[Omd] e-mail from jane and my response to it

[susan turansky]

well said.  I also find it offensive the way Jane has insinuated that Roger was coerced into his choice of lawyers.  I totally dislike the way she tries to make it sound as if Roger had no say at all in his own decisions which, I suppose, is what she thinks gives her the right to imply that he is a little feeble minded and needs someone outspoken (like her?) to speak up for him

----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:12:13 -0800
> From: mattm-b at resist.ca
> To: omd at lists.resist.ca
> Subject: [Omd] e-mail from jane and my response to it
>
> my response to jane's most recent e-mail to OMD (which is included below).
> makes me angry! maybe the below e-mail is too angry.
>
> jane i don't know where you get off calling me a "follower" but i'd be
> happy if you keep your opinions to yourself. i had nothing to do with the
> firebombing. i am, however, entirely capable of reaching my own
> conclusions about subjects, issues and so on, and am capable of deciding
> for myself what i will do with my activist time. i believe that your
> characterization of em as a "follower" comes from 1) the fact that i have
> been diagnosed as "schizoaffective" (which would be a very ableist opinion
> to hold) and 2) the fact that i don't agree with you about many subjects.
>
> there was never any evidence that any police officer was involved with the
> arson. there was never any statement that a police officer was involved
> in any of the disclosure, nor did roger ever say or imply that a police
> officer was involved in the action.
>
> if we do decide to attempt any legal action you can be sure that you will
> not be included and that your opinion will be disregarded.
>
> your understanding of the bail proceeding is clearly extremely limited and
> based far more on opinion than on fact.
>
> a trial would have resulted in roger receiving a much more severe sentence
> than he did receive. so, basically, your plan would have meant that our
> friend and comrade roger would be spending something like 5 - 7 years in
> prison instead of 3 1/2.
>
> most people choose not to talk about things which they know nothing about,
> and with good reason; it tends to make one look a bit foolish at least.
>
> as one of the J18 defendants who you "claim" to have been supporting i
> want you to know that i never felt supported by you and that, in fact,
> your "support" was not only a distraction but was, in fact entirely
> counter-productive. your ongoing attempts to comment upon and/or
> influence decisions which - i thank god - you had no say in is not wanted
> and continues to be offensive and a deep waste of our time.
>
> no love,
> matt
>
> from jane:
>
> How about helping Roger Clement sue Francois Leclerk and any other cops
> who set him up and railroaded him afterwards. There was no reason for
> Roger to be denied bail and he could have had a bail review every 90 days.
> I think the only reason he was denied bail was to pressure him into
> pleading guilty without a trial. Insisting on going to trial would have
> helped Roger get off or at least a reasonable sentence for a first offence
> because the powers to be did not want a trial. A trial would have brought
> out that the cop Francois Leclerk was participating in the RBC arson. And
> if it was Francois or other cops who initiated this arson then there was
> the defense of entrapment to fall back on. And personally I do not
> believe either Roger or Matt initiated this action. Roger is a peacemaker
> not a leader and Matt is a follower.
>
> The Ottawa Movement Defense should have encouraged public awareness of the
> fact that Roger had no prior arrests and that a cop participated in the
> arson but instead they put elbow grease into shutting the public
> discussion down and silencing anyone like myself for asking pointed
> questions about his poor defense.
>
> The defense of Grenspon speaks for itself including a publication ban that
> served only the state, a derogatory press statement about Roger when his
> office got spray painted and no favourable statements, failure to mention
> that Roger had no record in the original bail proceeding or in the media.
> In one media article Grenspons says Roger was never incarcerated which is
> not the same as saying no arrests. Lawyers do not make mistakes like this
> they are very percise with legal comments.
> _______________________________________________
> Omd mailing list
> Omd at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd