Native American activist Leonard Peltier faced a parole board

U.S. native activist Peltier has parole hearing
Last Updated: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 | 2:32 PM ET
Comments16Recommend30.
CBC News
Native American activist Leonard Peltier faced a parole board in
Pennsylvania on Tuesday after spending 33 years in prison for the
murder of two FBI agents.

The agents were killed in 1975 during a shootout with members of the
American Indian Movement, or AIM, on the Pine Ridge Reservation in
South Dakota.

Peltier, a member of the movement, was implicated in the agents'
deaths but fled to Canada. He was eventually arrested by the RCMP in
Alberta and extradited back to the United States, where he was found
guilty of the murders in 1977 and sentenced to two consecutive life
sentences in prison.

He maintains his innocence to this day.

Tuesday was his first parole hearing in 15 years. His lawyer, Eric
Seitz, said after the hearing that he expects a decision from the U.S.
Parole Commission within three weeks.

John Trimbach, the son of an FBI agent who was at Pine Ridge, says
Peltier should not be freed until he admits responsibility for what
happened and shows remorse.

Peltier's role in the FBI agents' deaths has also been linked to the
murder of fellow AIM activist Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, who was from
Nova Scotia. A 2003 editorial published in the U.S. native-affairs
newspaper News from Indian Country suggested Aquash was killed because
she had knowledge of Peltier's involvement in the 1975 shootout.

Peltier's supporters consider him a political prisoner. Over the years
they have raised doubts over his guilt and the fairness of his trial,
citing coercion of witnesses and falsified affidavits.

From prison, Peltier has remained vocal in the campaign for Native
American rights and has earned international accolades for his
activism.

This will be the first complete parole hearing for Peltier since 1993.
He is applying for full parole.

With files from the Associated Press Post a comment
16Comments have been postedRecommend this story
30People have recommended this story.LICENSE | EMAIL | PRINT | Text
Size: S M L XL | REPORT TYPO | SEND YOUR FEEDBACK | .
Story comments (16)
Sort: Most recent | First to last | Agreed
Randy Lahey wrote:
Posted 2009/07/29
at 2:45 PM ETRobbie Robertson wrote a great song about Peltier. He
talks about his story in the song. Its good!.404Agree 0DisagreePolicy
Report abuse..the only atoms wrote:
Posted 2009/07/29
at 12:23 PM ETA terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Anyone who
was present that night could have been jailed and the public would
have been happy..262Agree 6DisagreePolicy Report abuse..Nancy-Jo
wrote:
Posted 2009/07/29
at 12:03 PM ETLeonard Peltier is innocent. It is as simple as that. He
killed no one,a fact that has been proven by Leonard's legal team time
and time again to no avail. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the United States Government are mighty foes when they are determined
to make you a scapegoat to cover up their own nefarious deeds. The
F.B.I was entirely at fault in the death's of their agents that day in
1975 when the two men went charging onto the Jumping Bull ranch, plain-
clothed,unmarked car, to harrass the occupants. The Native Americans
acted in self-defense when they returned fire upon the F.B.I agents.
There were children and elders on the ranch. Something the agents took
no notice of and probably had no thought of. Bob Robideau and Dino
Butler were found not guilty of the same charges as Leonard Peltier
was illegally and immorally convicted of. Joe Trimbach continues in
his hate campaign against Leonard Peltier,but wonder if anyone has
ever asked Joe Trimbach this:"What would you have done if your son
John was in the same situation as the children at the Jumping Bull
ranch,Mr.Trimbach? Would you have stood by and done nothing? Or would
you have stood up and defended your son and your people as the
occupants at the ranch justifably did that day?" And here again we see
more of the F.B.I propaganda with the utter falsehood that Leonard
Peltier was in any manner connected with the death of Anna Mae Aquash.
Paul DeMain,editor of "Indian CountryToday" has long been a friend to
the F.B.I and a mouthpiece for the F.B.I ''s completely false version
of what happended that day at the Jumping Bull ranch in 1975. If you
want the truth about Leonard Peltier,visit the website
www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/.919Agree 1DisagreePolicy Report
abuse..RussellCollier wrote:
Posted 2009/07/29
at 8:51 AM ETI met Leonard the night he was caught in Alberta. He
seemed like a very nice guy, very humble and quiet. Subsequently, I
followed up with getting to know the whole story, and concluded he
probably did not shoot those FBI agents.

