62 comments on “

  1. The history of the AIM leadership has been one of predation-their strength has never been
    as individuals, rather from running in a pack like Hyena’s or Jackals.
    They attack in numbers and scavenge in the same manner-and like scavengers will fight
    among themselves vying for position.
    As they pass on their ideological offspring take the first steps in seeking to advance themselves
    in the group howl they present as mourning and honoring- soon they too will be fighting among
    themselves for position, they too take the first steps towards predation and scavenging that
    will define them just it did their role models-and they too will call themselves warriors, patriots,
    and liberators.

    • this is a really good blog entry by Looking Back Woman and below is an example of how and why the truths within it are continuously buried from the public.

      I posted it this day to the Leech Lake Tribal College fb page, where Dennis Banks is an Honorary Elder Counselor on the board of directors. His seating came just around the same time the college threw the Ida BraveHeart and Wilf Cyr out the door. Ida instructed on native physiology and Wilf on the Ojibwe language…. Ida was acting president and was replaced by a self declared Cherokee Woman Ginny Carney, who never would or could provide heritage confirmation and blew a gasket about inquiries, when my wife who was developing the school’s website requested source confirmation from Ginney, so i guess maybe Carney’s last name is at least valid 🙂 It’s so sad two of the school’s strongest in traditional values was tossed out the door.

      The fb reply from the college librarian was not unexpected, considering i did attend it yrs back and jumped ship with 1 credit left for a degree partially because the indoctrination of the Carney support group within was very anti Paul DeMain, Denise Pictou, etc …. declaring them as FBI pawns who were trying to undermine AIM (which AIM did well enough on its own) , this was during the times of the Arvol Looking Cloud Trials, and Z not long before that, was a member of NAJA, so we were fortunate to grasp current truths that arose during the NAJA conference in Florida which made it very difficult for me to accept anything from that school considering the Carney support group was still placing Banks and AIM on a pedestal and denouncing Annie Mae’s family and anyone in support for Justice.

      ************************************** fb post at http://www.facebook.com/LeechLakeTribalCollege/posts/101514493346506?notif_t=share_comment

      Joe Wade > at some point in time academic america should start presenting the whole story,

      “Means & Banks knew the Ceremonial Chief & Holy Man had had a plan for my Creation, & duty to my Tetuwan people, & FFC knew I had not done anything to provoke or bring upon the rape by Means myself…

      There was a reason Means had 18 AIM members, (to bear witness to his rape of me), & none of the observers even attempted to help me, or stop Means in any way, for the rape was for Means to show all who were there to see, his AIM followers, not much older than my own 17 years…. no matter who’s child, wife, or Mother being abused by him…or anyone in AIM….

      AIM was now in charge…” http://lookingbackwoman.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/why-how-it-happened/

      Joe Wade > if LLTC elects to delete the above postings,

      it will be no different than AIM an affiliates burying the truths of Annie Mae Pictou Aquash, Perry Ray Robinson Jr., the numerous innocents buried at wounded knee as reported by Lakota Spiritual person Matthew King who was the interpreter for Fools Crow , that King reported to the FBI ,

      so if the truths are too much to “bear” , delete away and continue onward supporting those with the blood of innocents on their hands , thou keep in mind by doing so, i.e hiding, excusing, supporting such one also carries that blood to some degree, its a basic morals and ethics thing and it is something that can not be hidden from ancestry , http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=151830418277294&id=362949370395312

      Melissa Pond Boozhoo > Mr. Wade. I’m LLTC’s librarian and the person responsible for the postings on the LLTC Library blog. Our blog’s intent is simply to aggregate current news headlines on events and issues in Anishinaabe Country (usually from established journalism organizations like Indian Country Today rather than personal blogs because of issues of credibility and editorial oversight) and to do so as objectively as possible to allow for individual readers’ interpretations. Much of reporting on Mr. Means’ death notes that he is considered a controversial figure while also noting what are considered his contributions to contemporary American Indian politics. Miigwech for sharing your perspective.

      *********************************

      i am Banking LLTC also considers NNN as an established , creditable journalism organization, LOL

  2. “Dennis Banks is an Honorary Elder Counselor “- the bar has apparently been set pretty
    low then. Once AIM wraps their tentacles around anything it’s basically downhill from there.

    Thanks for the information and attempt to post the truth.

  3. There would not be such an issue of educated people in academia believing the truth about Means, Banks & AIM, if they themselves… were AIMs victims & survivors….only wanting their voices & experiences at AIM’s cruel hands acknowledged, so they can.. after all these many years (40) years begin the healing process…We recently witnessed where Adrienne’s good intentions, & well- thought out reconciliation & healing project for WK victims & survivors went…the WK Museum burned down again…after the Dakota Conference, though people said it was an electrical fire…a Means lover was said to of helped the situation along, after Means came in several times to the Museum & Means saw the Trimbach’s book, American Indian Mafia on the shelves there. The new curator loved the book he told John Trimbach.
    Every effort is being made by the AIM camp to keep their historial version, lies & propaganda in tact.
    Once again at any cost…to any who refuse to believe their lies any longer…!
    Thank-you both for understanding why I do what I do to educate people who really want & need to know the real truth, instead of all the fawning crap written about the glorious AIM age & it’s influence on 1st Nations today, yesterday…and, ultimately from 1970-1975 when the greatest damage was done by AIM.

