In 2015 Florida Atlantic University abruptly terminated Professor James Tracy under what is alleged to have been a false pretext. When Tracy filed a federal civil rights lawsuit his attorneys “discovered how university officials repeatedly schemed to defeat Tracy’s First Amendment rights without violating the US Constitution.”
From the makers of the film:
After a corrupt federal court threw out most of Tracy’s claims it then prevented the jury from viewing crucial evidence. News outlets continued to denigrate Tracy while publicly misreporting the case. The Conspiracy Theorist sets the record straight through extensive interview footage of Tracy, his legal team, and university witnesses and defendants.
Today social media play a gigantic role in our everyday lives. Will something you or your loved ones say online one day make you the target of harassment and defamation, perhaps even resulting in the loss of your livelihood? What happened to James Tracy could happen to you.
Find out more HERE, or at Professor Tracy’s blog
Please note that this is NOT about whether you or we agree with Professor Tracy’s opinions, but solely about his right to express those opinions without fear of reprisal.
This video is embedded through Bitchute. We will endeavour to use this & similar platforms whenever possible for all future videos and we recommend our readers to move away from the increasingly censored Youtube and to explore the alternatives on offer
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Great job Peter and all… The average Joe is too far gone to see the implications of this. Public opinion sucks! Best of luck with the appeal process. So unfair!
This is James Tracy. I greatly appreciate the ensuing discussion above concerning TracyvFAU and the forthcoming documentary.
There appear to be some misconceptions about the nature and complexity of the case and legal procedure, suggesting how the corporate news media have gone out of their way to either blackout info (which is surely the case and the national level) shape public opinion concerning why I was fired and how things proceeded thereafter.
I’ve addressed some of these concerns in responses to OG’s initial Twitter post here:
I’m not going to jump in and critique any specific commenters because there’s simply a knowledge imbalance. The case is so complex and I believe if you’re truly interested there is ample material you can avail yourselves of to get up to speed. For example, the lead attorney in the case, Louise Leo, wrote a detailed article, titled, “Legalizing Pretext,” available here:
Again, since the initial filing in April 2016 the case has been briefed over 500 times now and is quite complex. Select legal briefs from both sides, including the initial complaint and appeal to the 11th Circuit, may be accessed here:
The appeal is also available at this link:
If you have questions you can reach me via the contact page at memoryholeblog.org.
Thank you again for your interest and potential support!
It’s really incredible!
Censorship operates on more than one level – for example, intimidation of individuals, epitomised by the cultural mood during McCarthy era America or by inducing self-censorship whereby thoughts or ideas deemed unacceptable in certain forums are heavily filtered before they are given expression to a wider audience (exemplified by the Guardian’s modus operandi).
Tracy has been subject to both and whatever the rights and wrongs of his analysis of Sandy Hook the process of shutting him down (which requires a certain sort of synergy between organisations and cultural ideology) is infinitely more sinister than lone individuals pushing back against an official narrative.
There is a zeitgeist at the moment at odds with those who regard genuine freedom of thought and expression as the bedrock of a civilised society – this take down of Christine Blasey Ford is apposite, not least because it dissects the way identity politics (in some circles) is now preferred to truth.
Vanessa Beeley calls attention to BBC correspondent Jeremy Bowen’s spin of interview with a Christian commander in the National Defense Forces of Syria:
[Off Topic, except as an example of suppression and distortion by yet another Public Institution (in this case the BBC), solely in order to shield a Private Cabal — in this case, the network of Anglo Zio Capitalists who organized the atrocity of 911 (Jones’s case) and the invasion of Syria (Bowen’s spin on the Syrian Resistance).]
Is anyone else reminded of Dr Steven Jones’s treatment by BYU? They gave him the choice between being fired or taking a shitty early retirement deal, aged only about fifty, because he stepped out of line by doing 9/11 research. So much for the land of the free.
And what about Prof. Anthony Hall’s treatment by Lethbridge university in Canada. First B’nai Brith set him up by posting ‘hate speech’ on his FB timeline and then went after him in the press, through the university board and provincial government. Despite the police saying there was no case to prosecute.
FAU is a Public University. “A public university is a university that is publicly owned or receives significant public funds through a national or subnational government, as opposed to a private university.”