I hope he gets parole - 33 years is a long time..30530Agree
5DisagreePolicy Report abuse..masterwatch wrote:
Posted 2009/07/29
at 8:44 AM ETAnd the US condemns "lack of human rights" in China. All
you need to see how the US deals with human rights is to be black or
native. The US doesn't have the moral right to criticize anyone..
30630Agree 6DisagreePolicy Report abuse...Previous1234Next
Comments are open and welcome until Tuesday, August 04, 2009 at 11:59
p.m. ET.
We reserve the right to close comments before then.

Catch ah 22 - Trimbach says that Peltier has to confess to having
committed the crime before any consideration to being releasing! At
which point the FBI and Friends would agitate to see that he was not
released!

Yes. And he maintains his innocence. How can he admit responsibility
and show remorse for something he did not do? FBI insanity.

Leonard's problem is that he won't "rat" on his friends, whom he
thinks are right-on Bros. But they're not.

Yes. The same scenario as the Anna Mae case. The fbi went to Arlo and
John and told them give up the leadership or you will face all
charges. Neither would cooperate because it isn't true. The only one
who capitulated was Richard Two Elk. It's a good thing fizzled flames
showed up to back up the tiny dancer. He was getting all tangled up in
his lies. LOL! And fizzled flames likes to talk as much as the
hopeless one. They talk so much they don't have time or the silence to
hear Spirit talking. But then I guess that's an Indian thing. One of
the differences between us. If the hopeless one will use 5000 words
when 50 would suffice then fizzled flames will use 20,000 when 50
would do. I thought white women talked more than anyone in the world.
Fizzled Flames shot that stereotype all to hell. LOL! Do you think the
fbi sent fizzled flames to help out two elves. His drug use seemed to
be getting out of hand. Maybe the fbi had to cover for him.

How do you *know* that's the reason?

How do you know if 'lack of cooperation' isn't because of possible
'retaliation' or even due to blind loyalties rather than... "because
it isn't true"? And if you *know* so much, how come you have never
been called to testify about anything?

> be getting out of hand. Maybe the fbi had to cover for him.- Hide quoted text -

Well, this was a great opportunity for you to use a post on Leonard
Peltier's parole hearing to express your racist hate and spread more
fbi lies and accusations about posters here.

And only 159 words - bravo!

Why does Dave Seals encourage the lies you tell? Is he an enrolled
Indian? Have you sicced Betsy on him yet? Have you told Guardian the
truth about where Lisa lives yet?

If not, why not?

This wordy white woman would like to know.

[In a separate thread, of course, since you've already 'hijacked' your
own thread about Peltier.]

David and Chat and others have always claimed to be mixed bloods.
Their stories have never changed. I believe them. I haven't been
called to testify because I was never a part of Denver AIM nor am I
Lakota nor am I FBI. Two Elves is all of those things. Those are the
parties involved in the death of Anna Mae Aquash. My knowledge comes
from research and observation. The fbi has tried to hang the murder of
Anna Mae on Leonard. Haven't you been following the story? I don't
lie. Feds and whites do. Just ask any Indian about Treaties. Did you
know that two elves was the pigs first choice as shooter? He claims to
have been best friends with Arlo and was tight with John too. Didn't
you read his testimony and interview? They ran together. They hung
together. They made chokers and sold them together. Now Arlo is in
prison for aiding and abetting in the murder of Anna Mae Aquash. John
is in jail awaiting trial for aiding and abetting in the murder of
Anna Mae Aquash. Richard Two Elk provided the story for the fbi case.
He testified against Arlo. He claims to have identified John to the
Canadian government. He looks like the shooter. He's the one the fbi
is protecting. He's on here muddying the case and trying to silence
me. He wrote the forward to trimbach's book. Trimbach writes it into
his contracts that two elves must be interviewed alongside him. If two
elves is really your friend you'd better start praying for his safety.
It looks lilke he has become a liability to them. He has no
credibility with REAL Indians. He's too looney to appeal to whites.
They're going to take him out soon. It doesn't take a psychic to see
that.