  4. I find it hard to comment on a woman’s allegation of rape as a woman, because rape is horrific. However you wait until one week after Russell Means’ death to make an allegation of rape in 1972. I question why you could not make it while he was still alive, and please spare us the you were too afraid line. Women, and young girls, who have been viciously raped by men who have beaten and threatened them, go into open court and give evidence knowing there is a risk their attacker may not be convicted and can ‘go after them’. AIM was violent, we know that, things went wrong in many ways. But leaving 40 years before making a rape allegation and then waiting until just after someone has died is a strange choice of timing. Surely if you were so keen to protect other women and have people know the truth,you could have said it before.

    Didn’t you once write you knew he was misogynist because after you said something critical about him, you had an email full of abuse. So you thought he was a misogynist for writing you a rude email, strange you never mentioned rape then. The answer is yes you did write that on your website, it was after his comments on matriarchs you were saying he was a hypocrite. He wasn’t a misogynist, he did have one H. of a temper so I don’t doubt you may have had a strong email.

    • Isobel-
      The rape allegation by LBW has been made for some time-long before he passed-LBW
      has had a WP blog for several years-this blog isn’t the only site it has been made on or
      reblogged.
      If you will look around not only here, but on her site and elsewhere you will find evidence
      of that.
      Indeed some women and young girls as you say do testify in court, but I have little doubt
      at least an equal number don’t-my own mother and sister were during their lifetimes and
      they didn’t.
      I didn’t know about it until years later when I became and adult-I never questioned why they
      didn’t pursue legal action, but understood why they wouldn’t at the time.
      There is a video named Rape on The reservation that appears in this blog and around the
      net, you should take the time to view it and understand the difficulties women face not
      only in the legal system but in their communities as well.
      Factor in the history of intimidation and violence of AIM and it becomes even more understandable.
      As to Russell’s marketing of matriarchy consider his history and the fact that he had cozied
      up with Larry Flynt of Hustler magazine to run for national political office in what was yet
      another attempt to grab attention.
      Rude email is irrelevant to me as it doesn’t alter the truth, and I have come to expect it
      when the truth is spoken, along with name calling and all the rest of that.

      • I hadn’t heard that allegation before but if an allegation is being made publicly, without charges, it is a little odd. Some woman wouldn’t make the allegation because of fear, but if it’s being made publicly anyway then surely trying to bring charges would be the logical thing. I don’t follow LBW’s blog although I was aware of something she previously wrote on it which I did see at the time.

        It is sad to know about your mother and sister. I have discussed rape with Indian women but as with rape of anyone in any country, each case has to be seen separately, however emotive.

        Russell Means was not misogynist and his belief in matriarchy was geniune, even though at times, it may have seemed otherwise. The Larry Flynt decision may not have been the wisest but many mainstream politicians form strange allegiances when running for office, it’s not unusual.

        I just wonder why someone would find it easy to keep referring publicly to being raped – many woman would not be able to do that – express condemnation of the alleged perpetrator but never in 40 years attempt to bring charges.

      • Isobel- there is another indigenous woman, Kira, who has spoken recently in this blog
        about being raped, and while I don’t know the particulars about it the manner in which
        she discusses it seems to imply that she may not have gone the legal route.
        Perhaps you could comment in the form of a question to her about the reasons
        for whichever course she chose.
        This lack of coming forward isn’t some rare occurrence-it is often seen in rape,
        incest, and cases of pedophilia- each individual struggles with their own burden, but
        it seems that once they make the decision to speak some measure of that burden
        is relieved and in finding their voice they become very vocal-which I think is a good
        thing that educates the public and raises public opinion.
        Russell was an actor long before he got his first movie role, as such to play the part
        of a champion of matriarchy was to me little more than another performance.

      • rezinate, I can’t comment on the other allegation of rape because I haven’t seen it and don’t know which section of the blog it’s on. There is a difference between saying ‘I was raped and didn’t report it…’ and making a specific allegation about one person as LBW has There are reasons women don’t; as you say, feeling of shame making it hard to talk about , fear of past sexual history or current activities being raised in court to besmirch victim – as LBW says that she was 17 at the time of the alleged rape, reference to her past history would not have been a factor I guess.

        As you said, far too many rapes of Indian women go un investigated, not being taken seriously enough. If LBW had reported Russell Means there would have been a huge amount of enthusiasm to pursue conviction of him. I am sorry, she has made a serious allegation, she didn’t have it investigated, she has accused others of standing by and watching, and she repeats apparently, but in 40 years, never attempted prosecution or a civil suit.

        The list of reasons you suggested for her not doing that, as I wrote yesterday, are not valid, they don’t ‘stand up’.

        I question how well you knew Russell, my guess is scarcely at all.

        And frankly I take exception as a woman to being lectured on rape, I have some knowledge of rape cases, I don’t need the lecture, The reality is most women, if raped, either say nothing because they can’t bring themselves to, or they bring charges, or in some cases (I’m guessing Kira might be woman) will make a reference to a past rape without named details, and say why they didn’t report it. What they don’t do is make accusations publicly about someone specific without attempting to bring charges.

        As I said to you before, chat to people in Indian country about LBW. You’re very keen to crticise Russell Means, if you’re so keen to know the reality of people, ask around about LBW. It’s all out there, you don’t have to look far.

