December 4, 2021
(L) the "iconic photo" by Shannon Hicks of the Newton Bee (R) a different version: "Photo B"by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
It is time now to wrap up nine years of "Sandy Hook." I've put quote marks around the name Sandy Hook to imply that I am not talking about the district of Newtown, Connecticut known as Sandy Hook, I am referring to "the Sandy Hook story."
As or the actual district, I have no criticism, nor do I think ill of its people. If anything, I sympathize with the large number of residents there who were ordered to tell lies.
"The Sandy Hook story" says that a massacre occurred there on December 14, 2012. No such thing happened. It is all fictional. It's very important for Americans to grasp this as soon as possible. It is quite common for the MSM (mainstream media) to put out stories - some big, some small - that are fictional.
What can we do about this? In the old days, journalists had a Code of Ethics. It required that they not publish, as fact, an item for which they had only one source. They needed to find a second source, or go out and personally investigate the allegation to determine its worth.
I do not know the solution to today's lying by the media. On four occasions, I have been so annoyed by false-flag stories that I have gone out and investigated them myself, to the extent of writing a book. The first three were: Port Arthur massacre of 1996, the Sydney siege of 2014, and the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013.
I hadn't considered the 2012 Sandy Hook story to be false. I thought it was true and assumed that the hoopla about it on the Internet was perhaps a psy-op unto itself. I was particularly disgusted when a Connecticut citizen named William Brandon Shanley sued various newspapers. That looked to me like a way for those newspapers to mock conspiracy theory (the judge dismissed the case). But I later concluded that Shanley knew the truth. Too late to apologize to him, as he is now deceased.
Here, in a nutshell, is the false story of Sandy Hook Elementary School: A guy named Adam Lanza, age 20, broke into the school at 9.30am on a school day, went into a classroom of first graders and shot dead 16 kids. Then he went into another classroom and shot dead 4 more, plus he shot dead 6 staff members. He also shot and wounded a staff member named Natalie Hammond, but she has never appeared in an interview as far as I know. There is also a wounded child whom we have never seen. Adam then killed himself.
Here, in a nutshell, is the correct story: It has been common for over half a century for powerful persons in the US to arrange for real violence to occur, to make us think our neighbors are to be feared. A possible early example of a shooter killing randomly is that of Charles Whitman in 1966. He reportedly stabbed to death his mother and his wife and then climbed a tower at the University of Texas to shoot students. He killed 15 and wounded 21, until a policemen shot him dead. His motive? Wikipedia "settles the matter" by saying:
"In the months prior to the attack, Whitman had sought professional help for "overwhelming, violent impulses", including fantasies about shooting people from the tower. An autopsy conducted after his death revealed a hypothalamic tumor."
To the contrary, I think Charles may have done all of that under hypnosis.
Whole Cloth - Gulf of Tonkin
At some point, the powerful realized that they could make up a story "from whole cloth." This happened in the Gulf of Tonkin episode. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson told Congress, deceitfully, that a US ship in a Vietnam harbor, had been torpedoed by the Viet Cong (the communist enemy). It did not really happen, but the telling of it was enough to make Congress approve LBJ's large escalation of the Vietnam war.
The purpose of a false flag is to blame the enemy for some atrocity which will galvanize the domestic public. Often, a government itself carries out an atrocity so that a false flag can be hung on the perpetrator. He will be labeled a Viet Cong, or a Muslim jihadist, or whatever.
In that example from 1964, the atrocity was very inexpensive - no ship was torpedoed at all! I guess you could say our brain was torpedoed. Note: a German analyst of false flags, Elias Davidsson, looks at the 9-11 false flag where 19 Arabs were - absurdly - credited with hijacking 4 planes. He entitles his book "Hijacking America's Mind on 9-11."
So there we are, torpedoed and hijacked. We had better improve our game, and soon. Anyone with a working intellect needs to join this effort.
The Purpose of Sandy Hook
To create a fictional story of a school massacre would naturally require a lot of money and a lot of effort. So why bother? What was gained? I have heard three purposes suggested.
The first is gun control. Certainly much is made of the shooting by persons who do not want the public to easily acquire a gun. And the bereaved families (I mean the "bereaved" families) at Sandy Hook have taken a prominent role in the anti-gun movement. A helpful book, co-edited by James Fetzer and Mike Palecek, is entitled: "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill To Support Gun Control."
The second possible purpose of Sandy Hook was to use it as a try-out for later events, such as the Boston Marathon bombing. In other words, the powerful were testing the public's gullibility. It seems we passed with flying colors. Although there are many critics of Sandy Hook who publish comments on the Internet, no official action has taken place in opposition to this false flag. (Note: It took Congress nine years, from its Gulf of Tonkin gullibility in 1964 to its official opposition in the 1973 War Powers Act.)
I go along with those first and second purposes of Sandy Hook - nuking the Second Amendment and prepping for the Marathon affair - but I am especially devoted to a third purpose. Namely, the powerful want us to stop making any distinction between fact and fiction. This is the premise of my book "Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds." I claim that the Sandy Hook issue is meant to expose us to huge lies, whilst we sort-of-realize they are lies, and finally give up on trying to distinguish between reality and unreality.
I mentioned above that I had - until 2021 - believed that the massacre was real. This was partly because I have been a student of both the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia and the 1996 Dunblane massacre in Scotland. Both were real. Port Arthur had about 35 adult victims and Dunblane had 16 kids and one teacher. I am sure that in both cases they were false flags. That is, the alleged gunman (Martin Bryant, who is still in prison for Port Arthur) and Thomas Hamilton (killed himself at Dunblane) were not the real killers. They were substitutes.