On Jul 30, 3:30 pm, Monica J. Charles <yanowis @ gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't lie.

Everyone who follows this newsgroup knows otherwise.

You lie through your teeth. You lie maliciously.
You lie self-servingly. You lie blatantly.
You lie persistently and in the face of evidence.
You lie for the sake of a whim or entertainment.
You lie to hurt those you dislike or who disagree.
You lie to serve any purpose, personal or political.
And here, right here, you lie about not having lied.

The truth is not in you, the truth was never in you.

<http://tinyurl.com/malica-charnel-thread>

> If thehopelessonewill use 5000 words

So now we're back to being two different people? *LOL* Do you ever
get tired of playing ping pong with yourself?

At least our thousands of words aren't in cut and pastes like yours.
How is your original play coming?

Mixed blood - meaning partly 'white' and non-human just like the ones
you have insulted and sicced Guardian on? Whether you believe them or
not, what makes them any different than the ones you've attacked for
their 'racial' makeup, saying they have NO RIGHT to speak for Indians
because they aren't enrolled? Dave and Chat speak for and/or about
Indians all the time. According to your own 'code' - what gives *them*
more right to speak than Lisa or anyone else here? You say Lisa is
'white' and you base that on her hair and eye color as if no mixed
blood has blonde hair or blue eyes. You know that isn't true.

Well, then i am confused by your mixed messages. You said you were at
the BIA occupation. You said you were at the Wounded Knee ll
occupation, and have used that status to give your opinions the 'voice
of authority'. You said that Anna Mae's friends had to bury her as if
you were one of them. You have spoken as if you knew her. When Anna
Mae was on the run and Peltier and crew came here to the Pacific
Northwest to hide out - you were there too. Now you are saying that
Denver AIM, Lakota and FBI are *the* parties involved in her death as
if that rules out anyone else's involvement. And that your knowledge
of this entire case only comes from research and observation.

Actually, it is rather hard to keep up with the 'story'; as it seems
to change quickly from one day to the next. One minute you (and Dave,
etc.) are going on about the collossal blunder of the first coroner
missing the bullet wound and saying she died of exposer. The next
minute you're saying she wasn't shot at all and "was there even a
murder?".

You lie every time you call me fbi. Please keep in mind who you're
talking to, as we both know you lie.

First choice. What kind of accusation is that, really? What sense does
it make? Apparently that would mean he was one of the first people
considered (due to his connections with those involved?), and then let
go because he didn't 'fit'.

He was found guilty of aiding and abetting in a court of law where
evidence *beyond* Richard's one testimony was admitted. If evidence
saying otherwise comes up, then he should appeal. But your arguments
don't really hold up, and THAT is why i have a problem with your
constant accusations.

Richard is not the only one who ever 'ran together' with Arlo, and
running together with Arlo does not make Richard the 'guilty party' in
this murder. In fact, how sad that is to be in such a position. I have
been watching how you and Dave try to place the blame on everyone but
Arlo himself for being involved at the time of her death. It was
'Kamook's' fault because she led him into saying those things and
she's married to Ecoffey (let's just forget Ecoffey is Indian too). It
was Richard's fault because they were 'tight' and Arlo let Richard
tell him what to say. It was the fault of the police because they gave
Arlo drugs (let's forget that he might have been an addict and
required other drugs to get through withdrawal in jail, or some other
plausible explanation like that). It was Anna Mae's own daughters
because they are RCMP "pigs".

It's always someone else's fault.

One voice among *many*, from what i have read.

> He testified against Arlo.

So if Arlo had told you that he'd been there when Anna Mae was shot,
would you have kept it secret or would you have testified? Does it
ever even enter your mind that Richard is doing what he believes is
the *right thing to do*?

According to *you* - and you weren't 'involved' in any of it, if your
words are to be believed. You look like the one who pointed the 'fbi
finger' at Anna Mae, but i don't see *you* getting dragged to jail for
anything, or even called to testify. Are *you* being protected?