      • Isobel-I, and most people I believe, only “know well” those they have some level
        of respect for-since I had none for Russell and have none for his cronies I have
        never been interested in exchanging friendship rings or Valentine cards with them.
        I’m not an expert on rape and make no pretense to be, but the fact that both
        my mother and sister were raped I feel a certain qualification in being able
        to comment about it, and take exception to any who would imply I don’t.
        Notwithstanding that it is something all men with an ounce of character should
        be vocal about-something neither Russell or Banks made the effort to-and while
        in the midst of pointing out others issues to co opt for publicity, donations,
        and appearance fees I think that speaks to a multitude of things-something you as
        a woman should take exception to.
        I “chat” with people from several different nations daily,in real time face to face,
        and via email- they aren’t grieving, or heaping praise-maybe if you broaden your
        conversational pool you’ll begin to see the larger picture.

      • Isobel-I, and most people I believe, only “know well” those they have some level
        of respect for-since I had none for Russell and have none for his cronies I have
        never been interested in exchanging friendship rings or Valentine cards with them.
        I’m not an expert on rape and make no pretense to be, but the fact that both
        my mother and sister were raped I feel a certain qualification in being able
        to comment about it, and take exception to any who would imply I don’t.
        Notwithstanding that it is something all men with an ounce of character should
        be vocal about-something neither Russell or Banks made the effort to-and while
        in the midst of pointing out others issues to co opt for publicity, donations,
        and appearance fees I think that speaks to a multitude of things-something you as
        a woman should take exception to.
        I “chat” with people from several different nations daily,in real time face to face,
        and via email- they aren’t grieving, or heaping praise-maybe if you broaden your
        conversational pool you’ll begin to see the larger picture.
        ———-

        Sorry, I’m a little confused here. So what you’re trying to say here is, you didn’t know him then? I take it. And I can assure you given that you have no interest in truth, from what you write here, and only interets in propaganda, Russell would not have wasted time talking to you.

        So then, your assessment of how he felt,thought and was is based on — nothing ????? But rumour.

        I have the slight advantage over you here, I knew him well. I knew his consolation when my mother went into dementia (and before you make any cynical, disgusting assumptions, no sex was not involved).

        I knew his humour, I knew his kindess, I knew his bitterness about Indian hisotry.

        That is the problem you see – I kneew him. You know bigotry and lies.

        Good luck to you with that. I can tell from your comments you are none too bright. I am mourning a man I loved early for many years, not in a sexual way.

        Does that surprise you then; does it surprise it you that Russell coluld talk to a woman for no other reason than warmth, for 8 solid hours. No sex, no money, no publicity. And I don’t ev en like saying it to you because you are a disgusting and twisted, but I’ll say it to defend him

        He would spend hours and hours and hours talking for no reason other than because he cared about things. Going back over decades

      • Isobel-
        “He would spend hours and hours and hours talking for no reason other than because
        he cared about things. Going back over decades”

        Not to mention being enamored with the sound of his own voice, and an audience large
        or small.
        I think I’ve pretty much covered this response in replies I’ve made to others of yours,
        and as I said, you have little in the way of rebuttal so now for you it becomes about
        insults.
        If that’s what works for you and somehow makes you feel better then feel free to do so.

      • rezinate on October 31, 2012 at 2:54 pm said:

        Isobel-I, and most people I believe, only “know well” those they have some level
        of respect for-since I had none for Russell and have none for his cronies I have
        never been interested in exchanging friendship rings or Valentine cards with them.
        I’m not an expert on rape and make no pretense to be, but the fact that both
        my mother and sister were raped I feel a certain qualification in being able
        to comment about it, and take exception to any who would imply I don’t.
        Notwithstanding that it is something all men with an ounce of character should
        be vocal about-something neither Russell or Banks made the effort to-and while
        in the midst of pointing out others issues to co opt for publicity, donations,
        and appearance fees I think that speaks to a multitude of things-something you as
        a woman should take exception to.
        I “chat” with people from several different nations daily,in real time face to face,
        and via email- they aren’t grieving, or heaping praise-maybe if you broaden your
        conversational pool you’ll begin to see the larger picture.
        ———-

        You’re so right, you’re not an expert on rape and I feel deeply sorry for your mother and sister, but that does not mean you know what happened in 1972.

        I never say this publicly, in all my life I haven’t, but I’m saying it now, I know what it is like to be raped. And I’m not saying more than that. So don’t tell me you feel a qualification, I feel a better one.

        I know masses of people in Indian country who denigrate Russell Means, and I know masses who don’t denigrate him.

        However this is a specific rape allegation, so what peoploe think or don’t think about Russell Means is not the point,. The veracity of the allegation is.

        I notice you are very good at ducking and diving,. yet you criticise AIM

      • Isobel-I regret your experience, if possible I would undo it for you
        and every woman. But since that isn’t possible and it is the lack of
        men taking a proactive stance against rape that contributes to it I
        will continue to address the issue when and where it arises.
        By your admission you know “masses” of people in ndn country who
        denigrate Means. I do as well but in having made this statement
        I would ask do you consider this mass of people to be bigots and
        haters?

        “However this is a specific rape allegation, so what people think or don’t
        think about Russell Means is not the point,the veracity of the allegation is.”

        One could assume in these words that what you think about Russell likewise
        isn’t the point. And if opinions are irrelevant then everything is a moot
        point isn’t it?
        Russell and AIM have a verifiable history-their positions and lies on WK2,
        the murders of Annie and Ray, ad infinitum, maybe in the AIM world such things
        don’t matter, but do in the real world.
        If you would like see examples of ducking and diving pay a visit to the Peltier
        site,any pro AIM site, or your comments in this blog.