In any case, I got over my intellectual laziness about Sandy Hook when William Sumner Scott, who is an attorney for Jim Fetzer, showed me the case of Soto et al v Remington. This was a civil lawsuit brought by Donna Soto and eight others against Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster gun that was allegedly used at the Sandy Hook massacre. (The case is also called Soto v Bushmaster.)
The stunning thing about the lawsuit is that the defendant did not ask for Discovery. That is, Remington did not demand proof that Adam Lanza did the shooting, or that he had access to a Bushmaster gun, or that the deaths were specifically caused by that gun rather than by the Glock pistol that Adam had in his pocket. In other words, Remington took it all lying down. They have, to date, proffered $33 million to the plaintiffs.
Note: This case is not yet closed and it is intertwined with a matter in the Bankruptcy Court, as Remington is now bankrupt. Shareholders could squawk at the lack of Discovery, and creditors who hope to get some of Remington's holdings could squawk that it is not fair to hand $33 million to the Soto folks so long as Adam-and-his-Bushmaster story are in any doubt.
Also note: There is a case still a-happening in Wisconsin, viz., Jim Fetzer's attempt to get an appeal with that state's supreme court over the award of $450,000 that a jury made to Leonard Pozner in the defamation suit Pozner v Fetzer. Mr Pozner claims that Fetzer in effect called him a liar by saying that his 6-year-old son Noah's death certificate was fake. When Fetzer attempted to get Discovery, he was denied it by Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County Judge Frank D. Remington. This is a wrongful denial as Fetzer was ready to present two expert witnesses concerning the non-authenticity of the death certificate.
Similar cases for defamation were brought against Internet broadcaster Alex Jones in Connecticut and in Texas where he lives. Jones is still litigating them, but he has withdrawn his assertion that Sandy Hook is a hoax.
My Appraisal of the Hoax - the Four Insurmountables
Let me identify four insurmountable obstacles to Sandy Hook being real; each should have been caught by any court or any competent defense attorney or any careful investigator.
Obstacle 1. On the day of the event, December 14, 2012, a photo of 8 children escaping from the school was sent to media all around the world. It is called "the iconic shot." The photographer was Ms Shannon Hicks of the Newtown Bee. In the shot we see a policewoman in the middle of the line. She is Rachael Van Ness. She seems to be helping the kids who are walking with their eyes closed and a hand on the child in front of them.
This piece of evidence in favor of a real massacre is surely compelling. However, another photo - I'll call it Photo B - reveals the iconic photo to have been taken at a time other than the December 14, 2012 date. We see the same scene, with the same kids (and same position of the parked cars), and the same Officer Van Ness, but this Photo B reveals five parents standing there watching it. They would not be standing so casually if they had been told that many kids were murdered.
I deduce that all these photos were probably taken on a day when the kids were told to act like a drill was in force. Drills are common. The reason that critics say Photo B was staged is that Officer Van Ness was trying out various arrangements of the line. Note how, in one pose, a girl in pale pink jersey is at the front, while in another pose, a black-jersey boy leads the line (that one must have passed the test for suitability; it became the iconic photo used by mainstream media).
More shots. These are the same as the pix at the top of this article, but now [on left] with a wider view of the parking lot, showing no sign of police or medical action, and giving us [on right] a closer look at the pink-jersey girl.
Granted, a picture could have been taken by Shannon Hicks and then misused by the media - this often happens. But she has said that the iconic shot is the picture that she took on the day.
Obstacle 2. The kill-to-wounded ratio of Adam Lanza is impossible even for a military marksman. Adam is said to have killed 26 and wounded only two. I suppose one can worm out of the "hoax theory" by saying several gunmen did the deed. But no one has ever postulated that. To repeat: the official story contains an impossible kill-to-wounded ratio.
Obstacle 3. The policewoman in the iconic shot, Rachael Van Ness, has signed a sworn statement that she helped a few sets of kids to get from the building to the safety of the firehouse (down a hill from the school). Her testimony includes the absurd statement that she walked at the back of the line. How would first-graders, with their eyes shut, and crying, be able to walk without a leader? Her testimony also includes the bizarre statement that she made sure no parents grabbed their child.
Obstacle 4. Remington's demurral from demanding Discovery is itself an insurmountable obstacle to the Sandy Hook massacre being real. Any judge would see that something peculiar was afoot. He or she would suspect that the plaintiff and defendant are in cahoots.
Real Adjudication Is Called For
The massacre did not happen. I identify many ways to analyze this in my book Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds. Do I really care about the Sandy Hook hoax? In truth, no. But I care about the messing up of minds. We need our minds.
I care a lot about the lies in the Marathon bombing story and the judiciary's willingness to turn a blind eye to the exculpatory evidence in the US v Tsarnaev case. (I am an amicus curiae in that case.) See my book "Boston's Marathon Bombing: What Can Law Do?" for PROOF that the FBI killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and that he was never in a police shootout in Watertown's Laurel St. I have filed a RICO suit to no avail, see Maxwell v FBI et al.
As stated in the title of this article, we need real adjudication. Just think, such a huge thing as a disputed mass murder and it has never come to court. The defamation cases, which should have been a victory for free speech, have been judged summarily, "for the government."
I call upon courts to man up to this challenge. I also urge the participants who never really wanted the hoax to occur, to speak out - and be rewarded. A heartfelt apology is due to any under-age person who was instructed to lie.
There must be thousands of people in Newtown Connecticut. who are sick of the whole damn thing. If necessary, a citizen-led grand jury can be convened to help in this vital matter.
Vital matter? Why vital? Because our countrymen need to find out, pronto, the extent to which governments create unrealities - such as the vaccination-passport bullshit. It's got to stop.
Let it stop by your clamoring for Sandy Hook truth.
Email me your ideas, if you wish, at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com.