IF he was being protected, it is probably because he *needed* to be
protected. Look at the kind of people we are dealing with here - cold
blooded murderers. Look at the kinds of attacks he's been subjected to
since the trial, online alone. He probably could have gone into a
witness protection program if he wanted to (just guessing).

Or else he's telling the absolute truth, which would make more sense
out of things than what you are saying. Your lies and racist hate
don't help matters in terms of your credibility either. Crossing the
line from 'free speech' to libel is like shooting yourself in the
foot.

So what? If he is willing to put his neck out like that, then he must
believe every word in that book and is able to validate what is there
to his own satisfaction. Richard has a right to speak his own truths,
opinions and experiences just like anyone else. And he does this at
his own risk *obviously*. That is called *personal integrity*, monica,
not 'betrayal'.

I do pray for his safety, actually. Not that it's any of your concern.

> that.- Hide quoted text -

You did not really answer any questions, monica. At least not with
facts - only speculations. This was about Peltier's parole and you
turned it to be about Richard and Sizzle and 'white women', and always
with Dave's and Chat's encouragement.

My questions were:

I'm tired of this stupid constant fighting and being in the defensive,
and eventually i am going to walk away from all of this - but damned
if i will let you shove something down my throat that isn't true and
right.

You say that 2-Elk has the "Right to speak his own truths". Not if
they're not true, and involve the freedom of other men, and I was
there in the courtroom in 2004 when he testified under oath. Were you?
Arlo Looking Cloud himself told me he barely knew 2-elk, they'd only
smoked a few doobs together over the years, and why didn't 2-Elk
produce one of his many famous audiotape interviews with Arlo, Arlo
asked me, if indeed he had interviewed him confessing to the murder?
He never produced anything of substantial value as evidence, other
than his rambling testimony (read the transcript; what's missing is
the laughter of the jury and audience at his ridiculous behavior and
appearance).

The police themselves will produce proof I talked to Arlo in the PCJ,
audiotape of our February interviews in person and on the phone
numerous times. (Unlike Monica, I've been subpoenaed as defense
witness)That's what he said. He barely knew 2-Elk. That's not what 2-
Elk has said repeatedly in many self-serving interviews, and books
like Trimbach's. Have you read that one? Does it strike you as
considerate and honest?

John Graham has said so, in interviews, and legal motions filed by his
lawyer. What is your evidence for saying otherwise, if you're so keen
on facts and evidence free of emotional spin?

This is pure conjecture and rhetoric on your part.

Many people who know a lot about this case haven't been called to
testify - and should. (Dennis Banks, Leonard Peltier, Ward Churchill,
etc.)

These personal attacks are irrelevant to the serious facts of the
Case. Why do you bother with them if all you want is the truth?

Like all good Natives, elders especially do not distinguish skin-color
in the Sweat Lodges. I know who my family are, and so does my Nation,
and that's all that matters. We can explain it to you, if you wish, in
the Sweats. join us at Bear Butte sometime, and we'll be glad to talk
about Mixed-blood quanta and enrollment bullshit all night with you.

The Gov't's case is falling apart obviously, as they've already lost
one indictment against Graham, and weak witnesses like 2-Elk, Ecoffey,
Maloney, Trudell, Kamook. The only real hard, interesting facts in the
2004 "trial" were the FBIs and BIA's, on the scene in 1976. a lot of
their formerly secret stuff had to come out, to convict Arlo but
profoundly weakening the case against Graham. Marshall's arrest was a
further desperate move by a guilt US Government covering up for its
covert Agents within AIM. Read the Transcript.

Read the Transcript, please. BIA cop Nathan Merrick was the first on
the scene at Wanblee Feb. 24, 1976. He saw no evidence of a bullet
wound, only a little blood on the back of the head, as if she'd been
pushed or fallen off the cliff. fact.

Sophistry, it's beneath your rational stance. We're not trying to put
the blame on everyone. But there's no evidence for Arlo and John's
guilt, other than Arlo's drunken dope-induced confession. Which
thereunto I'll be testifying about as witness in October. Fact. i'm
not spouting opinions. I was in the courtroom, and the jail talking
to, and listening to, everyone, in person, repeatedly, and over 35
years of living in South Dakota, dancing, sweating, praying, laughing
(and yeah drinking and smoking) with every stripe of Skin.