      • Isobel-
        “He would spend hours and hours and hours talking for no reason other than because he cared
        about things. Going back over decades”

        Not to mention being enamored with the sound of his own voice, and an audience large or small.
        I think I’ve pretty much covered this response in replies I’ve made to others of yours- and
        as I said, you have little in the way of rebuttal so now for you it becomes about insults.
        If that’s what works for you and somehow makes you feel better then feel free to do so.

        ———————–
        You are a really vicious piece of work aren’t you? Perhaps instead of spending so much time trying to demolish Russell and describe what he was like, without knowing him as you stated yesterday, you might try looking inwardly,

        When 2 people chat it is not one person being ‘enamoured with the sound of his voice’, it is 1 person saying something, then the other person, the 1 person saying something, then the other person replying. It’s called ‘conversation’. This can apply of course to more than 2 people at a time, but I am just explaining to you what it is as you don’t seem to understand.

        I have said ‘little in the way of rebuttal so … becomes about insults’. Irony, much. This is a topic accusing a dead man of rape and you decide to convict him as guilty, without trial. I think the topic started off about insults didn’t it.

        Now I am trying to stay polite here but ‘little in way of rebuttal’ considering everything I have said in rebuttal is scarcely worth dignifying with response. I pointed out to you that your argument that Ms Dupree’s reason for not bringing charges might be the shame that women feel about in talking about rape; she is all over the internet talking about it as much as possible, most woman would prefer to go privately to talk about it to the appropriate criminal justice organisation.

        You also suggested that fear of intimidation might have prevented her reporting it; she has no fear talking about it openly in public, as she has been busy demonstrating. Doesn’t strike me she is afraid of intimidation.

        I could go on but have already made the points before. Your views could be summed up as ‘I hate Russell Means without actually having known him, so I love it when people make allegations about him, regardless of whether or they are substantiated’.

      • “I have said ‘little in the way of rebuttal so … becomes about insults’. Irony, much.
        This is a topic accusing a dead man of rape and you decide to convict him as guilty,
        without trial. I think the topic started off about insults didn’t it.”
        Perhaps you would care to cite where I have specifically said Russell Means raped anyone?
        And I’m seriously beginning to doubt you actually knew Russell, as in spending countless
        hours in his physical presence “chatting”-if you had of you would know full well that he
        indeed did love the sound of his own voice and never missed an opportunity to pleasure
        himself with it.
        Chat is something of a give away Isobel- a word favored by Brits re my question to you
        if you are a UK resident, and also one most often used as descriptive of “chatting” via
        services offered by various browsers and sites.
        Curiosity leads me to ask if you supported Russell’s various “projects” through donations?
        Personal question perhaps, and you may prefer not to reply.

      • on October 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm said:
        Isobel-I regret your experience, if possible I would undo for it and
        every woman. But since that isn’t possible and it is the lack of men
        taking a proactive stance against rape that contributes to it I will
        continue to address the issue when and where it arises.
        By your admission you know “masses” of people in ndn country who
        denigrate Means. I do as well but in having made this statement
        I would ask do you consider this mass of people to be bigots and
        haters?

        “However this is a specific rape allegation, so what peoploe think or don’t
        think about Russell Means is not the point,. The veracity of the allegation is.”

        One could assume in these words that what you think about Russell likewise
        isn’t the point. And if opinions are irrelevant then everything is a moot
        point isn’t it?
        Russell and AIM have a verifiable history-their positions and lies on WK2,
        the murders of Annie and Ray, ad infinitum, maybe in the AIM world such things
        don’t matter, but do in the real world.
        If you would like see examples of ducking and diving pay a visit to the Peltier
        site,and pro AIM site, or your comments in this blog.

        ———————–

        Addressing the issue is great, immediately believing unsubstantiated allegations is not great.

        It was not ‘an admission’, there are people in Indian country who think very highly of Russell Means and there are people in Indian country who felt AIM was too violent, or who turned against him later. No I don’t consider them bigots and haters, they are entitled to their opinion as we all are.
        You, on the other hand, reveal yourself to be a bigot and a hater. You also consider yourself an authority on the character and personality of a man you’ve stated you didn’t know.

        My point is it doesn’t matter whether people like Russell Means or not, in terms of this allegation. What matters is that an unsubstantiated allegation has been made and so he has been found ‘guilty’ without charge, or trial.

        I haven’t ducked and dived anything thank you, I’ve responded. You are a twister, as well as a bigot and a hater. Perhaps you could point me to where I ducked and dived.

      • Isobel I believe prime examples of you ducking and diving exist in every response
        you have made-you’re sole course is to either mitigate or deny anything that
        Russell did you believe taints the crafted image-a lot like another who has
        commented here regarding Peltier who can’t seem to bring themselves to even allow
        that he like other men put his pants on one leg at a time.

  5. I am currently reading this book: “American
    Indian
    Mafia”
    & I have memories of fear, in MPLS when we were at the NDN center, & these guys would roll on through. Their carbon footprints are still all over the Reservations in MN and the Dakota’s, where drugs are rampant, and gangsters running many ragged.
    Thank you for your courage to speak the truth, and integrity of your timing…

    • auntiej5- I have a few memories of MPLS and the ndn center as well-none of them good due
      to the singular fact of AIM’s presence and influence in what they consider their personal
      fiefdom.

