Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Jim Fetzer lost the Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit by summary judgement. It means that the judge wouldn't even let it go to trial, and that really is a shame. First, I haven't written about Sandy Hook, and I'm not going to start now. I have nothing to say about what happened that day. But, I thought every American was entitled to be judged by a jury of his peers. 

This summary judgment is terrible for two reasons. First, the judge is only one person. A jury is many persons. And we know that people tend to see things differently. But furthermore, the judge is an employee of the State, whereas jurors are not. According to Jim, the State perpetrated a hoax in order to whip up public support for gun control.  So, wrongdoing by the State is very much part of Jim's case. 

I don't know what chance Jim would have had to convince a jury, but I do know that he had absolutely no chance of convincing a judge.  

There has been only one civil lawsuit in the JFK case, E Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby. Hunt sued them for saying that he was involved in the JFK assassination. He said he was home chopping vegetables with his wife when JFK got shot. Liberty Lobby lost the first trial, but then they won on appeal. Mark Lane defended them, and he convinced a jury of 12 people that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination and that Hunt was lying. 

But, what if it had been up to a judge? What if Mark Lane had to make his case to a judge rather than to a jury? I rate the chance of his having won at zero. Absolute zero.

What about 9/11? There was a lawsuit filed by Pentagon employee April Gallop against Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers. To no surprise, the court threw it out similarly, and this how Global Research wrote it up:

Bush court dismisses 9/11 suit against Bush officials, orders sanctions

Rather than judicially review significant evidence in the events of September 11, 2001, on April 27, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of an Army Specialist’s complaint against former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.

One of Plaintiff April Gallop’s attorneys, William Veale, didn’t know whether to relate the decision to “Kafka, Orwell, Carroll, or Huxley,” referring to the absurdity and dearth of reason emanating from the court regarding the deadliest attack on U.S. soil the nation has ever faced.

“The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards,” Veale added.

Of the three judges on the panel, John Mercer Walker, Jr. is first cousin of former President George H.W. Bush and first cousin once removed of George W. Bush, who used 9/11 to manipulate public emotion to support passage of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Acts and waging illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. According to Wikipedia, Walker shares a grandfather with the 41st president, George Herbert Walker, whose daughter married Prescott Bush. A motion to force Judge Walker’s removal from the case was denied, despite a clear conflict of interest.

The lawsuit, prepared by the Center for 9/11 Justice, accuses the defendants of conspiring to facilitate the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans and which has resulted in the deaths of many more, due to the toxicity of the clean-up conditions at Ground Zero. The plaintiff and her son were both injured in the attack on the Pentagon, multiple videos of which the government has refused to release to the public.

Ignoring crucial evidence like the total collapse of WTC7 though not hit by a plane on September 11, the whereabouts of and statements made by the Defendants on 9/11, and the presence of thermitic material in the rubble of the Twin Towers, the court ludicrously affirmed the lower court’s finding that the case was “not plausible” and “the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.”

Additionally, the court filed an Order to Show Cause for Sanctions amounting to $15,000 for filing a “frivolous” suit, which the Center for 9/11 Justice plans to appeal.

Meanwhile, nearly 1,500 professional architects, engineers and scientists continue to assert the physical impossibility of all three World Trade Center buildings collapsing in near free fall as a result of burning jet fuel. Indeed, it is the government’s conspiracy version which is implausible, “fanciful, fantastic and delusional.”

The bravery of April Gallop in her attempt to expose the truth is as laudable as the obvious official corruption is contemptible. An unbiased judicial review of the events surrounding 9/11 will not be found in the United States. But refusal to do so only heightens global suspicion. The conspiracy and cover-up was so poorly executed that the vast majority of the planet’s population doubts the official version of events.

I, of course, agree that the official story of 9/11 is preposterous, and it is insane of anyone to believe it. But again, it was a 3 judge panel. No jurors; just judges. And I think that April Gallop and her team should have realized that they stood no chance of winning. 

Am I going to get sued by the family of James Bookhout? No, because in the United States there are no slander laws against the dead. But, don't think for one second that I have any doubt that it was James Bookhout pretending to be Jack Ruby during the Garage Spectacle. And I don't accuse him of shooting Oswald. I say it was hoax, and Oswald was shot afterwards, and by whom, I don't know. But, it definitely wasn't James Boohout. 

The sister of Natalie Wood, Lana Wood, says that Natalie was raped at the age of 16 by a top Hollywood mega-star, that he invited her to his hotel room, ostensibly to discuss a movie role, and he raped her there- for hours.  This man is very elderly now, but Lana claims that as soon as he dies, she is going to call a press conference and reveal everything she knows, accusing him publicly of this terrible crime. Why is she waiting? Because once he dies, the issue of slander will vanish. But interestingly, there have been biographers of Natalie Wood who have told the story and named the guy. That's how I found out. I like to read biographies, and I read one about her which revealed his name. So, it's out there already. You just have  to google it.