In a recent blog post on the website Sandy Hook Justice, Wolfgang Halbig once again demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding the law and school policy despite his background in school administration and police work. In the unwieldy titled post “Wolfgang W. Halbig Files Civil Rights Complaint For Federal Civil Rights Violations on a former Florida State Trooper, US Customs Inspector, US Military Veteran, Teacher, Coach, Dean, Assistant School Principal, Principal of an Alternative School, Director of School Safety and Director of Risk Management” (1) Mr. Halbig shares a letter he wrote to the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice informing them of FERPA violations. Mr. Halbig asserts that the publication of photos of children evacuating Sandy Hook elementary was a violation of FERPA laws.
“On December 14, 2012, minor children were used for monetary and political gains. These acts are serious violations of the federal FERPA laws.”
FERPA has nothing to do with protecting minor children from being used for monetary and political gain. FERPA is a federal law (read about it here) that protects the privacy of student education records. It applies to public schools and other schools that receive federal funds. It prevents the school from releasing grades and test scores among other things without parental consent. It’s that same law that keeps grades off limits to the tuition-paying parents of college students. But I don’t see where the FERPA law addresses using children for monetary or political gains.
“The federal FERPA laws protect minor children’s faces and their identifiable facial features from being published.”
FERPA does not protect minor children’s faces and their identifiable facial features from being published. Again, it’s about things in the educational record. From what I can gather, a student ID photo potentially could be part of the educational record. But photos a reporter takes of a bus unloading on the first day of school are not part of the educational record. FERPA would require parental consent in order for a school administrator to release a photo of the valedictorian’s final report card. However, it does not prevent the press from publishing a photograph of the valedictorian delivering the commencement address.
To be fair, Mr. Halbig isn’t the only current or former school administrator who doesn’t understand what FERPA protects and what it doesn’t. The Student Press Law Center has a whole website that fact checks FERPA cases and hands down a decision on whether the law was applied appropriately.
“The Connecticut Newtown bee newspaper violated the privacy rights of every minor child that you see in my attached photos as well as the privacy rights of their parents on December 14, 2012.”
If there is a law prohibiting the publication of images of minor children at a news worthy event, I couldn’t find it. Regardless, it certainly isn’t FERPA. There are laws restricting photography on private property or where there is an expectation of privacy (e.g., a public bathroom). There are copyright laws which should prevent people like Mr. Halbig from swiping someone’s photo and reproducing it on a website. And then of course, there is an ethical argument. Common decency may cause an individual or news organization to blur the faces of minors, or opt not publish such a photograph in the first place.
But if The Newtown Bee did violate the privacy rights of those children in the evacuation photo, isn’t Mr. Halbig violating those rights too?
(1) Don’t confuse the above referenced article with the article titled “Federal Civil Rights Violations on a former Florida State Trooper, US Customs Inspector, US Military Veteran, Teacher, Coach, Dean, Assistant School Principal, Principal of an Alternative School, Director of School Safety and Director of Risk Management.”
Critical Thinking and Sandy Hook 
To me it’s very obvious that many of these mass shootings are staged events but obviously your examination of the evidence does not lead you to the same conclusion. I have reason to believe that there may well be a staged event tomorrow (17th Nov) in Colorado though it just as easily may not happen. I will come back here whether or not it happens to let you know why I thought it was going to happen and if it does I think it lends weight to the hoax claims of all these mass shootings. The thing is if one of them is conclusively a hoax, then it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Now that Nov 17th has passed, I think I can confidently say that Flaxgirl’s prediction didn’t come true. Since she hasn’t come back to explain why she thought there would be an hoax event in Colorado, I can only assume that Flax was one of the many who fell for the Craigslist post advertising $1000 pay for crisis actors for a gig in Denver. Now, I don’t want to bash Craigslist. It can be a great resource and I’ve used it myself to buy, sell and to post job ads. But maybe Flax isn’t aware that Craigslist is also notorious for scams – from revenge postings to frauds selling fake cars and jobs. Anyone can post a gig ad for free (job ads cost $35 in most metro markets). Conspiracy pushers have pointed to similar fake crisis actor gig ads in the past as precursors to false flags that didn’t happen. So, Flax, if you are still out there, I’ll answer your question. If one thing is conclusively a hoax, doesn’t it make me wonder? Yes, it does. However, there is no conclusive proof that any of these shootings are a hoax and there is lots of conclusive proof that many Craigslist ads are fraudulent. Next time, I hope that makes you wonder.
Sorry I didn’t get back before. I just forgot about it and now I just noticed WP notifications in the sidebar now.