  6. By the way, here is a little bit of food for thought about your best girl. http://www.newagefraud.org › NAFPS Forum › General › Frauds
    This is not AIM propaganda incidentally; the same kind of comments are all over Indian country verbally, so I thought somewhere, there will be something online saying the same. There is probably more but I haven’t taken the time to find it yet.

    • Sometimes Isobel comments wind up in the spam folder which I’m not in the habit of
      checking everytime I sign in, sometimes when sending something to the trash bin
      another will accompany it–sorry for any angst or glee that have caused you, here’s
      your commment, hopefully it doesn’t dash any conspiracy theories you may be embracing.
      Usually when I infrequently view NAFPS and a comment catches my eye I then look
      around a little in other places to see what the person who made the comment is
      about-you might consider doing so as well-unless you’re one of those people whose
      interest lies in promoting only what you believe substantiates your position.
      But before you attempt to construe anything to your advantage you should understand
      I, like LPDOC, the RoL forum, or any other site have no obligation to post a
      single comment made by you.
      A characteristic of AIM pawns has been to assume they can go anywhere and say anything
      they like, that they own the net-that isn’t true in the day to day and it isn’t true
      here.
      In your zealotry have you attempted to address your issues on LBWs site for instance,
      or do you confine them here? I think LBW is the greater authority on her life
      experiences than I.

      • I said to you before, if you ask anywhere in Indian country this woman is known.It’s not specific to one forum I believe someone else on rezinate pointed that out to you.

        I’m not an ‘AIM pawn’ thanks, (conspiracy theory, seem to recall you mentioned, pot calling kettle).

        I don’t wish to discuss anything with LBW however I am in the process of looking into the relevant dates on the Trail of Broken Treaties, with people who tell the truth.

        I asked LBW why she did not report the alleged rape at any time after, I know she mentioned her father. She didn’t respond. Since she reposted her blog here, it was reasonable to ask her here.

        Incidentally, you state here is my comment including the link to the New Age Fraud sites; where, I don’t see it.

      • Isobel- a growing number of comments to look through-your referenced comment is
        there-you’ll just have to look for it.
        You’ve gone for the the AIM tales hook, line, and sinker, and then repeat them.
        Since they lack validity and you’re not willing to address question regarding
        Russell’s responses to Annie’s murder that does indeed make you a pawn.

      • You’re evading the points I’m making because you can’t answer them because they are valid. You’ve got no answers.

    • Sorry it is here, didn’t see that when I posted just now couldn’t see it but was looking below your post not above.

      so you checked up on the background of every single person who posted on that forum and know their views aren’t valid. Interesting. have you tried asking around in Indian country?

      • Isobel-kind of extrapolating aren’t you-don’t see where I said
        I check on “every single person”.
        “have you tried asking around in Indian country?”
        That’s rich seeing that I live in ndn country-also wasn’t
        aware that they have a rez in the UK where you apparently
        gather all your info.

  7. I thought the New Age Fraud link was on the other topic but see I posted it here, and it is still awaiting moderation although other comments written at the same time have appeared.

    Perhaps you would care to cite where I have specifically said Russell Means raped anyone?

    ‘I did not report the rape by Means, because the rape was to insight revenge & rage in my Father, who had been passed the Cannunpa by FFC in 1971,’

    is the first line of a blog by Dupree which appears on your site, here, above. That suggests you are agreeing he raped her as you have allowed the unsubstantiated allegation to appear on your website.

    Also, in several posts to me, you made the claim that the reason she did not report this rape might be due to the shame women can feel following sexual attack; a somewhat spurious claim given that she is all over the internet talking about it everywhere she can, it seems.

    Additionally you wrote that it might be fear of AIM intimidation if she reported it; apparently she doesn’t feel that fear when writing it here, there and everywhere on the internet.

    But your comments and responses imply you are agreeing with her allegation, and as I said, you have allowed her unsubtantiated accusation to appear above.

    • One of your other comments re the alleged rape :
      rezinate
      on October 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm said:
      Isobel- I think what is being overlooked is that despite women being victims they
      often have a sense of shame-add to that the fact that there are always others
      who will say they “asked for it” and it becomes even more difficult.
      In addition to that factor AIM’s well established history of violence and intimidation
      and the stakes are raised.

      ———–

      Russell may not be here to answer as you say-but he certainly had ample
      opportunity to in the past and studiously avoided doing so.’
      ——————————————

      I answered that previously If the allegation had come from a source regarded as serious and who people were inclined to believe, I imagine he would have felt the need to respond.

      However responding to an allegation of that kind acknolwedges it and gives it credibility. The majority of woman do not make accusations through the media or internet forums, they go to the appropriate criminal justice dept. Then the matter can be properly investigated.

      What would have happened if he had denied it; she would have said he was lying.

      However my point about this is that once again, you implied you were believing an unsubstantiated allegation.

      I would agree with you though that most women who have been raped have a sense of shame and degradation, it is hard to talk about and most find it difficult even just describing in interview to the police. Ms Dupree though, appears to find it very easy to talk all over the internet about an alleged rape allegedly witnessed by 18 people, which would add to the feelng of shame and degradation it might be thought, and make it even more difficult to talk about than a rape involving one person and no witnesses.

      Think about it.

