11 comments on “AFFIDAVITS AND THE MONTAUK MONSTER

  1. That affidavit brings back old memories. I remember that one. The original was handwritten, I believe he was in Leavenworth still when we did that one. As in any legal documents, he gave the facts, we discussed it, and it was signed in my presence. I think it was in his handwriting but I forget. I also forget if we had to get it notarized. I think we did because I vaguely remember having to specially set up having a notary there. Of course my memory could be off the original doc would reveal everything.

    Barry Bachrach, Esquire
    The Law Office of Barry Bachrach
    62 Paxton Street
    Leicester, MA 01524
    Telephone No.: (508) 892-1533
    Facsimile No.: (508) 892-1633
    Email: bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net

    • Well, I’m not an attorney but inspite of that I guess I’ll have to refresh everyone’s
      memory-an affidavit is a LEGAL DOCUMENT, and as such must be witnessed
      and signed by a notary in the presence of the one making the written statement.

      • just for clarification, that is not necessarily true. an affidavit may be signed under the pains and penalties of perjury without having it notarized. not a big point, but just wanted to get out a fact since i am being quoted here without having posted the quote.

      • Thanks for the information-like most legal points affidavits seem to be something
        of a mystery wrapped in an enigma what with the fact that they are singularly a
        statement made without benefit of questions being asked like when a deposition is
        taken.
        My understanding is that they don’t carry much weight in court due to
        that and what is considered their ex parte nature-I would think even less
        if they haven’t been notarized.
        In my opinion, unrefined as it may be, the affidavit in question is a moot
        point based on it’s lack of relevance-as irrelevant as Peltier’s own attempts
        to portray himself as a fearless and heroic figure standing as a iconic beacon
        on the battlefield “laying down fire” protecting his people.
        The public perception seems to be that attorneys aren’t inclined to give
        “free” advice, whether that is true or not I’ll presume to take your comment
        as advice and ask a question:

        By what method (if one exists) could a successful effort be made to require
        public disclosure of funding received by an organization that operates as
        a charity, pac, or defense committee? Even parole board hearing records?
        One would think if excerpts from such a hearing can be made public then the
        confidentiality privilege kind of falls to the wayside-but then maybe that’s
        where the mysteries and enigmas come into play.
        In the technicalities of mysteries and enigmas couldn’t one say that to divulge
        any selective portion is in itself a violation of privilege?
        I understand that you may not be willing to give “free” advice or a conflict
        of interest may exist due to past affiliations, if so not a problem, and will
        be interpreted as nothing more than that.

      • there is alot to the questions you ask. i cannot publicly answer them in a vacuum. There is no short answer and as for conflicts/orivilege issues it depends on the focusing of the questions asked. The privilege issues are very tricky because i did not represent the LPDC. In any event, people know how to contact me when they want to discuss things. B.

      • I appreciate the response-and if you have been following the blog Double
        Entendre you will have noticed that you are something of a topic there
        after the post of an email(?) date unknown,response you made to Mark
        Holtzman/Silent Bear.
        You will notice as well I have taken issue with the context of that email
        and what is referred to as a logic that has led to opinions-some may take
        that be an intended affront to you but it is not-I consider them to be
        valid questions and an expression of my own logical conclusions.
        I also understand the restrictions of confidentiality though, but not well
        versed in it’s practical application.
        If a person tells me something in confidence it is kept that way, and I
        imagine even more so between an a attorney and client.
        Feel free to weigh in at any point if you like.

    • Richard Two Elk – “As the result of that process, he was given immunity but a very
      restricted immunity, only in the context of of the specific statement that he made on
      record at that time. So the extent of his immunity is on that and nothing beyond that,
      so he doesn’t have immunity”.
      Can you read and comprehend what you read SB? NO IMMUNITY.
      And in addition you offer an “interview” conducted by Seals as a proof-he
      of the glowing “interview” of Thelma Rios? Thelma Rios who admitted her own
      involvement? He of Roswell abductions? Are you serious? What’s next-a Claypoole
      list of possibilities?
      Has Arlo made these same statements in “interviews” to anyone other than
      Seals?
      You’re going to have to do much better than the usual distortions-if Arlo
      was “set up” how does that relate to calls he made to Denise. How does it
      relate to admissions he’s made?
      You going to tell us Alonzo and Branscombe put him up to it-or held a gun
      to his head while making the calls or during the admissions he made?
      I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO READ THE LINKS AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FAR
      THE PELTIERITES AND AIM MINIONS WILL GO.

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