John has given formal, legal depositions confirming Kamook's wired
coercion of Arlo. That's coming out in the trial, backed up by facts.

Huh? It was okay if he was drugged, as long as he didn't get them from
cops? As every Con knows (read any of the numerous memoirs and
autobios of ex-cons), you can't get drugs in jail unless it goes
through the guards.

Nope, only the real killers. Maloney's testimony, as I wrote on the
Graham website, was impressive and convincing, she's a good-looking,
intelligent, mature woman. But she doesn't have a clue.

Hypothetical. I teach my 14-year old daughter not to deal in
hypotheses. Arlo has never said any such thing to anyone. Except that
video interview, in which, as anyone knows, a junkie will say or do
anything to get his fix. Arlo himself told me so, and it's on police
tape and will be presented in the next trial.

What kind of gov't uses heroin addicts to achieve false justice?

Do you know this guy? Have you ever seen him in person? If he passed
you on the street you'd walk over to the other side of the street.
What is it Richard III says? "Dogs bark at me as I pass by them."

Irrelevant, immaterial.

Then he shouldn't have been the one instigating attacks in the first
place. Skins don't turn the other cheek.

2-Elk makes more sense? Have you ever read philosophy and logic?
Where's a shred of evidence saying his story is true? Audiotapes?
depositions? Photos? Anything?

You don;t live in the reeal world, and certainly not the desperate
Native world where most everyone is so broke and desperate they'll do
and say anything to get a buck, or ego fix.

No he doesn't. Even the Supreme Court has said "hate speech" is not a
First Amendment Right.

Diversions. We're not falling for these stupid tricks. We're veterans
of decades of FBI Cointel rumor-mongering, etc.

That sounds like ego to me. And what Arlo, Leonard, and thousands of
others sitting in US prisons?

Yes. The whole idea of "AIM leadership" has always been problematic,
to me. I remember in 1984, outside the Custer courthouse when Dennis
was being sentenced, crowds were there, and plenty of media types. A
bigshot TV anchor asked Steve Robideau if he was "now the AIM leader?"
Steve scoffed at it and laughed. For weeks we jokingly called him
"chief". Even though he was, and is (in the Spirit World), widely
respected for his honesty and humility - a truly wonderful guy, and
good friend - the idea of anyone being the leader was kind of
ludicrous, and still is. It's a MOVEMENT.

What does your reply have to do with the questions you're asked?

This ruling was about federal vs state *jurisdiction*.

It had nothing to do with the strength of the evidence of guilt.

> blood on the back of the head ...

Right -- because the second autopsy found a *small caliber*
bullet wound, not a big gaping crater. It had been too small
to attract attention the first time around.

But you claim there was no *bullet*! So... what "killers"?

Lovely. You cite a pro-Tudor play against a Plantagenet king,
classic propaganda, demonstrating just how freely you do so.

Advise Monica "Whites aren't Human Beings" Charles of that.
<http://tinyurl.com/monica-charles-1>

> We're veterans of decades of ...

Disinformation tactics, and here you are still using them.
<http://tinyurl.com/malica-lies>

No, it was serious ruling against the gov't's case.

you guys love the second autopsy, dont you? The second pathologist
Petersen said he saw the wound immediately. It was obvious. It
certainly wasn't "too small to attract attention". (!) Cute. Is that
sworn testimony in court now too inconvenient for your scenario?
Contradictory to the first cops on the scene, and the first doctor's
autopsy?

The ones who threw a woman off a cliff. You don't have to shoot
someone to murder them. She was murdered all right, in everyone's
opinions. Read the Transcript.

Oh, you like Richard III? He was good guy, eh?

We're not using them. We haven't put men and women and children in
prisons all over Indian Country.

C'mon, give me your best shot. You can do better than this.

