(Note that I 100% think the Sandy Hook shootings were 100% real.)
In June a Wisconsin judge ruled that James Fetzer had defamed Leonard Pozner by claiming he had fabricated the death certificate of his son Noah.
In his book, written with co-author Mike Palacek, Mr Fetzer claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, ...
Which means that the following defense did not work:
"Fetzer concluded, based on disclosed facts X, Y and Z that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax, and therefore Noah's death certificate must be fake."
So, why didn't it work? If the reasoning used is illogical enough then "opinion based on disclosed facts" doesn't apply? Because Fetzer went beyond just saying that the death certificate was fake, and more specifically said that Leonard Pozner himself had faked it?