12 comments on “MOUNT UP 2

  1. We have read this three times and learned more each time.These are good
    words spoken here and we are thankful for them.We have checked them
    as you said we should and found them to be true.
    We do not listen to lpdoc or believe in the things they say.

  2. Taking care of life and have not had time to argue with those who have their minds set and refuse to see that much of what demain has posted is selectivly taken out of context and words parsed.the lpdoc spokeman you mention is not a spokeman per se.he does run a chapter of lpdoc and so is a spokesman in that limited sense.his statement was that all the hearsay evidence he has read implies Rays death was an accident.he was taking that info from S Hendricks “unquiet grave.” To characterize his “statement” as some new declaration from LPDOC on circumstances of Ray’s death is inaccurate at best.
    I pose this question in all sincerity….Do you belive that the Tribal Nations are indeed sovereign nations within the borders of the U.S.?

  3. Hendricks wrote
    “Buswell-Robinson said she filed a missing-persons report with the FBI soon after Robinson disappeared. She heard nothing from the FBI for a quarter-century.

    Then, two years ago, (or more now)an FBI agent visited her Detroit home. Buswell-Robinson said she agreed to speak with the agent but requested her lawyer be present, at which point the agent ended the interview. She has not heard from the FBI or any other law enforcement agency about her husband since. ”

    and this interview with Hendricks:

    JL: Have you spoken directly with her Anna Maes family about her murder?

    SH: I’ve spoken directly with her family, but they refused, through one of Anna Mae’s daughters, to be interviewed for the book. They told me that the only way they would consent to be interviewed would be if they got to vet what I wrote. I told them that no self-respecting reporter would agree to that (though some unscrupulous ones would). Would you read a book about the War in Iraq that had been vetted by the Bush Administration? Or for that matter, that had been vetted by the other side? The family also told me that they wouldn’t agree to be interviewed for any project that assigned any blame whatsoever, even partial, for Aquash’s death to the FBI. The family told me, as they’ve said often in public, that Anna Mae’s death had nothing to do with a political struggle between the FBI and AIM. It was a simple crime with no political overtones. To put it mildly, that’s not a theory I subscribe to.

    JL: What can people do to help with this investigation of her death?

    SH: I’d suggest that people raise hell. Contact their elected officials and ask them to hold the government’s feet to the fire for its many sins. In the Aquash case, for example, why did the FBI say for decades that it couldn’t solve the case, that for years it knew almost nothing about the murder at all, when documents I found show that the FBI had been given the basic outlines of the murder–who did it, where, and how–within days of her murder.

    JL:. In 1971 Home stake Mining Company obtains license to remove minerals (uranium) from 1,040 acres of state land in Custer and Fall River counties. 1973 In August mineral prospecting permits were issued by the Commissioner of School and Public Lands, cover 21,076,067 acres of state land. 1975, A reconnaissance study was done on Pine Ridge and other reservations. A large uranium deposit was discovered in the Northwestern corner of the reservation.

    Do you think that this is could be a valid reason for why the FBI reaching all the way to Nixon, allowed all this murder, madness and mayhem to prevail. As a way of keeping people distracted and focused on other matters while the US government were leasing out land to uranium miners etc.
    SH: The economic interests certainly played a part in why the FBI wanted to undermine AIM. Had AIM succeeded in getting some treaty rights restored, non-Indian economic interests would have been upset, as I note above. But the FBI attacked AIM not merely for economic reasons. It went much deeper than that. The FBI had a policy, going back nearly to the birth of the Bureau, of undermining radicals. Any group or movement that threatened the status quo was a threat to the FBI–be they violent or not. The FBI was an agency, bear in mind, that, when it was announced in 1964 that Martin Luther King Jr. would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, sent an anonymous blackmail letter trying to get King to kill himself before the award ceremony. Why? Because the longtime director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, and the men he surrounded himself with believed that anyone who worked for social change was an enemy of the nation. The FBI would have tried to destroy AIM even if AIM hadn’t threatened a single economic interest anywhere in the country.

