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

[jeff monaghan]

i dont think it is too angry.  in fact it's much more diplomatic than i
would have been.


On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:59 PM, susan turansky <sturansky at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Omd mailing list
> Omd at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/omd/attachments/20101209/db084903/attachment.html>