A request under the name of Leonard Pozner — the plaintiff in that case — was submitted to Google, asking it to deindex these criticisms (which aren't themselves covered by the judgment).
ROBERT STEELE: I believe the Pozner vs Fetzner case in Wisconsin, where Fetzer's rights were clearly violated by a summary judgement when facts were in dispute, will go to the U,S, Supreme Court and become a seminal 1st Amendment case within the Trump Administration's push to not only disclose 9/11 truth, but the truth about other false flags and active shooters being used to justify a police state, mass surveillance, and the confiscation of all guns from law-abiding patriots.
That someone — we cannot be certain it was Pozner but legal discovery to Google could confirm that it was — would seek to de-index materials that are lawfully critical of a Catholic judge who in all probability cut a deal with the plaintiff's attorney before the fact — and if he did is therefore impeachable and removable from the Court — suggests that Pozner has either lost his mind (and needs full psychiatric examination as part of the next evolution in this case) or is operating in collusion with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as well as the Mossad and the Anti-Defamation League, the latter being the lead Zionist censor and manipulator of information, embedded in Amazon, Facebook, Google, Meet-Up, Twitter, and YouTube, among others.
As a side note in praise of Google it has been my experience that they will de-index via Legal Remove only when the materials have actually been deleted by the owner. As with all organizations, there is Evil (search manipulation) and Good to be found at Google. Google Maps is an epic contribution to humanity.
The immunity of government from prosecution and discovery is central to this case. As conservative judges are added to the US Supreme Court, I anticipate a restored balance and improved options for citizens to demand disclosure that reveals professional misconduct as well as criminal misconduct on the part of local, state, and federal officials. As my colleague William Binney has pointed out, it is already illegal to classify information in order to cover up crimes, and the declassification of information related to the commission of crimes in mandatory.
The fact that the judge summarily dismissed all evidence without a jury being called in, and evidently blocked all discovery that would have easily led to the dismissal with prejudice of the Pozner complaint, suggests to me that the judge may be operating under a national security warrant and elements of the US Government (USG), possibly without the knowledge of their agency leadership and certainly without the knowledge of the Attorney General or the President, are obstructing justice. My affidavit in support of Dr. James Fetzer is below.
The Communications Decency Act was explicitly designed to protect the 1st Amendment and allow Title 7 to flourish among digital platforms. The deal was simple: platforms would not be liable for, nor asked to remove, material, absent a court order. Nothing we have posted here is in violation of any order.
What is most interesting to me is that Pozner seems compelled to not only cover up his own apparent forgeries that appear to be established beyond reasonable doubt (with multiple expert testimonials refused by the Catholic judge), but he is seeking to eradicate all critical commentary on the entire Sandy Hook false flag event — it was almost certainly a false flag event and everyone associated with this case appears to be lying to the Courts, the media, and the public. Sandy Hook is now joined to 9/11 as the most important false flag disclosure case in modern history. Absent an investigation with legal right of discovery such as is now occurring in the Michael Flynn case, where specific “leaders” in the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the FBI have been proven to have manipulated evidence against General Flynn, we cannot know with certainty what the truth is. We can continue to ask questions. In my own edited volume I have asked eight meta-questions and 161 micro-questions, and the volume has been delivered to the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary for Homeland Security, two Congressional committees, and two Courts.
Seeking to censor commentary critical of a public trial is in my view a certain indication of mental instability and factual deception. I look forward to Dr. Fetzer's legal team making the most of discovery in the appeals process, and determining if it was in fact Leonard Pozner who asked Google to censor opinions on what appears to be a deeply flawed legal judgement in Wisconsin.
For the moment, this website and I will comply with all applicable law and all applicable Internet Service Provider (ISP) guidelines. Our retention of critical commentary and our linkage to information posted overseas is both legal and in compliance with ISP guidelines.
This is not over. It will go to the Supreme Court, and when the President does full disclosure on 9/11, he will be encouraged to include full disclosure on Epstein and all domestic false flags beginning with Sandy Hook.
[listen especially at 4:05 “I hope, ahh… I hope they and I hope uhh the people of Newtown, uhh don’t have it crash on their head later”]