The Sandy Hook Legend: Open Letter to a Judge

To Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, December 17, 2021

An Open Letter from Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLB, 175 Loudon Rd, Apt 1, Concord NH 03301

I am writing, as an outsider, to advise the court that the case of Soto et al v Bushmaster is fraudulent. There is no basis for the suit by Sandy Hook families against gun manufacturer Remington/Bushmaster. As far as I can discern, the killing of the named schoolchildren and teachers did not occur. The Sandy Hook massacre was not a real event. Happily, everyone survived.

Originally, in 2014, the Plaintiffs (the estates of the decedents) asked for $215 in damages; the Defendant, Remington Arms (which is now bankrupt) has recently offered them approximately $33 million in settlement.

Soto v Bushmaster constitutes fraud-upon-the-court. It must not be allowed to continue unchallenged, as it will do tremendous harm to the rule of law. No matter which side wins, harm will be done. At present, the two parties, Soto and Bushmaster, are in conference over a settlement -- but even a judge's approval of a private settlement would be an assault on law. The case is, inter alia, an abuse of process. It must be dismissed.

Many people, such as politicians and newsmen, have misreported, and continue to misreport, the Sandy Hook facts of December 14, 2012. But that's nothing compared to a court being used indirectly to endow a false thesis with authoritativeness. As of today, December 17, 2021, no judgment has yet been entered and none should be entered.

The Legend

I think that the nature of "the massacre story" is that of a myth or legend. In this legend, a 20-year-old disturbed boy, Adam Lanza, killed his mother and then killed 20 first-graders and 6 faculty/staff at Sandy Hook School. A legend is usable by persons who want to use it for something. This one could be for gun control, or to scare every parent. I say, in my book, "Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds," that a likely purpose is to purvey so many false stories that people become unable to recognize reality.

Naturally, I may be wrong in my own assessment of what happened on December 14, 2012, but at least it is based on examination of the event rather than on adherence to a legend. My view is not exceptional -- thousands, maybe millions, of people are skeptical of the massacre story.

Initially, I was not a skeptic; I believed the legend for eight years until noticing holes in it. I now marvel that such an absurd tale has been able to survive so long. No evidence for it has ever been summoned to the bench.

I am hoping that the court will listen to this complaint by me, an outsider, as courts themselves are not well-placed to question the existence of facts that both sides mutually aver. Let me assure the court that, in regard to Soto v Bushmaster, I do not favor either party. I am genuinely trying to protect the majesty of the law, and stand up for truth.

Is It Acceptable To Fake a Story?

Knowing that many people think it's sinful to criticize "the great tragedy," I point to two sources that posit a permissibility of lying to the public in order to achieve some goal:

1. In 1962, Jay Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed a way to incriminate Cuba and thus justify a US war against her. Lemnitzer wrote (in a declassified document, "The Northwoods Memo") that he could organize a make-believe plane crash, in which some Americans would be said to have been killed by Cuba.

“An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization. [It] would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.... [We could] conduct funerals for mock victims.”

2. The late Robert Steele, a former CIA agent, said, in his downloadable book "Sandy Hook Truth: Memo to POTUS":

“I managed a false flag event for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in my capacity as a Clandestine Operations Officer stationed overseas. I have personal experience with ‘legalized lying’ whereby ostensible orders ‘from the highest authorities’ mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives. Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered.”

Can the Case Be Dismissed?

It's unlikely that we will find a precedent for a judge dismissing a case that, in his or her view, is based on a legend. However, Connecticut's Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Sec 1-25 of the Connecticut Practice Book (revision of 1998) give guidance:

"(a) No party or attorney shall bring or defend an action, or assert or oppose a claim or contention, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous....

(b) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the judicial authority, solely on its own motion and after a hearing, may impose sanctions for actions that include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Filing of pleadings, motions, objections, requests or other documents that violate subsection (a) above; ....

(c) The judicial authority may impose sanctions including, but not limited to, fines pursuant to General Statutes § 51-84; orders requiring the offending party to pay costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees; and orders restricting the filing of papers with the court.