    JL. This is also what Robert Robideau had to say about the Peltier case. What are your thoughts on this?

    “The FBI thereafter targeted Leonard Peltier, who was unfairly tried, convicted and sentenced to two life sentences. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals called his conviction “a clear abuse of the investigative process by the FBI” and gave credence to the claims of Indian people that if the FBI is willing to fabricate evidence to extradite a person in this country, it is willing to fabricate evidence to convict those targeted the enemy. As recently as 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit acknowledged: “Much of the government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.”

    The Eighth Circuit discussed this critical evidence which was withheld by the FBI as “newly discovered evidence indicating [that the government’s ballistic expert] may not have been telling the truth,” and that the evidence withheld by the FBI created “inconsistencies casting strong doubts upon the government’s case.” Under our system, if there is a reasonable doubt, then Leonard Peltier is not guilty, yet he still remains in prison after 30 years for a crime he too should have been acquitted and freed.

    After Leonard Peltier’s attorneys discovered that the government fabricated the ballistics evidence, among other things, the government has had to admit several times in open court that it had no credible evidence Leonard Peltier killed the agents, that it could not prove who killed the agents, and speciously claimed it never tried to prove he shot the agents and that the conviction could be upheld on aiding and abetting grounds. But no one has ever explained who Leonard aided and abetted which is a prerequisite to such a charge. He could not aid and abet Dino Butler or me who were acquitted.
    SH: In this statement of facts, Robideau is almost entirely correct. As I say in my book, Leonard Peltier was railroaded. There’s no doubt about it. Even if he killed the FBI agents, he was denied the chance to argue at trial, as Robideau and Butler did in their trial, that he did so in justifiable self-defense. He should be freed.

    And here is a direct quote from an email from Demain dated Nov 15 2009.

    “I forgot to tell you, I generally migrate towards the opinion now days that when Peltier said “I did not shoot those agents,” I believe him. But the discussion gets drowned out in all the prejudging the LPDOC people are about.”

  4. thought I posted this first but must have not hit post comment button–or something:
    you wrote..”Posted this a few hours ago but just read that an LPDOC spokesperson has stated that the death of Ray Robinson was an accident. ”
    This is a distortion,taken out of context with words parsed.What he did say was “all the hearsy evidence I have read says Ray’s death was an accident.”…he was referencing Hendrick’s “Unquiet Grave”, which poses at least a couple of scenario’s for Ray’s “disappearance.”The LPDOC spokeman you refer to is not a spokeman per se.He runs a Chapter of LPDOC and so is a spoke person in that limited sense.You misleadingly present it as some new declaration or statement from LPDOC-hence Leonard.Leonard never knew Ray.This strikes me as just another attempt to tie Leonard to everyhing and keep him in prison. Must LPDOC comment on everything that took place from 1968-1976?
    you wrote “If it was an accident why the cover up all these years? Is this statement meant to be preemptive on the assumption that Rios’ sealed testimony may in part address this very issue and tell a different version than accidental? Odd to me that now after her testimony and Graham’s conviction a new story is floated.”
    Talk about conspiracy theorists…those “questions” are just way off the mark and just plain false.
    And to call those of us who believe Leonard was railroaded to be part of a cult is beyond the pale.

    And I ask these questions in all sincerity–Do you believe in the soveriegnty of the Tribal Nations within the borders of the United States?
    Do you believe the 300 plus treaties that the US has never lived up to should be valued and finally adhered to.?

  5. And in all sincerity I will say there is nothing you can tell me about living under the
    oppression of treaties. I certainly believe that being sovereign is the way it should be-the reality is that
    when you have overlords it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, and that is the
    impetus for the ongoing courts battles.

    If real time sovereignty were the reality none of that would be necessary would it?

    The mere fact that treaties or legislation may say it is so hasn’t translated has it?

