by a torpedo in order to shift public opinion for a war against Germany. We know that Australia warned us in 1941 (the warning then marked “confidential,” but now declassified) about a Japanese warship headed towards Hawaii, but Washington refused to relay the message because President Roosevelt needed to sacrifice our boys at Pearl Harbor in order to enter WWII. Similarly, the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 (which we now know never occurred) allowed the US to go to war against Vietnam.

    More recently, Desert Storm in 1990 had little support until the media convinced the public it was needed, and the known lie of “weapons of mass destruction” was used on the public to shift support for a war in Iraq.

    We even now know about the declassified Operation Northwoods and how they were willing to kill off a few thousand of us in order to shift public support to go into Cuba, but Kennedy refused to sign off on it.

    These events condition the public to accept a solution that would otherwise be unacceptable—but just like the notion of patriotism, it is a trick as well. By understanding the pattern of Hegelian Dialectic of problem/ reaction/ solution, we can often link to the solution to its pre-existing problem. For example, tighter Internet regulations are desired (solution) so the Charlie Hebdo event is created (problem) in order to condition the public for the now much-desired solution that takes away further rights.

    Besides the false flag attacks, we can examine state-sponsored terrorism along the same vein. Manufactured terrorism is hoisted upon the people through deception, and it also results in a specific outcome, most specifically allowing people to give up freedoms for their “safety.” Little known to the public, their safety is being jeopardized by those paid by taxes to actually protect them. As a result of staged terror events, the people will become more reliant upon their government to protect them from said terror threat. Results include:

    • Heightened surveillance
    • Strengthened Police State (mostly ex-military—now the public has become the enemy)
    • A broadened idea of who a terrorist is: we now have “domestic terrorists.” The derogatory term “terrorist” has come to include citizens themselves, as our government has expanded its definition.

    Staged terror events are often presented as a training drill, but then the drill goes “live,” meaning that elements in the drill actually occur rather than being simulated. There are 63 drills “gone live” so far although many more are possible that have not yet been detected or declassified. Often, “moulage” is used by actors to make the event seem real. In a “staged” event, no one is hurt but the media portrays the event as actually occurring. In a “false flag” terror event, innocent lives are sacrificed. Many believe the 7/7 London bus bombings
    to be a drill gone live, as while they were drilling about bombs on a bus, the actual bombing occurred.

    With an understanding of the history of false flag attacks and staged events of manufactured terrorism, knowing that it is Eric Holder’s intention to “brainwash” the public about gun control, knowing that Eric Holder funneled $7.1 million to Newton through Project Longevity, and also knowing that Connecticut Governor Malloy was warned that a mass shooting was going to take place in his state, and knowing that Rick Serino planned a mass casualty event for the Boston Marathon as he waited by the finish line during the “blast”—with a history of false flags and staged events to gain public support—why should the Boston Marathon “bombing” and Sandy Hook “shooting” be exempt from asking critical questions about these alleged occurrences?

  20. Does anyone know what conditions or specifications a screen shot needs to meet to be considered court-admissible? If one takes a mirror of a website or blog, to prove what had been posted on it, it’s apparently not going to help a plaintiff, as a mirror can be altered and therefore referencing it in court wouldn’t work for evidence. Someone tells me that the only way is to have a notary public watch as you pull up a website and take a photo of a screen, and then have it printed out and signed by the notary. This seems to put defendants of internet civil violations in quite the power position, as they only need to change an entry to disprove accusations a plaintiff might bring.

    I’ve always wondered this and would love to hear if anyone knows how to ‘prove’ something is or was put up on the internet in court.

Leave a Reply to elfmom55 Cancel reply