      • Yes Isobel -you have responded in accordance with your opinions, but assuming they are
        anything more than your opinions is an act of faith wouldn’t you say?
        If we are to focus on “implications” then yours have singularly been that LBW is lying-
        I wonder, does that border on libelous?
        And as in being “easy to talk all over the internet” seems you find that to be that
        way of it doesn’t it? Think about that.

      • You have got to be kidding. She makes an unsubstantiated rape claim without having reported it to the police. Sorry, if she had been to court and he had been found guilty and I said she was lying, libel, whether the finding was right or not. She is just making accusations over the internet having failed to bring a case and therefore failed to give him the opportunity for appropriate investigation of her claim and appropriate defence for him.

      • Isobel-since she’s been doing this for years one might assume a purpose, if not the
        purpose, was to solicit a legal response, was to have it addressed in court. I
        can’t speak to motivation but consider that to be a possibility.
        If so, and if her allegations are true then the next step to ask is why no one
        ever called her out-not so much as a whimper of denial.

      • I already said to you, going around making accusations is not a normal course of action for a rape victim and trying to blame the accused for not responding is absurd. If she had wanted the accusation taken seriously she ought to have taken it through the appropriate legal channels.

    • Isobel-I’ve also allowed your unsubstantiated opinions to appear-I haven’t a single
      reason to doubt LBW, while there exists a myriad of reasons to doubt anything
      emanating from the AIM camp and it’s hierarchy-too bad if either you or they don’t
      like.
      On the other hand it’s more than obvious you take the opposite approach-if you think
      my positions are singular take a look around the net-take a look at some of the
      recommended sites.

      • You haven’t a single reason to doubt LBW so you believe an unsubstantiated rape claim, which she never took to court, without consulting anyone else who was there at the time, I take it.

        By that token no one would have a criminal justice system, someone could just say ‘I don’t have any reason to doubt he did what she said he did, let’s just forget the trial altogether and lock him up for it’.

      • Isobel -doubts are usually the product of having caught someone in
        a lie(s), which Russell has been numerous times. So far I haven’t
        seen anyone be able to factually repudiate LBW’s claims-lot of
        howling and wailing, insults, etc such as you are doing, but that
        seems to be the extent of it.
        In my opinion there are multiple reasons why the entire AIM
        hierarchy should be locked up-by all means let them all their
        day in court.
        And I’ll echo John Trudell’s words related to that when he said
        “let’s drag them all into court and get to the bottom of this”
        when speaking in reference to the murder of Annie Mae.
        Wonder if he talked to people in ndn country as you ask?

      • rezinate
        on November 2, 2012 at 3:39 pm said:
        Isobel-I’ve also allowed your unsubstantiated opinions to appear-I haven’t a single
        reason to doubt LBW, while there exists a myriad of reasons to doubt anything
        emanating from the AIM camp and it’s hierarchy-too bad if either you or they don’t
        like.
        On the other hand it’s more than obvious you take the opposite approach-if you think
        my positions are singular take a look around the net-take a look at some of the
        recommended sites.

        ——————————-
        Re your odd question, given the accusations that appear on the site, as to where ‘Perhaps you would care to cite where I have specifically said Russell Means raped anyone?’

        There you go, you just said it again Nov 2 3.39 pm. You have no reason to doubt LBW. But you have no proof or knowledge she is telling the truth either do you, so you just believe an unsubstantiated allegation because it suits your anti Russell Means stance.

        Of course he cannot be libeled, and even if he had been, very difficult for him to deny the allegation successfully after so many years. And she never gave him the opportunity for appropriate investigation via criminal justice system and court finding; as I said previously, I wonder why.

        However, as she did not bring the matter to court, but raised it publicly in an unsubstantiated allegation, and has continued to do that immediately following his death, while there is no evidence or confirmation of what occurred, I would think Russell’s relatives have every right to bring a damages case for the pain she will have caused them.

        if she wanted to accuse him, she should have done it appropriately and not having done that, it was appalling to raise it again immediately after his death.

      • Isobel-just for the record I’ll say again I have no reason to doubt
        LBW re my previous comment that doubts arise when a person has been
        shown to lie-as Russell was noted for-so far I haven’t seen that with
        LBW.
        If I were to I wouldn’t hesitate to say so.
        You’re becoming redundant-dig a little deeper and see if you can present
        something new….even some measure of the truth would be refreshing.

      • You’re ingoring the facts, one of which being there is no plausible explanation as to why she did not bring charges, if there was such an attack. Having had descriptions of the Trail, and of Russell on it from other people, I think it highly unlijkely that those people, committed as they were to the issues they were raising, would calmly sit round and view a rape. Which is a separate issue from my belief he didn’t do it; they also would not have viewed it, in my opinion.

        I also thought of a logic lapse by LBW; according to her, she decided that the alleged rape took place because AIM wanted to kill her father, so if he raped her, her father would attack him, then AIM could kill her father.

        But according to her view of AIM, and yours, they were so murderous if they wanted to kill someone they just did. In other words, if they wanted to kill her father, they would have done.

        I could, and will for Russell’s sake, go through the whole of her history and make points about it.

        He was not a saint and did not pretend but this outright series of his attacks since his death hurling accusations is truly despicable.

      • It’s interesting rezinate, you say let the AIM leaders have their day in court. Too late for Russell and he was never afforded the opportunity by LBW because of the way she presented her accusations.

        How many rape cases can you think of where, instead of reporting a rape formally, a woman just talks about it all over the internet.