Do the employees of a Public Institution have the right to deprive a fellow employee of his Constitutional rights? Even private institutions are not immune to being held legal responsible to safeguard basic human rights. Public Institutions should be held to an even higher standard, not a lesser one.
It seems that the fat cats have found a way to make the Tax Deductible Public Institutions pay, and they don’t want anyone upsetting the gravy train. Maybe we need to demonstrate to them how Public Institutions should be accountable to the public. People who soak up taxpayer dollars should be a little more circumspect when they try to silence the very taxpayers who are financing their high handed lifestyles.
From what I have read so far online about Professor James Tracy, he allegedly harassed a couple grieving over the death of their son during the Sandy Hook primary school shootings on his blog by demanding they show proof that the child ever existed, and this is the reason that Florida Atlantic University (FAU) sacked him.
So the issue should be whether his employer has the right to terminate his employment abruptly, leaving him no right of reply or avenue to challenge its decision, and giving him no advice or assistance as to where and how he can find other employment, based on what he did in his own time and on his own private blog. Do academics now have the freedom to say what they like and what they believe privately on their private social media platforms? It now looks as if they no longer do.
The issue should also be about whether the judge and FAU’s legal team instructed the jury correctly by telling them that Tracy refused to follow university procedures (which he and other FAU academics found confusing and vague) regarding the filing of forms about his activities and possible conflicts of interest outside FAU, as though he were an employee of the university and not a professor who has earned the right to tenure. There seems to have been nothing in the instructions to the jury about how Tracy sought help from FAU union representatives and how they instead colluded with FAU administration in sacking him.
This tells us how even university academics and intellectuals are now being degraded to the level of factory slaves, to be treated and paid accordingly, and how universities are becoming no more than glorified vocational schools whose function is to refine cannon fodder for certain types of slave jobs.
Good assessment – though I think Tracy would dispute that he had harassed anyone. Maybe someone who knows more about the case can give some background
The Global Research website (where Tracy has been a regular contributing writer) has articles on his legal suit against FAU. Here is the most recent article I can find which sheds some light on what you seek.
That is complete propaganda, Jen. What I believe the sad thing to be is that James Tracy was bullied into retracting any kind of claim that Sandy Hook was a staged event, when it so very clearly was.
The power elite stage their events so that it is impossible for any person critically examining them to believe they are real events. They are scrupulous in this regard. They do not show us parents showing grieving. Instead they show us parents broadly smiling or smiling fondly about their 6 year old who just died. In the case of Sandy Hook they make no attempt at all to show us signs of a massacre. Instead they show us agency staff tramping over triage tarps. They show us fundraising sites set up before the event. They really do go to town with their anomalies and make their staging so very, very obvious. To, in any way, consider that Sandy Hook was a real event you must ignore the reality of what is shown because they really are quite scrupulous in ensuring that you cannot possibly mistake it for a real event from any of the evidence they purport.
“Please note that this is NOT about whether you or we agree with Professor Tracy’s opinions, but solely about his right to express those opinions without fear of reprisal.”
What this quote from Off Guardian editors means is that they haven’t looked at all at Sandy Hook and therefore reserve the right to speak of James Tracy’s “opinion”. When you look at the event it has nothing to do with “opinion” and everything to do with overwhelming evidence of staging with zero evidence of reality.
If you believe it was a real event, please supply a single piece of evidence to support that belief.
Flax – the reason we make that statement at the end of the article is because we DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE A DEBATE ON WHETHER TRACY IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
There are many threads on which the questions of false flags or hoaxes have been discussed. This thread is specifically about the curtailment of professor Tracy’s first amendment rights and what it tells us about where America is headed.
If we get diverted into discussions of Sandy Hook or anything else it will be detracting focus from this important question.
This is my last comment to you. From here on, I refuse to reply to any future comments you make to any comments I make on any Off-Guardian.org comments forum.
You completely (and I believe deliberately) miss the point of what I said in my original comment. I was talking about Professor James Tracy’s rights to academic freedom and privacy, in seeking assistance and fair representation from the university union against the university administration, and to a fair trial in which the judge instructs the jury properly and does not intentionally mislead jurors.
There is no point in discussing anything and everything that you call a staged event simply on the basis that you expect to see evidence or information that agrees with your expectations, opinions and worldview.
