1. So what is the point of this whole challenge? Are you trying to defend Price? Do you believe him to be the “innocent school librarian type,” that Demain painted him as ? What do you believe? Do you think Price threatened Annie Mae and said that “she’d be dead within a year,” if she didn’t cooperate or not? If I remember right when this first came out I dug out a testimony from Trudell where he said under oath that Annie Mae told him about the “dead within a year,” threat that Price made against her. Do you believe him? Do you think that Price ultimately played a roll in her death? Do you believe, that as the FBI is known to do, that he pulled strings behind the scene to, “make it happen?” Do you believe that Price committed perjury when he denied making the threat in court? Why do you defend Mr. Ed and let him off the hook? Do you believe him to be complicit in the OCK Bombing cover up?

    • The “point” is something you are apparently incapable or unwilling to understand.
      If it’s all about a hunt for the truth then there’s no place for spinning a single
      word or event is there?
      If the perception is a reason exists to do so the logical and perhaps singular
      conclusion that can be drawn from that is there is something to hide.
      Personally I believe innocence was a rare commodity held by a very few related to
      the issues this blog addresses,an innocence neither AIM nor the feds can claim,
      and it’s a little difficult to wade through the various statements Trudell has made.
      One of which when speaking of Annie’s murder was everybody should be rounded up and
      dragged in – his emphasis was on AIM – do you agree with him? I most certainly do,
      and that is the core of everything I have said throughout this blog.
      You say Price denied making a “threat” in court – Claypoole says he admitted it and
      goes on about the transcripts as though they verify her claim.
      This is the very thing I’m talking about and challenging – the inability of a mere
      two “defenders” to keep the story straight, the desire to spin it and throw out whatever
      they think will validate their cause hoping it sticks. Do you think that’s necessary
      if what is being told in the AIM version is the truth?
      It amounts to nothing more than a propaganda effort whose sole purpose is to run
      interference and protect.
      How much of a high value target do you think Annie would have been considered as? More
      than a single member of the leadership? Why her instead of one of them? Take the AIM
      drone dunce cap off and think about it.
      If she was a “snitch” like your boy Crow Dog and others claimed why would the feds
      kill her rather than do the DeLuca/Blackhorse relocation thing? Do you think Crow
      Dogs labeling her as a snitch influenced the decision to murder her, and if so then
      what level of complicity would you say he bears? Do you think following Peltier’s boasting of having “shot the m’fer” to Annie the perception was she posed a threat influenced as well? If so does that translate to some complicity on Peltier’s behalf?
      How many “strings” do you think Banks pulled to make people disappear? He certainly
      pulled Chris Westerman’s strings to dispose of Ray Robinson’s body didn’t he? Would
      you call that complicit?
      As far as role playing in the murders AIM committed anyone who has knowledge and failed
      to step forward played a role – anyone with any degree of physical involvement played a
      role, and the convicted shooter John Graham bears the majority responsibility, his finger
      on the trigger regardless of any attempt to spin it.
      In view of the manner in which power and the decision making process was in the hands
      of a very few it would have been an absolute impossibility for Theda, Graham, and
      Arlo to take it upon themselves to hatch and carry out a plot to abduct and murder
      Incovenient truths for you and others are statements made by Means that NOTHING AIM
      related could occur on PR without his consent, or that Banks could “make people disappear”.
      So are you suggesting that Theda, Graham, and Arlo circumvented that as pawns of the feds?
      If not then are you saying that a person or persons in the AIM leadership were pawns or
      the actual “provocateur”? That they did the bidding of the Feds? If so you’ll have to be
      careful as that lends itself to my contention that one or more of them were snitches as it
      served their best interests.
      Or are you in view of Means statement inferring that he knew of the “fed plot” to kill
      Annie and earlier the “invasion” of Jumping Bull and okayed both? Does that mean that among
      the leadership at least Means “played a role” in Annie’s murder?
      You can call my focus on pointing out propaganda as opposed to fact whatever you like,
      doesn’t alter the reality one iota though – you and your cohorts should try it some time.
      OKC as you well know hasn’t a damn thing to do with events this blog addresses and it
      speaks volumes of your inability and unwillingness to address the questions and issues
      this blog raises by constantly attempting to redirect attention away from them.
      I don’t need to “defend” Woods or anyone else, I’m only interested in defending the truth,
      and that is what separates you and I.
      The larger question is why do you attempt to defend anyone and anything associated with AIM
      inspite of their murderous and gluttonous history?
      Now do your tap dance, avoid the questions, and drone on in your dutiful desperation about
      something, anything, other than what this comment is about.