    Sovereignty is also based on those traditions held by any who claim it, a cultural

    continuation left to evolve as it will without conditions that impose anothers definition
    of that as it chooses

    In that context it is specious to say when crimes committed outside of those traditions,
    attorneys brought in, traditions of honesty and integrity cast aside, and claims of constitutional
    rights are made, then those who selected that format are not bound by their selection, and it
    is an obvious attempt at evading responsibility and self service to attempt to have it both ways.

    As to Ray’s “accidental” death exactly what evidence exists that implies that? The

    statements by those there who said he was shot following an argument? Was his body
    exhumed at some point and an autopsy performed that no one is aware of?

    This has the sound of parsing-and would you advance unquiet grave as the authority
    of events?
    If it were an accident why all the cover stories, why the unmarked grave? Yeah, Ray

    was here but he just disappeared-maybe an alien abduction-or maybe like Elvis he’s

    alive and well working in a seven eleven somewhere.
    Or even better -he was accidently shot and we don’t have a clue what happened after-he must have just
    walked off somewhere.
    It follows then that while we are exchanging questions I would ask do you think it

    an accident?

    I have attempted to address the questions and points you have raised, while almost

    as a matter of rote you have elected to ignore mine and speak in generalities-that too

    has been a characteristic of Peltier supporters.

    “I pose this question in all sincerity”- I would ask that you take a moment to review our
    exchanges and examine the questions I have asked about Peltier, Annie Mae, Robinson,
    etal, that you haven’t responded to and ask yourself if I asked them in sincerity or if they
    are only generalities?

    All of this is predictable it amazes me any would even speak it. I’ve read a spin now offering
    up an excuse for Rios’ confession-someone said a family member had a stroke and so in her
    self sacrifice and humanity she made her deal so she could attend to that. The spin is as
    retarded as those who made it must think everyone else is.

    Would you say the Jews in Europe during WW2 were a sovereign nation, or that in some
    obscure manner they were made sovereign by the treatment they received? Would you
    say the indigenous peoples in the Amazon who have been subjected to genocide for
    land and resources just as those here have been, are sovereign as related to their treatment?

    Sovereignty is more than a word, more than a dream, if it exists it requires freedom and
    recognition of that. I can mark out my little area and declare myself a sovereign nation, if
    however I am subject to a foreign nations authority then my declaration isn’t much more
    than words is it?

    Maybe I can get some donations, some foreign aid from others, some recognition-but that
    changes nothing without autonomy does it?

    Sovereignty has been a word abused by some to further themselves and line their pockets,
    you know that as well as I do. Sovereignty is the both the birthright and the dream-I’m hoping
    that the catalyst for achieving it isn’t assimilation.

    In running a chapter, I think in one acts as a representative, an agent, or ambassador,
    in any of those roles they are a “spokesman” as you say, and when a statement is made that is the common
    consideration ,and it is a stretch to say any should not accept as reflective. Maybe that trite cliche
    of too many chiefs and not enough indians is the problem.

    On the other hand it strikes me you have been very mindful of what you have had to say-chapter
    and verse, perhaps it is you offer no response to questions asked due to that and mindful that
    others read this as well. Among them co-workers.

    We can continue in this manner if you like, your choice, but presently at least I don’t think you’re
    advancing the cause you would.

    “refuse to see that much of what demain has posted is selectivly taken out of context and words
    parsed”-this seems to be the pot calling the kettle black and perhaps you would provide some
    examples of this “much”.

    If he has, I have no problem in saying so-as this is about larger issues than DeMain, you, or I.

    I’m not an apologist for anyone, nor a revisionist-I am an advocate for Annie Mae, Ray Robinson,
    others who lost their lives, and all of the nations. In that I won’t tolerate lies, spins, false prophets,
    free loading leaders, or self styled heroes.

    If it is as someone said that it is the truth that sets one free then it is the lack of that this last few
    decades from without and within that has contributed to binding the nations.