I suspect you have weighed in here simply to divert the conversation into a direction you can dominate and expect others to flatter you while other more important issues remain neglected.
I did misunderstand but it wasn’t deliberate. Apologies.
Apologies accepted. 😀
Disclosure: This is Peter Klein, coproducer of the project featured in this article. So I’m admitting to my bias. Although, come to think of it I’m working very hard to shine a light on both the plight of Dr. Tracy and of the threats to free speech. The only personal gain I seek or could even imagine from my effort is the protection of our right to speak freely. Whatever bias I have isn’t clouding my principles or compromising my reporting.
I’ve been watching the media reporting of the Tracy controversy all along. It’s possible that, like you many news outfits picked up on the “prove your son ever existed” meme and ran with it. Frankly, we probably agree that few would bother to check the story out.
Therein lies the rub. Ask the Pozners, and Dr. Tracy was a malicious harasser. Ask Dr. Tracy and the story has depth and dimension that tug at your heart strings. But nobody did ask Dr. Tracy. I don’t find that unusual in these times. Had they asked, this whole thing could have been avoided. Not having a lot of time, I’ll just end by saying that I don’t get behind many causes and even less individuals. But I’m behind Dr. Tracy and his undesired war against the censurers and the propagandists.
The “Tracy harassed grieving parent” story is a complete misrepresentation of fact (by MSM & any other blogs).
What occurred first was that the alleged “parent” (Lenny Pozner, which is not even his real name) filed a take-down notice re content at Tracy’s site.
Tracy replied to that take-down request, as was his right, asking for proof that said Pozner had authority to even request such a take down, ie, Who Was He? What Proof could he offer that he had such authority? etc. Hardly harassment.
The opposite was true, ie, Pozner & his gang of cyber trolls began to harass Tracy & his family. Professor Tracy has full details, documented screenshots, etc. at his site. Do a site search at his MemoryHoleBlog for “Pozner” or “Lenny Pozner” to get the entire history of his articles on the subject.
The case against Professor Tracy was tried and convicted in the media long before the legal battles in court ever began. Lenny Pozner (one of six known aliases) filed a “copyright claim” against a photograph of Noah Pozner that had been splattered all over mainstream media for years before he took offense to it being on Professor Tracy’s blog! Tracy then responded by immediately removing the image (as a courtesy) but filed a counterclaim asking for proof of Lenny’s claim of copyright infringement. He asked for proof of his identity, proof of his relationship to the child in question, and documentation supporting ownership of such image such as a copy of the original, time stamped image. Since Lenny could not (or would not) produce any of these items in the allotted 30 day time period, he instead took to the media to fight his battle for him. The Sun Sentinel Newspaper ran an article claiming that Professor Tracy accused him of never having a son and of profiting off of the death of his son! The counterclaim to his copyright claim then became a moot subject! Their strategy had worked out perfectly!
It was the ensuing media pressure that led to the conspiracy to fire James Tracy! They were looking for an excuse to terminate him, and somehow they found one! The idea that a tenured Professor could be fired for failing to submit the required paperwork documenting an outside activity is PREPOSTEROUS!
We all know why he was fired! A corrupt court system in which the defendant’s attorney (FAU’s attorney) was awarded with a JUDGESHIP just ONE DAY AFTER he prevailed in the case by the criminal Governor Rick Scott speaks volumes !
And now you know— The rest of the story !!
I’ve heard claims about faked shootings and bombings but, although I understand perfectly the device of false flag terrorism, I fail to see the point of pretending there was a shooting/bombing when there wasn’t. Surely if there are false claims that people died then those people will still be around – which would obvioulsy be a huge worry. Or perhaps those people never existed – which would again be a worry.
Bearing in mind that the deep state really doesn’t give a shit about real loss of life then why not just stage a real shooting/bombing?
We aren’t about to make any claims about Sandy Hook, we’re simply defending Professor Tracy’s right to do so if he chooses or to publish the views of others on the subject
Noted. Sorry about that.
The reason I asked is that, in looking at this Tracy case, I came across the peculiar matter of one “concerned parent” – Lenny Pozner who may not even exist. He is allegedly the father of Noah – a boy who had been killled (?) in the shooting. The logistics of keeping imaginary balls in the air must be demanding.
