by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
Why has so much confusing material been published about the Sandy Hook massacre of December 14, 2012? I think I’ve figured out what’s going on!
This article will go much further than my November 30, 2014 article, “Duplex False Flags: Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, etc.” There, I looked at the fact that there are many ‘critics’ on Youtube who don’t seem to be ordinary critics. They’ve done amazing work digging up data that people like myself would never think of looking for. Until now, I was tempted to believe their findings.
For instance, one man claims that the homes of families whose children later died at Sandy Hook, were purchased on a public holiday (Christmas Day, no less!), and that the price of each house was under a dollar. The notion a reader may take away from this is that some individuals were paid to make up a tale that a child of theirs had been killed. (This is the logic being laid into your brain.)
The Youtuber in question never divulges what led him to undertake that amazing real-estate research! There’s also a video, which has received half a million hits, in which Robbie Parker, father of a deceased child, seems to be ‘acting’ for the TV news. Again, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this indicates that the Sandy Hook massacre was not real.
Note: such Youtubers never identify themselves. I always give my real name, and I doubt anyone who fails to do likewise.
In Boston, too, there was a lot of ‘noise.’ Let me say here that while I no longer think the Sandy Hook story is fabricated, I do I think that the story of the brothers Tsarnaev is untrue, just like the guys who supposedly blew up the London tube (on July 7, 2005). The business about the older Tsarnaev boy using an SUV to run over his brother is a bit more than I can accept.
I think the Marathon bombing was a made-for-public-terror event. Did actual bombs explode? If they did, it was probably a covert agency such as the CIA that did it. Purpose? The usual: to create general insecurity. And in this case to deprive us of the pleasure of outdoor events.
The Boston Globe gave us a complicated report of a man who was carjacked by the Tsarnaevs. The story is false on its face. The carjackee (unnamed!) said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev boasted to him about having done the Marathon bombing. How ridiculous! A man running away from the police would never admit guilt like that. The Globe must have felt confident that it would strike a chord in our brain, as all humans like to brag now and again.
On Youtube, there was a veritable army of know-it-all critics of the Boston affair. Some of them made fun of the lady who had lost a leg from the bombing. (Personally, I’m skeptical of the amputation stories.) The conclusion in my November 30 article was: “I deduce that the point of the madcap reporting about amputees in Boston is intended to make a truther give up on investigating, as the whole thing is so confusing.”
The Shanley Lawsuit Is the Clue
On December 27, 2014, a press release informed us that William Brandon Shanley has filed a lawsuit, naming some famous mainstream media persons (even Rupert) as the defendants. In his pleadings to the District Court, Shanley says:
“Defendants entered in a multi-year conspiracy, meeting in groups separately and together, to commit fraud and terrorism, i.e., to brainwash the public into thinking a lone gunman drill known as the “Sandy Hook Massacre” was real, when in fact it was a staged FEMA Exercise ….. These crimes were undertaken with the intent of subverting the US Constitution and to affect national, state and local laws. This fraud involved lying to the public, faking news, publishing one-sided news reports, censoring reality, suppressing facts, and deliberately skewing the news to shift public perceptions.”
There’s nothing I disagree with in that paragraph, except the claim that the shooting was not real. I believe a gunman did kill children and teachers at Sandy Hook (or at least I have no evidence to the contrary), yet I think the rest of that paragraph is fair in its accusation of the media. Plainly, the media have been stirring up terror for forty years, hand-in-glove with government. It began long before 9-11.
Today I’m hypothesizing that Shanley’s lawsuit was not written in good faith. His pitch is so poorly constructed as to suggest that he didn’t even get an attorney to look at it. If you were going to ask for a trillion dollars damages (as he did) on such a vital matter, wouldn’t you make your case solid and persuasive?
Also, he proposes to call as witnesses James Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbig, neither of whom commands my trust. Fetzer has been fiddling around for decades with the JFK assassination. My guess is that Fetzer is assigned to keep amateurs busy. (I’ve often wondered if such folks double dip, drawing an academic salary, and CIA pay.)
Framing the Debate
The plot thickens. Today I read a piece by Deanna Spingola, “Unraveling Sofia Smallstorm’s Video on Sandy Hook, Part 1,” dated February 11, 2014. Deanna has looked at some of the very-early critical reports about Sandy Hook, published in December 2012, and they strike her as having been placed there — by baddies, though she doesn’t quite say that — in order to “frame the debate.”
She got that concept from Beverly Eakman’s excellent book, “How To Counter Group Manipulation Tactics.” My guess is that Deanna Spingola is right. The baddies got in there early, to set up the notion that the massacre was suspect. Later, more Youtubers came forth with seemingly authentic claims about ‘crisis actors.’
Consider also the fact that that Adam Lanza, the alleged gunman of Sandy Hook, looks like an implausible mass murderer, and was shown to us in a very weird portrait. This would serve to prep the public to call Foul on the whole thing.
And suddenly there’s the Shanley lawsuit, saying outright that no child died at Sandy Hook! William Shanley, who is a film producer, doesn’t offer credible evidence for his claim. I think I see where this is headed. I think his claim will cause the general public to feel he has acted outrageously. After all, can any person be more deeply bereaved than a parent who has lost a precious 5 or 6 year-old son or daughter?
I venture to guess that Shanley’s case is deliberately sloppy, because it wants to fail. A judge will dismiss it for its technical inadequacy. Then a new pack of Youtubers will stir up the complaint that the judge did wrong. Meanwhile, the families will quite reasonably be seen to have been hurt by such offensive publicity, and we investigators will feel embarrassed.