I don’t think I “predicted” that a staged event would happen. I just thought it might. And yes my prediction was based on the Craigs List ad. I think it was actually a genuine Full-Scale Exercise or something of that nature because on the day there were reports of a military plane overhead at Denver. So I think the ad was genuine … but then so also was the event.
I think that there’s more than ample evidence that Sandy Hook and Boston bombing at the very least as well as a significant number of other events were hoaxes. I mean, it’s just so in your face. I have all the evidence at webpage http://www.laverite.weebly.com.
Just to enumerate for Sandy Hook:
* Student on Dr Oz says “there was a drill”
* There’s an electronic Check-In sign; people wearing different-coloured ID tags, slabs of water bottles and porta-potties – these all conform with what is required in the FEMA active shooter drill manual template.
* Wolfgang Halbig requests many documents, including a document to show when the when the porta-potties were requested. These documents were not supplied. See link on my page.
* Supposed aunt of Emilie Parker refers to her as the youngest of three when the photos show she’s the oldest.
* Emilie’s mother admits photos were photo-shopped.
* There’s evidence of fundraising pages going up before the event.
* Parents sound like anti-gun lobbyists and don’t show grief. Robbie Parker walks to the microphone with a BIG SMILE talks for 4 minutes and then answers questions for a further 12 minutes, including one about fundraising – the day after his 6-year-old daughter was slaughtered.
* And on and on and on and on.
How much evidence do you need for goodness’ sake?
So, you think the government pays $1000 a day for people, found through Craigslist ads, to be part of drills, whether it’s a false flag or not?
But on to your other points:
* Student on Dr Oz says “there was a drill”
So I guess the government clued this 6 year old into the multi-million dollar plan and then relied on his ability the ability to retell the story on a Dr. Oz interview. The show is taped and the boy could easily have been cut or refilmed to edit out the child’s “slip.” Doesn’t that seem like a major flaw in the plan? Or could it be that a nervous little boy got tongue tied trying to retell a traumatic experience to a stranger?
* There’s an electronic Check-In sign; people wearing different-coloured ID tags, slabs of water bottles and porta-potties – these all conform with what is required in the FEMA active shooter drill manual template.
Again with that damn sign. It wasn’t there until after 12/14/12, and as such was of no assistance on the day of 12/14/12. I’ve written about this multiple times.
And others have debunked the sign as well:
http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/07/check-in-sign-update.html
What you are calling the FEMA drill template is really a specific document written for a planned and cancelled drill in Iowa:
* Wolfgang Halbig requests many documents, including a document to show when the when the porta-potties were requested. These documents were not supplied. See link on my page.
I’m not sure which link on your page you want me to look at, but the reason Wolfgang didn’t get documents showing the request for porta-potties is because Newtown didn’t request them and therefor doesn’t have them. http://www.ct.gov/foi/lib/foi/hor_2015/07082015/2014_461.pdf.
The real question is why isn’t Wolfgang requesting those documents from other sources if he’s so sure the key to the mystery lies with the porta pots.
* Supposed aunt of Emilie Parker refers to her as the youngest of three when the photos show she’s the oldest.
She misspoke. She says Emilie was a good role model, and says to her older sisters rather than as the oldest sister.
* Emilie’s mother admits photos were photo-shopped.
I photoshop pictures of my family. That doesn’t mean we aren’t real.
* There’s evidence of fundraising pages going up before the event.
Another question debunked long ago.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/01/23/this-is-theblazes-point-by-point-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-debunk/
http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/sandy-hook-hoax-claims-debunked.html
* Parents sound like anti-gun lobbyists and don’t show grief. Robbie Parker walks to the microphone with a BIG SMILE talks for 4 minutes and then answers questions for a further 12 minutes, including one about fundraising – the day after his 6-year-old daughter was slaughtered.
Parents showed grief. Hoaxers have selected various moments I time when they are holding it together. How do you know Parker was acting sad in the last 16 minutes and not acting happy for the first 3 seconds.
How much evidence do you need for goodness’ sake?
I have all the evidence I need. Evidence. Like witness statements that collaborate other witness statements. The police reports. Dash cam footage. That’s all evidence.
What’s not evidence? You tube videos of anonymous people without verifiable credentials. Opinions that parents that don’t look sad enough. Photoshopped family photos. Port a potties at a mass casualty. And a check in sign put controlling access to a crime scene after the event.
Hitler spoke of the Big Lie. He said when you tell a lie tell a whopper – people will recognise small lies because they’re familiar to them but the audacity of a massive lie is beyond their comprehension so they’ll simply believe it. There will always be traces of the lie but people will explain them away.