  6. This is an underhanded comparison wouldn’t you say-to compare a family who

    had already been burnt by authors/reporters to the Bush Admin and Iraq?

    The same family that lobbied for the second autopsy to be performed on

    Annie Mae that LPDOC reports differently and AIM, and others now claim ownership
    of?

    And is it really questionable to you or anyone that they would want to have
    some
    control over what was written in an interview they were asked to give?

    Come on now-whose going to buy that? How can it even be seen to be a

    talking point? It is another example of distorting and spinning and a glaring

    proof of the so called dumbing of America if anything is.

    I wonder how many lawsuits have been filed over reports that are “parsed”

    as you say? This is presented as though to ask for review and approval

    prior to endorsing publication is some conspiratorial request-we both

    know it isn’t.
    If you would chose to present it as that then comment likewise
    why any would choose to take the Fifth-there’s the real question and point to
    ponder-and “upon advice of counsel” doesn’t quite get it.

    I say if the purpose of LPDOC was to secure the truth and the release of Peltier

    that after thirty plus years they have not only failed on both counts but outlived whatever purpose
    they might have served.

    A part of that was accomplished from using a shotgun approach to any event of

    the AIM fiasco in the seventies and beyond. Every possible angle has been played

    to discredit anyone who didn’t have a kind word for poor Leonard-and the selectivity

    and parsing of that will become legendary if it hasn’t already.

    You continue this as a LPDOC accolyte in completely blowing off my question
    about
    Dino, Robideaux, and Peltier regarding Mr.X. But wait, there’s more-not a single word
    about the Graham clone or Emma.

    Not a single word about the eternally changing story Peltier advances-you
    want to
    quote Robideaux as impeachable and yet have nothing to say about his position, his
    “applause”, resulting from the indictment of Graham. You and
    LPDOC won’t even address
    Graham’s conviction now much less that it is
    warranted.

    Yet in all this some assumption is to be made that LPDOC champions justice and truth
    for all? I think that is a hard sell and expecting a lot. LPDOC is about just one thing, and
    that is LEONARD PELTIER-to gain credibility a lot of asides need to be thrown in, links
    to other causes, positions championing indigenous issues, and disingenuous questions
    about one’s beliefs in sovereignty and whether treaties are binding and worth the paper
    they are written on.

    LPDOC in their abject adherence to the truth does nothing to correct the record that Peltier
    was a low level grunt rather than a founder of AIM, that he was in effect a gofer and not
    a savior dedicated to his people-take a look at the homepage and either deny this is so,
    change it, or continue to perpetuate the lie. Again we are all to assume it is entirely about
    truth and justice?

    A hero and a teacher-spirit, along with others-and the caption “just another broken treaty?”

    The truth is Peltier broke more than a treaty with the nations-he broke faith with them and
    tradition, and continues to do so for one reason-himself. And I ask you which is worse?

    The victims and the scapegoats are those who have bought into the myth.

    I said before in light of the years, and the zero that has been accomplished, he has nothing
    to lose in taking a test if he is innocent-let him man up and do that and I’ll collect cans if
    that’s what it takes to help pay for it-if not I wouldn’t donate a nickel to his “defense”.

    Now to address your comments in a more direct manner…………

    (1) Hendricks did not request permission from any member of Annie Mae’s family
    to write his
    book-he informed them he was doing so and broached the subject of an interview at the same time.

    (2) He was informed that the family did not think it was a good time as it was during the time
    period of Arlos’ trial and the events surrounding it, and they were of the opinion that in that
    context it was inappropriate and the greater purpose would be served to wait until after the discovery
    process.

    (3) The so called demand for vetting was anything but that-it was in fact a request to see the
    book prior to the endorsement that was requested.

    (4) The perception was that his comments and behavior to Annie Mae’s family were disrespectful
    and that his interest was primarily to make a buck and a name, like others had employing
    her corpse as the vehicle.

    I personally can’t speak to his motivations, but I will to the version you have advanced and
    say it is not an accurate accounting.