  8. And I don’t care what you seriously begin to doubt, strangely I do not feel the need to prove anything to you. Given what you seriously begin to believe it, your doubts don’t have much validity.

    My point in saying he talked for hours was that you’ve implied, or stated perhaps would be more accurate, that he talked for effect, was not sincere in what he thought and felt when he expressed views on issues. I could get the specific quotes but am not going to. So I was trying to illustrate that he was.

    I should have realised of course, you would twist it all over the place.

    By the time I wrote ‘chat’ incidentally I had already been writing on the forum for several days, in UK English/spelling. I didn’t really think ‘chat’ needed to give it away; many Americans can recongise a Brit from their ‘turn of phrase’ in writing anyway.

    ‘Ducking and diving’ is not the same as pointing out allegations are unsubstantiated, and that they are dubious.

    • Isobel- perhaps equally as strange I don’t feel the need to prove anything to
      you, neither do I think that in reading a few books or visiting sites from
      afar qualifies you as any sort of an expert- a growing phenomena it seems,
      and in my opinion makes your opinions “dubious” at best.
      We’ve been told on this blog that UK courts have a certain superiority,
      until that was addressed and a reverse statement was forthcoming following
      several examples that were cited.
      Now it seems that we are to believe UK opinions are superior-sorry, but I
      believe our history and the history of this country in what is referred to
      as the Revolutionary War speak to differing opinions.
      So you’ve elected to forgo answering whether you have “donated” to various
      “projects” authored by Russell, and all you have is “chat” time,never lived
      among the nations, and I doubt ever set foot on a rez-a little nebulous wouldn’t
      you say?
      Europe and Japan are the new money pots to milk by AIM and people like Crow
      Dog, what with “Indianists” and their desire to participate in the “sacred
      knowledge” it has become a go to.
      The reason for that is the awareness of the truth in this country and the lack
      of it abroad-it’s really that simple.
      So I’ll ask a simple question-at one point when the heat was being brought in
      1999 by Robert Branscombe Russell hurried commandeered a press conference Branscombe
      had set up to say that despite the fact that the call to murder Annie went to his
      brothers lo and behold his brother was sleeping during said call and innocent as a
      lamb of Annie complicity.
      Attempting to shift attention away from that he accused Vernon Bellecourt of being
      the mastermind, and only decades later had been made aware of that by hearing women
      talk about it.
      So here we have a Crazy Horse wannabe- a “leader” who for decades was totally
      unaware of something that had been raging back and forth across ndn country-if you
      buy into that then you are indeed AIM material.
      Fast forward another decade or two and Russell announces that yes he does know who
      was behind it but gave his “word” not to speak of to until such time as they had
      PASSED AWAY.
      Couldn’t have been Vernon them could it as he was already gone? Another Brit has
      attempted to explain this all away by saying Russell and Vernon didn’t get along. What
      does that mean then, that the great pontificator out of spite was willing to accuse
      Vernon? If so that speaks to a level of “libel” and pettiness beyond the pale doesn’t it?
      And can only lead to one conclusion-either Russell lied when accusing Vernon or lied
      when he said the infamous keeping his word line until such person had passed on?
      With your enlightened self and keen insights how do you explain this-how do you explain
      a person who lived their entire life guided by the principles of patriarchy could
      present themselves as a champion and spokesperson for matriarchy?
      Do you need time to fashion an answer, maybe consult with Lizzie?
      Steel yourself and read Hostage Voices of Wounded Knee-then come back and spin that
      as well.
      In the eighties in one his frequent retirements Russell said AIM had worked itself
      out of job-had accomplished all it set out to and opportunities existed for our
      people in every strata of society- kind of makes one wonder how many neurons were
      misfiring doesn’t it? I’m sure you have an explanation though.

      • I’m not going to be manipulated into answering questions about what I have done, etc. That is not the point of being here. You have serious unsubstantiated criminal allegations about someone who has just died on your site. I was commenting on those, not getting drawn into answering lengthy questions on poor Anna Mae Aquash’s death.

        And I don’t know ‘Lizzie’ (?)

      • Isobel-oh contrare, contrare-no discussion of anything AIM can be compartmentalized
        into a single issue, as they have a rich history of criminal activity that they will
        forever be linked to.
        You choose while electing to defend Russell to avoid answering the questions re
        Annie and his public behavior regarding that for a single reason-it places you
        in a position where you cannot avoid admitting exactly what it is, and acknowledge
        it was indefensible-that in itself is an answer that speaks volumes.
        As I said when asking if you had donated to various “projects” Russell promoted it
        might be a question you choose not to answer-that too is an answer one could say
        follows the same course you attempt to use as a defense about why Russell didn’t
        respond to allegations-kind of that fifth amendment thing they are all so famous for.
        You might consider forgoing further comments in this blog as as your defense attempts
        aren’t doing too well.

  9. I’m not replying to that, because you keep on failing to answer the points I’m raising about this rape allegation because you can’t, so you’re doing your twistgin thing again.

    It is totally ridiculous to say Russell was using a fifth amendment thing to respond to the allegations. He wasn’t in court that is the point, she did not make the allegations in a serious of appropriate way. And as I said before, why. Because she was removing the appropriate legal process from him in order just to accuse him without his legal defence responding, would be the obvious conclusion to draw.

  10. Yes I read it. I believe your arguments are getting even more lame, strange I didn’t think that was possible.

      • Except that you keep twisting, avoiding answering logical points because you can’t, and come up with feeble responses like the one above because you can’t think of anything else to say.