What I have observed since discovering that 9/11 was a false-flag and that Sandy Hook and other alleged tragedies are false-flag hoaxes is that my friends, family and colleagues in the vast majority tend to respond in the following ways when I discuss the events:
• They dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist (often quite angrily and/or contemptuously) and refuse to even discuss the subject
• They stare at me stony-faced and make no response
• Their eyes glaze over
• They say they couldn’t care less whether 9/11 was a false-flag (or Sandy Hook a false-flag hoax) – it’s old news and is irrelevant to them
• They say that they have no trouble believing what I say but that’s the limit of their interest
Little boy
You state that the little boy’s words could have been edited out in the Dr Oz program. So they could. But the people responsible for this hoax don’t have to bother doing that because even though there’s a tiny percentage of the population who will go, “Look, the child refers to a drill, evidence that the event was staged,” the vast majority of people will let it pass. Just as they will let all the other indications of Sandy Hook being a drill pass, the screwups by the crisis actors and so on. They can screw up as much as they like – people are simply not interested. We live in the age of the Hitlerian Big Lie and the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Check-in sign
I’m not sure about where the check-in sign should have been so I cannot verify that because it isn’t in the pictures you provide it appeared after the date. In any case, could it not have been there earlier and then removed and that’s why it doesn’t appear in those pictures?
ID tags
You didn’t address these.
Active shooter manual template
The manual had a school’s name on it but it was based on the FEMA template so it would have been very similar to the Sandy Hook manual. In any case, check-in sign, slabs of water bottles, lots of colour-coded ID tags and porta-potties would not be present at a real event.
Emilie’s aunt
She misspoke. She sure did.
Photoshopping
Yes, you photoshop but you don’t put children into photos they weren’t in in the first place. ALL the photos with the three children were photoshopped.
Porta potties
The Sandy Hook School Board did not reject the request by saying that it was irrelevant to them, they simply did not respond in any way to the request. Below is link to video of the Wolfgang Halbig v. Sandy Hook FOIA Commission Hearing in Hartford CT 4/24/15 starting 26 minutes in where the response to request for documents starts. At 31 minutes the porta pottie request is addressed.
Fundraising
Dates may get mixed up but they may not. The fact that they may does not mean they weren’t. There were an awful lot of indications of pre-event fundraising posted. Also, the day after the event Robbie Parker saying “a couple of friends from back home” had set up a fundraising page for Emilie is highly suspicious.Already a fundraising page for his daughter? He’s a middle-class parent. What does he need the money for?
We agree on one thing. We do live in an era of the big lie. So, the question is who is telling the whopper of the lie? The people of Newtown and local and state law enforcement? Or the Hoaxers pushing their alternative narratives?
I don’t want to go around on around forever on this, but I do want to make a couple of points in response.
Little boy
You seem to suggest that the orchastraters of this event spent hours photoshopping pictures, hiring and coaching crisis actors, and staging an abandoned school, but suddenly were too lazy to cut the interview.
Check-in sign
I suggest you take a closer look at where the sign was and review dash cam footage and still photos from the 14th. It simply wasn’t there. So if the purpose of the check in sign was to advise drill participants to check in, it would not have been very effective to move the sign out of the way before drill participants showed up and then put it back up after the drill was over. Yet, it would be effective to alert crime scene investigators where to check in after the fact as a means to control crime scene access which is standard police protocol.
ID tags
Sorry I missed this one. Do people only wear ID badges when they are participating in drills? No. Many people are required to wear them for their jobs. Some choose to wear them as the ID badge opens doors and it’s easier to wear it on your neck then keep it in your pocket. The 14th was a work do so many of the people in the photos would have left work midday while wearing their ID badge. If you count people with and without ID badges in the select photos from the hoaxer videos, you’ll find it’s about 50/50 with and without ID badges. I challenge you to look at all the available pictures from that day; there are far more people without ID badges than with ID badges.
Active shooter manual template
There is no mandate in the FEMA template on refreshments and porta-potties, and I don’t know why you would think these things wouldn’t be present in an actual event. Keeping a log of who accessed the crime scene is standard, even in at a small scene. And where do you expect news reporters and investigators to relieve themselves?
Emilie’s aunt
So is it your contention that only an actor can misspeak, but in real life people always say what they intend to say?
Photoshopping
I have tried to do to exactly what Mrs. Parker did and photo shop my child in with his siblings because his eyes were closed in the real photo. But regardless, there are videos of Emilie, alone and with her sisters. http://emilieparkerfund.com/ She was a real, live, breathing girl. Or, you have to invent an explanation of how that video was created. And if you are in the kids-are-alive-at-the-superbowl camp, you need to explain how Emilie aged at a faster rate than her sisters.