    JL. This is also what Robert Robideau had to say about the Peltier case. What are your thoughts on this?

    ‘The FBI thereafter targeted Leonard Peltier, who was unfairly tried, convicted
    and sentenced to two life sentences. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals called his conviction a clear abuse of the investigative process by the FBI and gave credence to the claims of Indian people
    that if the FBI is willing to fabricate evidence to extradite a person in this country,
    it is willing to fabricate evidence to convict those targeted the enemy. As recently
    as 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit acknowledged: Much of the governments behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses.
    These facts are not disputed.’

    Are you attempting to say in some manner that Peltier being a grunt was somehow so important to the
    uranium issue he was set up? Please.

    And here is a direct quote from an email from Demain dated Nov 15 2009.

    “I forgot to tell you, I generally migrate towards the opinion now days that when Peltier said I did not shoot those agents, I believe him. But the discussion gets drowned out in all the prejudging the LPDOC people are about.”

    If this is a direct quote as you say then I would ask Demain to address it in this venue. I would remind as
    well that whether or not Peltier fired the final and fatal shots he is equally guilty on the basis of his participation
    in the events that led to the murder of Williams and Coler as defined by law.
    The problem with any attempt
    to deny or mitigate that is not only Peltier but Robideaux as well have placed him directly at the scene.

    And that is exactly what he was convicted of.

    In his cowardly way he has alternately said he shot in that direction but without hitting anyone, that he
    was there when the fatal shots were fired, and that he wasn’t, that Mr. X was the real deal, and then gave that
    up as did LPDOC when Dino busted the whole story.

    ” Even if he killed the FBI agents, he was denied the chance to argue at trial, as Robideau and Butler did in their trial, that he did so in justifiable self-defense.”

    The ridiculous nature of the statement speaks for itself-how is it self defense to engage in an exchange
    of gunfire from a distance and then to walk across an open expanse of some distance, when critically wounded men could not, and did not fire at you as you did so to then shoot them at point blank range in the head?
    Is this really and act of self defense? What threat did Williams and Coler present
    at that point and during the time it took to make that walk? What threat did they present from a distance with seriously range limited service
    revolvers? It was and remains an act of cowardice.

    Once their vehicle was immobilized if Peltier was in such a hurry to get out of there as he babbled on
    in the aftermath why didn’t he leave then? The obvious answer-because it was not his intent to do so,
    and it was only in the aftermath when he crapped his pants over the implications that he did his warrior rabbit

    routine and ran seeking a hole to hide in.

    If families were endangered and the feds were always in this all out assault mentality why wasn’t he
    concerned about those who would be coming-about the potential for more bloodshed as advanced in all his
    and AIM’s fairytales? And why didn’t he do that “it’s a good day to die” thing, dig in, and prepare to defend

    “his people?”

    Again the obvious answer-because he is a liar of epic proportions, was guilty of at least participating
    in what amounts to cold blooded murder, and was more concerned about himself than others.
    And this is
    what you call a hero, a victim, a champion? He thought they were coming after him for the Wisconsin warrants pure and simple.

    As to all the out of context citings of what the Eigth District Court said and ruled below is a link that
    will take you to a page where they can be individually linked
    and viewed in their accurate entirety.
    I think they will speak for themselves.