That is a different issue that Anna Mae's justice. I *do* mind your
lengthy reply at this time because i am questioning monica about
issues that also relate to what has been going on with alt.native as a
group, the posters here, and Guardian specifically. In case *you*
hadn't noticed (or cared), my post concerns alt.native and people who
post here. My opinions and observances about the case are just that -
opinions. I do not have time or energy to *immerse* my entire self
into a court case that i am not even involved with, but when i do have
time, i will save this and go over the points you made. My question to
monica pertained mostly to why she wasn't targeting you for Guardian,
and why she was making contradictory statements.

And why you support her in lies - you have even supported her lie that
i was fbi. So i don't feel obligated to you in any way right now. My
issues here were with monica.

There are a couple things, though - you act as if Arlo's word in your
interview is more 'credible' than Richard's word... as if i should
just take that as a 'given'. "B said this, but A said that, so B must
be lying." Faulty logic, it looks to me.

I do not look at this with such bias. To me he is convicted by a jury,
and if evidence exists to prove otherwise, there should be an appeal
or he should be released - because that is what i would expect for ANY
OTHER PERSON who is convicted of aiding and abetting a murder. In
fact, i get really disgusted when convicted murderers, rapists, etc.
get book deals and idolized and turned into political icons. Tall,
short, black, white, i don't care. That is not to say that if there
has been any injustice and it can be proven, that it shouldn't be made
right. It definitely should.

But this is how you keep doing the same thing as Monica, speaking with
bias and casually stating things as 'fact' when they aren't
necessarily so.

On the drugs in jail - no, i was not implying they gave him the same
drugs he was addicted to. There is another drug now (i can't remember
the name offhand) that is supposed to be like heroin and it's given to
addicts (in jails and rehabs, etc) for an extended period of time in
smaller and smaller doses. It has many of the same effects, though. Is
that what happened with Arlo? I don't know, but i *do* know it's done
and yet you've never put out that possibility, so wtf? You are biased.
The cops gave him 'drugs', according to you... and Arlo (sitting there
in prison) has NO REASON to say Richard ain't telling the truth?
Please. Do you see how one-sided you are? I wish to remain impartial
and see all the sides, not just yours and monica's.

On your blood quantum, i don't give a shit who has what blood, it all
looks red to me. It is family and nation/tribe/clan that matters far
as i am concerned, and your blood quantum is really NONE of my
business except as it might relate to this matter which Monica has
been bringing up about 'white blood'. I was just wanting to know why
Lisa, but not you? She has Indian blood too, and is living in a good
way. So - if you care to respond or comment to *that*, go ahead. But i
am not going to spin my wheels with all your legalities and kazillion
details and cross-references required to make heads or tails of it.
The truth is usually very simple once it is actually known.

Hello!!! Would you mind saving me a bit of time by telling me exactly
where and when all this took place? I am curious about something and
would like to read the transcripts.

The trial of Arlo Looking Cloud lasted 4 days in Feb. 2004, in Rapid
City South Dakota. The transcripts can be found, with both sides point-
of-view at:

http://www.grahamdefense.org/courtdocs

News From Indian Country website, and various links thereto.

Methadone. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methadone>

the
first
time
around
.

Well, I am confused then. Monica says she is an Elder. And she says
whites have no right to be in any Native ceremony or sweat lodge. She
says whites are not human, only Indians are. So if you are telling
the truth, she must either not be an elder or not be a "good Native."
I think she would vehemently disagree. So which of you is presenting
the "real Indian" viewpoint?

Which is exactly what we have been saying to betsy and monica, who
have decided for some reason that their right to decide who is and is
not Indian supersedes that.

monica would have a stroke. Obviously not all Indians feel the same
about these matters. And if you are a mixed blood and not enrolled,
then some apparently feel your opinion doesn't carry as much weight.

This is a valid question. If only enrolled Indians are "real Indians"
and only they have a right to speak on Indian issues, then that goes
for EVERYONE. There should not be one set of rules for a person's
personal friends and one for everyone else. You can't say some whites
are human and some aren't, based on whether you hate them or like
them.

Well, I am far from wise enough to have "opinions" about this case.
But as for logic and sophistry, I don't see that who you lived with
for 35 years prevents you have making any mistakes any more than
anyone else. I lived within my little community for longer than that,
and I have a LOT of opinions about people and events. So does
everyone else. And they don't all agree on what's fact and what's
opinion. People tend to believe THEY have facts, and everyone who
doesn't agree with them has opinions.