  2. My sister read this part 2 and started to dance and sing the song and
    another one bites the dust, and this is true.
    We laugh to at this tap dance the silent bear dos and know the reason for this.

  3. Silent Bear, you ask a legitimate question. ANd as you can see, you won’t get a clear, reasonable answer. Only more anti AIM rhetoric, defending of the U.S. Government and their Cointelpro tactics against AIM, which ARE fact and clearly documented in FOIA documents from the FBI, released over the years.

    Fact is, your original post, “rez” attacked me for using the word “Feel”. When I refuted your pot stirring stew as burnt on the bottom, e.g. I had only stated I “felt” something was a fact, NOT presenting feelings as fact, you now quotean entirely DIFFERENT passage from my writings. BUt I can roll with this. I have seen much worse in my life. Silent Bear, the reason for these posts is simple: it is n an effort invalidate my work, my writings, my credibility. These same old and tired attacks have come at me since I refused to write the party line of hate against AIM and it’s leaders (including John Trudell) back in the late 1990’s, right as my first book was released. I was sent threats, my publishers, death threats, radio producers, death threats. And then packets of information which was anti AIM, told to stop writing what I saw/reported, and change my position. To write hate against AIM and people who had become my friends. Nope. I wouldn’t because the info they sent was twisted, lies. Manipulated. When I still would not “co operate” well. The campaign to slander me arrived. Full on with pulled down websites, etc etc. It was the ” Let’s just call her a bad writer, a bad reporter, and invalidate anything she writes”. That was all a long time ago. But apparently became the strategy “rez” has picked up, taking up where the Feds (yes) left off. And of course I have learned to roll with it, because I know what I have written is what I found, I researched, authenticated, interviewing folks and simply providing information as I gathered it. I never answer to anyone, and never will.

    Per Price making death threats against Annie Mae Aquash. That is a FACT. Entered into testimony by Trudell himself in the Peltier trial (happy 70th birthday, Leonard), and Price never ever refuted the threat. And of course it is found in various FBI documents. Simple, fact. All the spinning and name calling, does not change facts.

    Anna Mae Aquash had her life threatened, more than once, by the Federal Government. Christ. If they threaten my life, and i am just a simple writer reporting what I see/saw, doing interviews of various AIM folks. Well hell, of course they threatened her life. They wanted Annie Mae to co operate, and be a snitch. She would not. THey threatened to kill her. She STILL would not co operate with the FBI, Cointelpro. And she was found dead. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Nor does it take a blogger’s rodeo show. To see, the truth.

    Sending her spirit, her family. Peace. In all this. That history tells the right story about why she died. And who threatened her life. The story is complex, and she deserves her rightful place in history. That she would not work with the FBI, (fact), that her life was threatened by them because she would not “snitch” out AIM (fact), we learn how brave, how full of resolve Anna Mae Aquash was.

    • All the spinning doesn’t alter the fact that you only qualified your
      initial statement after it was challenged, then and only then did it
      segue into “it felt like”.
      If you would take issue with the words felt and feel perhaps you could
      explain the difference – I always assumed if a person “felt” something
      that was conjoined with and an expression of a feeling – but since English
      isn’t my first language as it is yours perhaps you are more familiar with
      how readily it lends itself to manipulation and nuance and something of an
      Here again are your exact words- a flat out assertion that Price admitted it,
      nothing about felt or feel, nothing about some ephemeral poetic license writers
      are privy to.
      Looking to align with SB is hardly a strategic move – he has asserted that Price
      denied it while you claimed he admitted it – so from the get go the two of you are
      in opposition, but have it, it’s really becoming amusing to witness confusion between
      the faithful and the stepping on toes.
      Amusing re casting yourself as a victim of attempts to discredit you, and you fall ever so
      willingly, ever so efficiently into the Shaim “defense” of any who disagree can only be
      a fed, or a hater, or any of the rest of the AIM centric bullshit…cheap, predictable
      time worn theatrics.
      Forgive me asking and take it as no attempt to impugn your integrity, but did you
      matriculate at Crow Dog’s University of the Universe as Means so adoringly called it?
      And now your life was threatened as well – Was this threat likewise denied or admitted
      depending on who tells the story? Did it come from aliens, AIM, the feds, or is that
      left open to interpretation?
      There’s either a really bad joke somewhere in all this or one helluva soap opera script.

      “4. . DEATH THREATS: The FBI and DAvid Price threatened Annie Mae’s life. We know this, he
      admitted it. SHe was to “co operate” or die. She died, after refusing to co operate. That
      IS a fact.- DIRECT Claypoole quote from Call It What You Will.”

      “HE ADMITTED IT”…couldn’t be any plainer could it? And I think it will take something more
      than a historian/author/journalist to wiggle their way out of their own words or for
      others to fail “To see, the truth”.