    http://www.noparolepeltier.com/courtdecisions.html

  7. What to your mind makes Ed Woods or Demain a more credible source than Matthiesen or Hendricks or Churchill?I read and reserch from all sources–both sides of the issues.
    I don’t answer questions that would only be answered out of speculation on my part-I have no knowledge of -I have answered that Mr X was Robideau as he admitted.You want me to answer on his timing of revealing himself–I can not do that because it would be speculation.Just as with the statement attributed to LPDOC spokeman”admits Ray was killed accidentally”..any hersay or speculation I would make would be presented here a Gospel from LPDOC and hence Leonard.
    It was the prosecution that portrayed Peltier as a leader.As an imprisoned prisoner of war he than took on the the role of a leader being persecuted for his act of self defense.How can Leonard be guilty of adding an abetting if Robideau and Butler wer aquitted on self defense…Peltier added and abetted self defense?
    THe agents had no right to enter the Jumping Bull property-did not announce them selves as Federal agents, were in unmarked car and plain clothes.–and we can argue all day about who shot first. People have a right to protect themselves when they feel threatened.Ballistics evidence has been proven mishandled and fabricated
    ANd if you believe the Tibal Nations are indeed nations and if you insist on saying Leonard kille the agents(not out of self defense) than why was he not charged as a war criminal
    Why was the FBI pusuing Jimmy Egle over a apair of stolen boots, instead of investigating the oppression and murders attributede to Dick Wilson et al? And it was later admitted that Jimmy Eagle was not on the reservation that day.

    you wrote..” Even if he killed the FBI agents, he was denied the chance to argue at trial, as Robideau and Butler did in their trial, that he did so in justifiable self-defense.”
    The ridiculous nature of the statement speaks for itself-how is it self defense to engage in an exchange”

    So you choose to believe in the court system in its prosecution of Peltier but the courts were wrong on the Butler /Robideau decision?
    Fight for justice for Buddy Lamont, Frank Clearwater, Pedro Bissonnette, Joe Stuntz and the 60 odd person killed during the reign of terror and I will staart to believe your intentions are not one sided. I may be wrong but it appears you only are interestesed in justice for those who’s cases would tear down any good perception of AIM and link Leonard to anything you can to keep him in prison.
    Do inquire with Demain on the quote I attributed to him–its in email from him–dated and archived.Let him deny it and I will post the entire email.
    I was asking you about the sovereignty of the Tribal Nations which has been eroded over the pssed centuries in violations of treaties which are the “supreme law of the land’ according to US Constituion. Definiton I was using of Sovereignty: The authority of a state to govern itself: ie national soveriegnty.
    here some links for you.
    http://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/violation.htm


  8. Amazing to me that you advance Churchill as a source-do I need to provide and endless
    array of links regarding him.?

    “So you choose to believe in the court system in its prosecution of Peltier but the courts were wrong on the Butler /Robideau decision?”

    Evidently the one you seem to favor, Robideaux, felt the court system was the proper
    venue re his below quoted words. If that’s the case kind of limits the ability to pick and choose doesn’t it?
    I think Robideaux’s and Dino’s trial was a farce-but accept it as the way it is, and
    should answer your question about the court being right or wrong. I don’t believe
    that judicial renderings are infallible, that there are never those who are wrongly convicted as has been illustrated by the release of those based on DNA evidence.
    The mechanism in place to address wrongful convictions is known as the appeals
    process-at this point in time how many has Peltier advanced?
    Would it be this so called speculation to address why both Peltier and LPDOC
    won’t address the lie that is Mr. X after it is known that it was exactly that?
    Peltier wasn’t tried as a so called war criminal for obvious reasons-one being that
    to do so would forever validate the nations as being sovereign-and that isn’t official
    policy.
    In that the door was left open for the claim that he is a “political prisoner” and
    that has been played for all it’s worth hasn’t it?
    You say you don’t answer questions because you don’t speculate-yet I think that
    much of what LPDOC has presented over time has been speculation-Mr. X is a
    prim example as it has never been substantiated and in fact has been soundly repudiated-thus it is avoided like the plague now.
    Somewhere in this you deny yourself and everyone else to form and express an opinion for by the definition you advance all would be speculation.
    Going to posting a new blog entitled Last Man Standing soon-since you’ve seized
    on Robideaux perhaps it will afford an opportunity there for you to either
    speculate or avoid speculation.
    If the course to be taken now is to post supporters videos I’ll join in and return
    this topic with links later in the day.

