BOOK: Nobody Died at Sandy Hook. It Was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control (Moon Rock Books)
We Are Change Orlando Reports on the Hearing
Sandy Hook Researcher, Tony Mead, sums up the Leonard Pozner vs. Wolfgang Halbig pre-trial hearing on 11/7/17.
Halbig scored a previous victory on 6/13/2015 when Newtown First Selectman, Patricia Llodra testified under oath that DHS was involved in setting up an electronic sign at the Newtown Fire Station reminding drill participants to sign-in.
11/7/17: Pre-trial hearing
History of the Pozner Lawsuit Against Halbig
There are many beautiful languages in the world, but the language of the court is not one of them. Never has there been a species of snake more double-tongued, slippery and capable of contorting the meaning of each word in a sentence.
Nevertheless, it’s necessary to watch the recent pre-trial hearing between defendant Wolfgang Halbig (a Sandy Hook citizen investigator) and complainant “Leonard Pozner’s” attorney, which took place on March 28th, 2017 in the Lake County Courthouse in Florida. Necessary because it’s one of the many snake dances that followed the Sandy Hook event of 12-14-12.
The complainant, who is the parent of a child purported to have died in the Sandy Hook shootings, is suing Mr. Halbig for posting his personal information online, which consists of his name, business address, email address and phone number, already available publicly according to many sources.
The first 17 minutes is taken up with the complainant’s attorney caviling with the judge over the presence of a reporter from We Are Change. The attorney based his objection on the argument that the reporter represents “fake news.” (Now we see how that charge is going to be applied by lawyers who don’t like real people with real eyes and ears and mouths recording and interpreting their words.) Regardless, the judge allowed the reporter to record the hearing.
What’s in a name? For the real issue, which is that of the identity of the complainant, start at 57:00. Because the plaintiff has used a variety of aliases on various documents in the past (e.g., the Dickensian “Eliezer Pozner”), Mr. Halbig had asked for a copy of the plaintiff’s birth certificate to ascertain by whom he is being sued. It seems reasonable, doesn’t it? Especially since the plaintiff’s signature on a pertinent legal document (“Lenny Pozner”) differs from the name under which his suit was filed.
“This man has five, six different names,” said Mr. Halbig at one point, in reference to various aliases he found in public documents. “That’s why I think that question is relevant to my discovery. I want to know who this man really is, who’s filed a lawsuit against me.”
But the torrent of legal-speak issuing from the judge’s lips thereupon is so serpentine, so full of writhing, squirming, squeezing and cloaking language, one is left wondering if the court is in a county that speaks any English at all. “Irrelevant,” a favorite court-speak term, is lavishly deployed. But why should Mr. Halbig’s request be “irrelevant” when the very nature of the plaintiff’s allegations concern Mr. Halbig’s use of the plaintiff’s name?
So, exactly who/what is/are Eliezer Pozner? You will not find the answer on Jeopardy, nor, I’m afraid, in the court proceeding.