(d) Offenders subject to such sanctions may include counsel, self-represented parties, and parties represented by counsel." -- Adopted June 13, 2014, to take effect Jan. 1, 2015. (Retrieved from jud.ct.gov on December 16, 2021.)

Rule 60(B)

Soto v Bushmaster is a Connecticut case, not a federal case. Still, it can be noted that in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we find, at Rule 60B:

"On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial ...
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.... "

The Concept of Extrinsic Fraud

An extrinsic fraud is different from intrinsic fraud, such as perjury. It occurs outside the case. I refer to the Sandy Hook "legend" as being outside the Soto v Bushmaster case. Both parties have accepted the legend, that 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed 26 people, and injured 2, as fact.

Rule 60B (3) above, on fraud, reflects the old thinking about fraud-upon-the-court. In the US Supreme Court case Throckmorton v US (1878), Justice Miller wrote:

"Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, ... or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's interest to the other side -- these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree...."

I believe there has "never been a real contest in the hearing of the case" insofar as the facts of December 14, 2014 were not even put on the table. The legend had been taken to be the truth, ever since 24 hours after the alleged massacre, when President Obama, attending a vigil at Sandy Hook, said in a speech:

"We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate. Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel D'Avino and Anne Marie Murphy -- they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances -- with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care."

The Nine Plaintiffs, Led by Donna Soto

Of the nine Plaintiffs in Soto v Bushmaster, four were on the staff of Sandy Hook School: Vickie Soto, Mary Sherlach, Rachel D'Avino, and Lauren Rousseau. Two other staffers did not join the suit against the gunmaker -- Anne Marie Murphy, a new employee, and Dawn Hochsprung, the principal.

Five of the Plaintiffs are the families of the following children: Dylan Hockley, Noah Pozner, Benjamin Wheeler, Jesse Lewis, and Daniel Barden. Fifteen other children's families did not join the suit.

Note: two women, Natalie Hammond and Debra Pisani, were hit by stray bullets and did not die. They joined a lawsuit, which paid $96,000 to each litigant. That suit was against Nancy Lanza's home-owner's insurance policy (as reported by Dave Altimari in the Hartford Courant on August 6, 2015).

Hammond was also in the Soto v Bushmaster case but dropped out. She would be an excellent eye witness in this case, as would Pisani. There is nothing to prevent their being subpoena'd by the court for Bushmaster's defense.

The Unusual Behavior of the Defendant

If I am correct that no deaths occurred at Sandy Hook, then the Plaintiffs are perjuring. And they are trying to get, from Defendant Remington/Bushmaster, money to which they are not entitled.

But how does one account for the unusual behavior by the Defense? It has never put up any resistance (other than originally seeking gun-industry's exemption from liability). A typical defendant tries to tear apart the allegations being made against him. In Soto's lawsuit, the main allegation is that Remington/ Bushmaster sold a gun that caused death. Why hasn't the Defendant demanded that this causality be demonstrated?

The Defendant did not even seek Discovery. No person was cross-examined. To me, this smacks of collusion by the parties, leaving the public out in the cold -- the public being an entity that has an interest in the truth of the case.

I'm not sure what a judge's options are in such a situation. It is standard for a judge to manage his/her cases by, for example, attending to any glaring omission. In Soto v Bushmaster, Judge Barbara Bellis could quite properly refuse to bless a private settlement until the main premise of the case -- that a particular gun caused the deaths -- has been argued.

Additionally, every judge has, in his/her quiver, the famous punishment -- or threat -- of "contempt of court," with jail time.

There is also the possibility of bench warrants for whoever disposed of Adam Lanza, and those who criminally suborned lies from minors, not to mention all the fraudsters who concocted the legend and are still actively promoting it.

I hope the court will find a way rid us of the Sandy Hook legend. Let there be amnesties for people who were pushed into it, and who want to come clean.

Very respectfully yours,

Mary Maxwell, author of Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds
Email address: MaxwellMaryLLB @gmail.com

My analysis of the "iconic photo" of Sandy Hook is linked below.