Now for the denouement. You know how legislators have been on a mad kick lately to curtail civil rights? They want to take away gun rights and free speech, and they want to criminalize acts by journalists that have the effect of exposing crime in government. Can’t you just see them proposing to outlaw Youtube criticism of “terrorist” acts, because of Sandy Hook?
Hence I hereby move from my November 30th position, which was that the Sandy Hook and Marathon stuff on Youtube is mainly intended to discourage citizen investigators. I now say its purpose is to pave the way for legislation that will forbid the discussion on Internet of any crimes that we are supposed to dutifully believe in, be it 9-11, Marathon, or terrorist acts yet to come.
The Laws against Holocaust Denial
Of course there is precedent for this. Some European nations, such as Germany and Belgium, have enacted legislation to criminalize any public statement of doubt as to the existence of the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews, and many others, lost their lives. Quite a few Germans are in prison now for this.
In Canada, Ernst Zundel, a Canadian citizen, distributed a pamphlet entitled “Did Six Million Really Die?” He was extradited to Germany for trial (despite Canada having no equivalent law — which is most unusual). During his trial, his defense lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, was not allowed to submit, in his defense, anything to support the fact that what Zundel had written was true. Try to imagine his frustration.
When Stolz talked about evidence that challenges some particulars of the Holocaust, she was arrested in the courtroom. (She was actually physically carried out by guards.) She has finished serving a 3-year sentence for that, and additionally has lost her right to practice law for five years. One could say that this has sent a message to all lawyers everywhere!
Free Speech in Australia
Australia had a case in 2009, which was not strictly about Holocaust denial. Fred Toben, a retired teacher, served six months in a prison labor camp in Clare, South Australia, for disobeying a court order related to his website that was insulting to Jews. The Human Rights Commission in Australia is legally enabled to intervene when an ethnic group claims it has been offended.
There is no doubt that Toben’s website, AdelaideInstitute.org, was very offensive. A spokesman for the Jewish community complained to the HRC, which then ordered the insulting material removed. Toben held out and finally came under court order. I attended his court case and was surprised that no one showed up to advocate for free speech. In the end, he had to pay $60,000 for the other side’s fees, and was required to declare bankruptcy.
Here I will state my opinion that free speech is more important than protecting a community from racial slurs or ethnic insult. We all have to take some insults in our lives, and individuals who don’t want to see mud being slung against them on a website, can simply not go to that website.
I also think that if you want to allege that children who were shot by a maniac were not shot at all, you should be allowed to voice that opinion. Indeed I think if someone wants to say that the capital of Australia is Hobart, she has every right to say it. People will know she is incorrect and she will look foolish. How would it help to criminalize inaccurate blather?
If we start having legislation that precludes political speech, we may as well throw in the towel. As for a law that tells a journalist she must stay mum for national security reasons, every judge should have a little measuring stick right next to his gavel, for measuring how much national security is really involved in the case, which of course he can inspect ‘in camera.’
He should also have a goodly supply of ‘bench warrants,’ so as to nab, on the spot, any government prosecutor who would have the audacity to prosecute a citizen for bringing forth information about crimes being committed by members of government, or more generally, by the Powers That Be.
(I can dream, can’t I?)
Conclusion, for the Time Being Anyway
I realize this story has been confusing – but don’t blame me!
To summarize: An event occurred at the Sandy Hook school in Connecticut in December, 2012. Reportedly, 26 people died.
Soon there were claims on the Internet that the story was false. A bevy of Youtubers beleaguered us with amazing ‘facts’ to prove the falseness of the tragedy. How can a citizen deal with such shocking ideas, such as a possible bribery of the families by providing them with a free house?
My new insight (or, frankly, my new nutball idea if I am wrong) is that the too-smart Youtubers are all Insiders, and that, as pointed out by Deanna Spingola, the plan was for them to “frame the debate.” They encouraged us to believe that the massacre never happened. This in itself would make us nervous of course – is society so messed up that reports of the death of 20 children can be sheer lies?
My Eureka came when I saw that the Shanley lawsuit could be a way to make utter fools of all of us who doubted the massacre. Officials will now come forward with proof, and the poor suckers who doubted Sandy Hook will then be shy about doubting the next terrorist event. Point of the exercise? To tighten up on all citizen-sleuthing on the Internet. No more for us to say our government is naughty. No more Mary Maxwell types running at the mouth.
Oh, by the way, whilst I can still utter it, the fact that I accused covert organizations, above, of being the likely bombers at the Boston Marathon, means that they should be charged with murder, posthaste. There’s no way around this.
Moreover, if my interpretation be on target, we can see that the bombers must have required plenty of assistance from the media. Thus, dozens of media owners, news anchormen, and reporters may be charged as accomplices and as accessories after the fact.
Likewise, assuming that indeed Adam Lanza wasn’t the murderer at Sandy Hook, we must track down the killer. We’ll need to dragnet everybody who made those too-smart Youtubes. They must have been part of a major conspiracy. I’m thinking of things like the real estate report that led us to imagine the families as participants in a hoax.
Oh, aren’t I supposed to be in favor of free speech? Yes I am, but I have no reason to denigrate the laws against murder, including the law against being an accessory to murder. There are times when what you publish on the Internet is not considered “protected free speech.”
It is considered evidence.
–– Mary W Maxwell can be reached, indeed is dying to be reached, at her website: ProsecutionForteason.com. She also respectfully calls your attention to her article “It’s Easier To Use the Law than the Sword Type Thing,”