I forgot to add that the Pozner case is being used as a major tool against Tracy as in “This mad conspiracist is persecuting these bereaved parents!”
“The logistics of keeping imaginary balls in the air must be demanding.”
Not if you are an Operative with Fed Agencies, Intel Agencies, Commie Orgs, & MSM on your side, then it’s a piece of cake, all just part of the “job.”
And PS to Admin, thanks for giving coverage to the James Tracy 1stA law case/appeal & his team’s new documentary, which is an excellent idea for educating people re the DETAILS & what has transpired over the 3-5 years of his 1stA ordeal.
Love the documentary title: “THE Conspiracy TheorIST”! (Not to be confused with the 1997 Mel Gibson movie, “Conspiracy TheORY.”)
To your last sentence, a “real shooting/bombing” would be a crime (illegal). However, “fake shootings” are not a crime (legal); they are simply “Made For TV Movies.” Consider:
1_Fed & Local Govts. conduct legitimate HSEEP Drills.
__(HSEEP stands for something like “Homeland Security Emergency Evaluation Preparedness,” ie, “Practice Sessions.” Search Prof. Tracy’s blog for HSEEP. Copies of very revealing govt. forms are there that HSEEP participants have to fill out, etc.)
2_The MSM films said Legit HSEEP Drills.
3_The MSM then airs said Legit Drills as “Real News” to generate MASSIVE RATINGS (people watch non-stop for days) which generates MASSIVE AD Revenue.
4_Fake “charity” accounts are set-up to sucker the masses even moreso, as people donate their hard-earned money to the fake “victims.” MILLIONS more are generated in this way.
5_The double-edged sword of 1stA “Free Speech” is that MSM can say & air on TV anything they want. They own that venue, just like a “Theater” owner who shows you fake movies.
__(The only difference is: The Theater has a sign out front that says “THEATER,” so you EXPECT to see a fake movie.)
__(On the contrary, people have been brainwashed to think the idiot-box, TV’s “News” is real so they EXPECT “reality” even though “News” has been faked nearly from TV’s beginning. As an aside, @JonRappoport ‘s blog, No More Fake News, has some great articles re the “Hynotizing Effect” of TV News Anchors’ voices, cadence, demeanor, etc..)
6_Law Enforcement & Govt. doesn’t care re the Faked-Drills-as-News because NO CRIMES were committed in “faked News” (nobody died, nobody injured, etc.)
__And nobody forced people to donate to the fake charities, nor are people forced to watch/believe TV.
7_It IS morally & ethically repugnant to dupe society, but since nobody was really purposefully (premeditated) murdered, nor accidentally (negligence) injured, there is no crime committed.
__Can people be arrested/charged solely for lying? Are there laws on the books against lying by itself?
8_It’s “ALL BUSINESS” ($$$); just another example of Privately-Owned Corporations+Govt. Partnerships.
__Are there also more sinister reasons, such as generating hysterical “gun confiscation” demands by the duped public? Sure = Propaganda: The Cherry on Top. But again, No Dead Bodies = No Crime.
9_The FCC allegedly has “Hoax Laws” that could be enforced against the “Broadcast Channels” (which includes the Big Three: NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.) for airing Fake Drills as Real News.
__But, also allegedly, the FCC could not enforce “Hoax Laws” against SUBSCRIBER (paid-for) cable channels. __I’m no expert on the FCC. Maybe someone else would know for sure.
Nobody has to believe the above scenario. Merely Food For Thought (most of which I learned from others & added my own two-cents).
Having come to the world we have now from a very different one where people once said, ‘I disagree with you but I defend to the death your right to say it’,
it is very clear to me that the left is at least as guilty as the right for where we are today.
It depends what you mean by “the left”. The term has been appropriated by – and used as a term of abuse to – the likes of Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair, for instance. I don’t see either of them belonging to the left that I regard myself as belonging to. If the HC/TB version is “the left” you are talking about, I agree with you. But from my “leftist” perspective, I continue to agree with Voltaire, including for the likes of Alex Jones.
Indeed we´re back in the McCarthy era. I predict that soon we, the “conspiracy theorists”, will be labeled “conspiracy terrorists”! and treated accordingly!
I prefer “Conspiracy Analysts” 🙂
We are keen to keep the focus on Professor Tracy’s right to free speech rather than divert into questions of whether he is or isn’t correct