        So far you have denied specifically that Russell Means raped anyone while simultaneously allowing a blog saying ‘I did not report the rape by Means’ and then agreeing with it, plus saying you have no reason to disbelieve LBW.

        The truth is you want to believe her because it suits your agenda, evidently, regardless of their being no evidence or proof. Or anyone else saying it.

      • The truth is you don’t want to believe her because you have a specific agenda,
        if that weren’t so you’d be thinking about and addressing Helene’s and Mary’s
        comments and links that really puts your whole position between a rock and
        a hard spot.
        Guess you think it’s easier to argue with a man about rape than women.
        Show me where I “denied specifically that Russell Means raped anyone”-not
        your spin or twist, but specifically word for word.

  11. Since we’re talking about spin and twist what I had made clear earlier and mistype yesterday was that you denied saying specifically that Russell Means raped anyone. I missed out saying I see from yesterday’s post, but had made it clear before in earlier posts.

    You denied that you had said he raped anyone when, as stated above, you clearly had.

    My ‘specific agenda’ is that I am distressed by the death of someone for whom I had great affection as a person. And it was distressing seeing all the attacks on him here immediately following his death.

    Plus, there are numerous reasons to question LBW’s story but you choose to believe her regardless. I’d say it’s because it suits your agenda.

    • Isobel-well you’ve certainly made your “agenda” clear-and that is defend,
      deny, and avoid, each and every aspect is that is neither defensible,
      or avoidable-and for the singularly selfish reason that you are
      “distressed”.
      Death grants an obvious legal immunity, so this accusation of rape
      is beyond the legal realm-but as I said, and if you have taken the
      trouble to look around it is an accusation that comes with a measure
      of longevity-it isn’t new-and it like countless other accusations
      Russell, Banks, etal have thought silence and not addressing them
      served them better than doing so.
      People will rightfully draw their own conclusions based on that, but
      I don’t believe silence in the face of accusations is a defense or
      taking the high road, I think it is calculated.

  12. You have completely failed to reply to the points I raised about this allegation, as well as implying you thought the alleged incident was on a reservation.

    ‘Death grants an obvious legal immunity’ – HELLO???? She had 40 years – FORTY – to bring charges, plenty of time to avoid the inconvenience of death granting immunity, dontcha think?

    Death also grants an obvious avoidance of accusations of libel, and don’t you know it, the way you are laying into him.

    I’d think twice before you start attempting of libel of Banks though, he is still around. Oh too late, you’ve already done it.

    One of the reaons Russell didn’t respond to many accusations was simply that he ignored them, he got non stop insults from some quarters and they weren’t worth responding to. Plus if this woman wanted to bring charges, she could have brought them. Instead of that she decided to go round the internet hurling accusations. As I said before, how many rape victims do that. He wasn’t obliged to respond and as I said to you beforer, if he had done she would no doubt have said he was lying. I didn’t even know she’d said it before I saw it on here, I don’t pay any attention to her generally.

    • Isobel-have you coiffed your hair today into a mohawk? Your “arguments” are
      what are referred to as being of the strawman variety.
      You rely on what you say is “one” reason that Russell chose to ignore
      many accusations because he didn’t they merited a response and wasn’t obliged
      to respond-then following these statements and your characterization of lBW
      as lying you say she hasn’t responded to you as though you believe she unlike
      Russell is required to.
      Would you call this a double standard or a feeble attempt to gain some
      wiggle room?
      LBW has been “hurling” these accusations for a number of years-at some
      point if they were libelous one would think they would have been addressed
      as such wouldn’t one?
      I never fail to be amused how the defenders always attempt to portray their
      defenses in the light of libel, haters, and twisted people.
      You’ve learned well.
      There isn’t a single “point” you’ve made that hasn’t been addressed, to admit
      that though leaves fewer “points” to make, so I understand the quandry you
      find yourself in-but it’s that Chicken Little approach, and we all now the
      sky isn’t falling.

  13. I think you’re confused here. LBW was the accuser,Russell was not obliged to respond to wild accusations made without foundation,for which she never brought criminal charges.

    You twist everything so here you go again: distressed”.
    ‘Death grants an obvious legal immunity, so this accusation of rape
    is beyond the legal realm-but as I said, and if you have taken the
    trouble to look around it is an accusation that comes with a measure
    of longevity-it isn’t new-and it like countless other accusations’

    ——
    Problem being for you though,she never brought charges in the time she could did she. And now you are pathetically trying to defend that position saying he should have responded to her freakish internet accusations.

    She made the accusations,so if asked why she didn’t bring charges in all those years, she could have responded. But she didn’t. I wonder why.

    There isn’t a single point I’ve made that needs to be responded to; really,look at the points I’ve made you haven’t answered. Why? Because your original argument has no validity, so you resort to trying to twist (again). You are really sad, desperate to pin anything on a man you didn’t know,have virtually no knowledge of and believe anything derogatory said about him because you want to.

    Have you any idea how pathetic you look

    • I suppose you won’t even allow the possibility that Means failed to
      address not only this accusation but a truck load of them thinking
      that if he did the ensuing publicity would completely knock the legs
      out of his BS matriarchy advocacy and potentially lead others to
      step forward and validate them?
      Such a closed mind is what defines pathetic Isobel. Your “knowledge,
      such as it is and pathetic in itself, consists solely of what a man
      referred to as Hustler has told you-brilliant.

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