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

Fri Dec 10 06:27:21 PST 2010

Hey all,

Given that Jane has emailed our entire contact list, are we sending this or some other response to everyone? Or should we not get involved in a public fight?

D

On 2010-12-10, at 9:12 AM, Dan Sawyer <sawyerdk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think your response is really solid, and worth sending to Jane. Of course, I suspect she'll just say it wasn't really written by you or that you've been coerced by others. But I definitely think it's worth sending back to her.
> 
> D
> 
> On 2010-12-09, at 10:04 PM, <john.hollingsworth at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>> I agree with all of you. For those who don't know, I can also attest that Jane is also a full-on devotee of almost every crackpot theory in conspiracy corner - including your favourite subdomain/research interest, Matt, and I'm happy to provide you (off-list) links and examples to show you what I mean in Jane's case. I am happy also to add a subsequent comment to the list of folks she sent that crap to in the first place. Let me know what I can do.
>> 
>> "We who do not seek power, only want the consciences of [the masses]; only those who wish to dominate prefer sheep, the better to lead them. We prefer intelligent workers, even if they are our opponents, to anarchists who are such only in order to follow us like sheep. We want freedom for everybody; we want the masses to make the revolution for the masses. The person who thinks with [their] own brain is to be preferred to the one who blindly approves everything.... Better an error consciously committed and in good faith, than a good action performed in a servile manner."--Errico Malatesta
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:40:11 -0500
>> From: monaghan.jeffrey at gmail.com
>> To: sturansky at hotmail.com
>> CC: omd at lists.resist.ca
>> Subject: Re: [Omd] e-mail from jane and my response to it
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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/20101210/1048035b/attachment.html>