    • And I just got in from work and responded to it – sometimes for unknown
      reasons comments land in the spam bin….hmmm, maybe wp knows something I
      Either way though after first looking in the awaiting moderation section
      and failing to see the comment I looked in the spam bin and there it was,
      responded. and approved.
      Nothing gets “lost” here, and all is archived, doing so makes it easy to
      rebut using a persons own words – like those of SB who stated he keeps a distance
      from lpdoc/ilpdc because he is aware of their “reputation”. And your assertion that Price did indeed admit.
      I’m remain curious about SB’s words of lpdoc/ilpdc, of distance and reputation -were they a faux pas, a Freudian slip, or indicative of an opinion he holds himself related to Peltier Central?

  4. Trying again (previous reply may have gone lost).

    So, to simply clarify. The original post by “rez” claimed I was posting comments about “feeling as FACT”. I refuted that in the previous thread. Now we have this one. So I’ll roll with clarifying, yet again.

    As one can see above, my facts, are just that. Facts. I feel (yes that’s what I said earlier, and we could change the word to “believe”, too) that because:

    1. David Price neither refuted the comments made over the years (yes Silent Bear, entered into testimony by John Trudell in the Peltier trial–happy 70th birthday Leonard, btw)

    2. and because we have FBI documents verifying the contact Cointelpro had with Annie Mae, FOIA documents which prove as fact the campaign to try to recruite force AIM members to become snitches under the threat of death.

    Yes. The information posted above is Fact. As far as any researching can find. True. NONE of us were there. Price was. He never refuted threatening Annie Mae’s life. The Trudell testimony was NOT struck from the record, nor did the prosecution (feds) object to the statement.

    Per your question Silent Bear, about the reason for these “sessions” against my comments? Because, I have become, over the years, a target. When I was approached and would NOT co operate with writing pieces/books AGAINST AIM and it’s leaders (including John Trudell) I was threatened, my publishers and radio producers all receiving death threats. Still, I would not write what I was “encouraged” to say. I wrote/write what I found, what I researched and SAW, via interviews and FOIA docs, etc. I never answered to anyone, never will. All the anti AIM crew has had left is to try to invalidate anything I say. Write. ABout AIM. And of course, that underestimates people. Most human beings will do their own homework, research read many sources. And come up with their OWN conclusions. About what happened in the brutal history of Cointelpro campaigns against many Indian Nations.

    Annie Mae’s legacy deserves honesty. Her life was threatened, she wouldn’t co operate. Her safety was in question, she would not become a snitch. She was full of resolve, resisted FED attacks against her. And she was found dead. Her courage, and belief in her People. A Warrior Stance. Which will now, never. Be forgotten. Peace, to her Spirit , and her Family.

    • This just appeared in the spam bin, don’t know if it was just sent
      or delayed for whatever reasons, like a busy server maybe, and since
      I’ve already responded I’ll merely say- nice try, but again no cigar,
      we’re not talking docs and fois we’re talking YOUR exact words – as a
      person of creative bent and imagination, a writer, you’re going to have
      to do better than this – a little sleight of hand verbal or otherwise
      might work at some AIM rally or “tribunal” but appears as nothing more
      than what it is here…..tap dancing, the Hillary Clinton’s “I misspoke”
      or the James Clapper telling the “least erroneous truth”, the AIM
      party line with the obligatory homage to Annie.
      I’ve lived the life ANC, I know what poverty, oppression, and marginalization
      are, having done so I recognize it wherever it emanates from and unlike you I’ll
      write no free passes, no blank checks for COINTELPRO or AIMINTELPRO.
      All anyone has to do to verify your words is to follow the links in this particular blog…..that would be to “do their own homework” as you say.
      A suggestion – the next time you comment you might heed these words and do the homework yourself, as in go over what you have previously said to avoid ensnaring yourself.

      “the reason for these posts is simple: it is n an effort invalidate my work, my writings, my credibility.”

      If the tact you have taken to disassociate yourself from your own words
      is the norm I submit no other “effort” would be necessary. But let’s set aside the “victim” thing and admit no “attack” was made on the body of your work, rather an initial request for verification of a statement you made.
      There is an intrinsic responsibility to correct such mistakes, Redford has failed to in the non epic Incident at Ogala by not addressing the
      Mr. X fable that was included in it – not so much as an oops, sorry folks we got taken in by that.
      As per your work I say if you have included this claim of admission in your books or blogs you also have a responsibility to say oops. Whether you elect to or not will speak with a voice of it’s own.

      “And she was found dead” – and the guilty held to account, at least those not in the decision making leadership.

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