People sit through trials all the time and watch everything and listen
repeatedly and still can't agree on what's truth. If that were not
the case, all juries would be unanimous in every trial. You may be a
great observer and deducer. But I doubt you're infallible. You may
have things right. But you may not. I don't see how ANYONE can
believe they know the WHOLE TRUTH about this mess.

Conjecture. Hypothetical. You don't deal in that, remember?

?? Then so is a LOT of other stuff along the same lines. No matter
who said it. Even monica.

All Indians are the same in this regard? Richard is Indian, isn't
he? So I guess he wouldn't either. But so is LL. And so is
jumpybird. And they seem to have much different philosophies about
grudges and revenge. From personal observation, I don't see things as
being so simple when dealing with human nature. Individuals are not
their gender or their race or their country.

Um...you must not have been paying attention to any of the stories
Donna has told about her life. She doesn't live in the real world?
She doesn't know what it's like to be broke and desperate?? What
happened to your keen powers of observation and recognizing facts?
You just stated an OPINION that is NOT based on any facts you are
privy to--one that directly contradicts Donna's own oral history. Of
course, you could say maybe everything she has said is a lie,
especially if you do not intend to do any investigation to check up on
the veracity of her stories. And of course, she could say the very
same about everything you have said. Sauce for the goose..

Frankly, I would be surprised to hear your 14 yr old daughter resort
to that kind of "You don't live in the real world" put-down. It's up
there with "Get a life." I expected better of you for some reason.

Does that apply to monica? Most people consider being call non-human,
a maggot, or a hare-lipped whore because of your race "hate speech."
Do you? Or are there different definitions for different people?

In other words, you're not going to answer any questions you don't
want to, while demanding that the "other side" answer all yours. As
if only one side is engaging in rumor-mongering and disinformation.
As if accusing anyone who objects to monica an FBI agent or
seashepherd spell-casting wiccan is not a "stupid trick" meant to
divert.

Again, disappointing.

And what does it sound like to you when monica says, "The seashepherds
and wiccans targeted me personally instead of the Makah because I am
smart and articulate." "The Feds target me because they are afraid of
how much influence I have." "Indians are the only human beings."

What are you saying, that Donna is responsible for them, or is
obligated to take up their cause? If they are real Indians, then
monica does not want white people involved in their issues or speaking
for them. She does not want any whites trying to be their savior.
And certainly she would not want this particular "white butt maggot
whore" involved.

As I said, it is all very confusing. There are too many double
standards and conflicting "truths." Information overload and analysis
fatigue. No wonder people get discouraged and give up.

Thank you.

I was racking my brain for the name.

> I don't lie.

Everyone who follows alt.native knows otherwise.

| Monica Charles ... becomes "a person of interest"
| and the focus of some investigators because of
| information and statements she posts on the internet
| that appear to be an intentional attempt to create
| confusion in the Aquash and Peltier cases, a commonly
| used tactic by AIM leaders or supporters over the
| years to mislead journalists and the public.

-- News From Indian Country
<http://tinyurl.com/annie-mae-timeline-iv-2>

| [Monica] Charles emerges as one of the few and
| loudest supporters of John Graham in recent years,
| posting discredited and false information online
| and drawing the attention of defense attorneys
| and federal authorities.

-- News From Indian Country
<http://tinyurl.com/annie-mae-timeline-iii-3>

| Disinformation is deliberately misleading information
| announced publicly or leaked [..] for the purpose of
| influencing opinions or perceptions.
|
| Unlike misinformation, which is also a form of wrong
| information, disinformation is produced by people
| who intend to deceive their audience.
|
| A group might plant disinformation in reports, in
| press releases, in public statements or in practically
| any other routine, occasional or unusual communique.
| Disinformation can also be leaked, or covertly
| released to a source who can be trusted to repeat
| the false information.
|
| A common disinformation tactic is to mix truth,
| half-truths, and lies. Disinformants sometimes seek
| to gain the confidence of their audience through
| emotional appeals or by using semi-neutral language
| interlaced with threads of disinformation.

--<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Disinformation>