    “An act committed by one, a founder of AIM, nevertheless with the heart of a coward ordered Anna Mae’s execution. He and those that followed his dictates must pay their dues and I feel in the enemies court is a proper and fitting place for these individuals who would not in the last 30 years show some remorse to their people who had given them their trust and with this act betrayed.”

    “John Boy, I hope, will follow in the footsteps of Arlo because it is the only way to the top and as John said, “They did what they were told.”

  9. Another speculation or misdirection-reservations are known as what? Federal reserves?

    Do they come under federal mandate whether that is right or wrong? Are the majority of
    crimes investigated and prosecuted under federal statutes?

    If the answers to these questions are yes then the following assertion of the feds having
    no rights to be there is seriously flawed:

    “It was the prosecution that portrayed Peltier as a leader.As an imprisoned prisoner of war he than took on the the role of a leader being persecuted for his act of self defense.How can Leonard be guilty of adding an abetting if Robideau and Butler were acquitted on self defense Peltier added and abetted self defense?

    THe agents had no right to enter the Jumping Bull property-did not announce them selves as Federal agents, were in unmarked car and plain clothes.–and we can argue all day about who shot first. People have a right to protect themselves when they feel threatened.Ballistics evidence has been proven mishandled and fabricated”

    Cops in an unmarked car-theres a real conspiracy-didn’t announce themselves while engaged in a pursuit,
    how would they have accomplished that? Evidently There was no mistaking who they were by those who initiated
    a gunfight.

    Self defense, again I will ask how it is self defense to walk across an open expanse of some distance
    without being shot at and then stand in close proximity to critically wounded defenseless men and shoot
    them at point blank range?

    If it was strictly a matter of self defense why didn’t Peltier turn himself in and stand with his “brothers”
    when they were arrested and standing trial instead of kicking them to the curb with the every man for himself
    mentality he exhibited?

    And who now portrays Peltier as a leader? LPDOC clings to the acquittal of Robideaux and Butler and yet
    rails at every other verdict involving anyone else-in that is a clear statement by them that in their opinion the courts don’t always get it right, as was the case with Robideaux and Butler. It’s difficult to take opposing
    positions isn’t it? And yet LPDOC can do little else.

    The realty is that in a sense all the nations are prisoners of war-the selective application of this in the case
    of Peltier is smoke and mirrors.

    Ballistics evidence has been proven mishandled and fabricated” Uh huh-just like the conspiracy of
    Annie Maes hand being removed for identification-just recently I was reading of several other cases
    where exactly the same procedure was employed-none of them conspiratorial-would LPDOC like to
    address that and let us know if in fact they were conspiratorial as well?

    The edge, if it can be called that, conspiracy theories have is the luxury of negative proof-that being
    they don’t have to present proof only proclaim whatever is presented that repudiates their story is
    further proof of the conspiracy-the sad part of this sort of thing is there are actually people who are
    satisfied with that.

    I would suggest rather than repeat the sixty dead mantra as part of a conspiracy you spend some time researching those and the investigations.
    And by the way this figure of sixty has run as high as three hundred plus depending
    on who told the story. Of these 21 resulted in trials-3 were the result of child abuse, 5 due to alcohol abuse, 4 resulting from domestic abuse, 14 from fights and personal disputes.

    I don’t have all the statistics but they can be found on the net.

  10. You asked……..

    ” What to your mind makes Ed Woods or Demain a more credible source than Matthiesen or Hendricks or Churchill?”

    The short answer would be because if you take the time to research the points and statements they make they are verifiable-also they what they present is substantiated not only by the testimony of countless credible witnesses, unlike Mr.X, Rios in her prior ramblings, Graham, and the like, but also documents.
    While on the other hand the Pelterites seem to rely on an absence of scrutiny in what they have to say-more of a blind allegiance to myth, fiction, and the party line as it is advanced. Deviation from that isn’t acceptable.
    It is as though the perception exists that if any would have something more than what is being spoon fed to them they are heretics, moles and feds of suspect character intent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s