Sandy Hook Victim's Estates File Lawsuit Against Newtown
The lawsuit filed by the estates of two of the victims of the Sandy hook Shooting has now been made public.
This lawsuit was given to state marshals on December 14, 2014; the two year statutory limitation on filing such actions.
You would think that those hoaxers who impugn, harass, and violate the rights of Sandy Hook families, falsely believing these families "fear court", "fear deposition", or "fear discovery", might take note. Do these lawsuits look like fear of court? That's all I'm going to say...because more is coming...in my "humble opinion."
Links are here:
Full text of the lawsuit made available by The Courant:
The lawsuit is 66 pages long. The named plaintiffs (currently) are the estates of slain students Noah Pozner with Leonard Pozner, administrator and Jesse Lewis, with parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis as administrators. The families are represented by Norwalk attorney Donald Papcsy, a Sandy Hook resident.
The summons itself incorrectly names a defendant as "Sandy Hook Board of Education"; the appropriate agency is the Newtown Board of Education (as in the complaint). The superintendent is also incorrectly spelled or incorrectly named "Joseph Eradi, Jr." and "Sandy Gombos" is incorrectly named as principle of Sandy Hook Elementary School, instead of "Kathleen Gombos".
Some of the claims of the lawsuit alleging negligence are as follows:
- That doors to even numbered classrooms could not be locked from the inside making it impossible for the teachers to lock the doors.
- The front entrance was not secure because the glass to the right of the front entrance was non-safety glass.
- Even though the teachers were aware of shooting, they could not lock the doors in accordance with lock-down procedures established by Newtown.
- The substitute in classroom 8 had no key to lock classroom 8 in any event.
It's important to note I have mathematically proven that Room 10 was the first classroom entered by the shooter based on casings and magazines analysis. Therefore, the lawsuit is very on point. Room 8 would likely have had time to lock the door if Room 8 had that capability.
- The lawsuit lists the injured and killed in #20, 28, 29 correctly accounting for the killed and wounded.
This is mentioned because conspiracy theorists are already missing "#20" and only reading #28 & 29 thereby misrepresenting the number the complaint states is killed. Consider this a "pre-bunk debunk".
- The lawsuit essentially claims that since there was no protective glass; locking the doors was futile.
- There are a few technical errors those of us who study this shooting will immediately recognize; such as claiming a wounded teacher in Room 9, who was shot, called 911. Hammond, did not make a 911 call. The lawsuit claims the shooter shot himself outside of Room 10. None of these facts are material to the negligence alleged; despite what will surely be hoaxer uproar over this minutia.
- That the school lacked proper security.
- That the defendants were mandated by code to have certain procedure these provisions were not and/or could not be followed.
The lawsuit is for a Connecticut standard "Excess of $15,000"; no specific amount is prayed for.
As I've discussed many times; lawsuits against government entities after school shootings are historically mostly unsuccessful; however, since Columbine; codes, polices, and procedures have been mandated. But are they being implemented? That could be the precedent here.
How many doors of schools or classrooms cannot be locked in the "post Sandy Hook" world?
This lawsuit can be boiled down to a fine point. It does no good to have "lock down" procedures and mandates if "locking" is impossible. In that light, this lawsuit could have national importance and it might be time to take a look at "lock down" and what it means in a real emergency.