Porta potties
How long did you watch past 31 minutes in? At about 35 through minutes in, Attorney Frank hands Wolfgang a piece of paper and instructs him to read it. The paper, dated June 9, 2014, is a letter Wolf received from Frank’s office in June 9, 2014. Wolfgang acknowledges having previously received this document and reads that the “town” is defined to include the Newtown police department, school board and first selectman. Wolfgang agrees that the document says with regard to the porta potties, “The town does not have responsive documents.” It’s seems pretty straight forward to me. Wolfgang does not like this answer because it doesn’t support his theory, but to say the town did not respond in any way to the request is untrue.
Fundraising
Middle-class people don’t need support when a child dies? I have no idea what the Parker’s financial situation is, and I doubt you do either. They may live in a nice house, but that nice house comes with a nice mortgage. Are the Parker’s still paying off student loans? What’s their income to debt ratio? I believe Mrs. Parker was a stay-at-home mom, so it was a single income household. If Robbie needs to take 2 months off work, how are the bills going to get paid?
But maybe they have gobs of cash in the bank and none of the financial worries that plague the rest of the middle-class. Is it that unusual for friends to want to do something to help in such a time? Well, this middle-class woman will you tell you it’s not. I have donated to funds setup to support parents in my community who have lost children, and while those parents were likely better off than me financially, it was a small thing I could do to help in a painful time.
OK, I’ll have one more go to which you may wish to respond but for me that’s it now.
Little boy
You say they would have got rid of this flaw. This type of fallacious argument is called argumentum ad speculum – where hypothesis is favoured over evidence. Also, in the case of Sandy Hook, as there were a lot holes it doesn’t really work even at a hypothetical level. The evidence shows clearly that a little boy said there was a drill.
The School Active Shooter manual template
You state that the manual is for another school, however, I think that we can reasonably infer that each school does not reinvent the wheel for these massive events, that they use a template, especially when certain items from that manual which don’t seem to have an explanation in a real event appear.
Check-in sign
I would argue a check-in sign was at the event at some point.
ID tags
You say that only 50% of the people are wearing tags – most likely a higher percentage are wearing or at least have a tag, we just don’t see it. Whatever the number I think it’s more than you’d reasonably expect to see from people in a normal situation. The colours correspond to the manual: we see nuns wearing yellow tags (support staff). There are blue tags (observers), white tag (director). If you think that nuns might normally wear ID tags that also happen to be yellow I’d call you a coincidence theorist. All the tags also have a temporary look about them. None of them are encased in a holder.
Emilie’s aunt
People screw up all the time and people even get the order of children in a family mixed up but saying the oldest is the youngest seems unusual. If it were the only anomaly you may not pay much attention to it but it is one of many and it’s the weight of all of them that is significant.
Responding to the FOIA requests including porta-potties
The “town” comes up with quite a few instances of simply not having a document. It doesn’t say, “our policy is blah blah” which accounts for why they don’t have it, or that they don’t have it but someone else does, simply “we don’t have it”. As Halbig states, the school has to account for all the money it spends as it’s taxpayers money. This is highly suspicious.
There is also much more on this event but I won’t go into it. I guess you will have arguments to refute what I say. So be it.
The entire hoaxer claim is argumentum ad speculum.
“I was like…like hiding under– when we were having a drill we were hiding under like…” The boy doesn’t even express a complete thought. And to believe this one witness testimony as being absolutely accurate, while ignoring all other witness testimony, is a failure in logic known as cherry picking.
The check-in sign only supports the drill theory if it was there before the event. It wasn’t. The ID badges only support the drill theory if they are not normal ID badges that people wear for work, clearly colored to depict the role. Most of these badges the hoaxers point out are white. That’s an awful lot of directors. And any event that attracts hundreds of people requires adequate bathroom facilities. In fact, a drill would not need portable toilets because actual in-door bathroom facilities could be used at a non-crime scene. These are the only similarities between the Iowa drill document and the real event at Sandy Hook.
And regarding the porta-potties, your argument that the town must account for tax payer money doesn’t make sense. The town doesn’t have the documents because they didn’t order the porta-potties. The town didn’t spend money ordering porta-potties so it has no obligation to account for money it did not spend on porta-potties. Unlike Halbig, an actual investigative researcher would continue to search out the documents from other sources rather than just asking the same source the same question over and over.
I do appreciate your willingness to have a cordial discussion. This tells me you aren’t a lost cause and I do hope you will continue to read views that oppose your own, as will I.