[Omd] 2nd draft, response

[joeli r]

I liked your 1st one as well, but this is really good too.

FFJane,
Joeli

On Dec 10, 2010 10:02 AM, <mattm-b at resist.ca> wrote:

hey,

ok a little calmer now, time for the 2nd draft.

i think this response is just to jane, but that we should send a brief
note reiterating that jane is not and has never been involved with doing
support work for the J18 defendants and that here opinions about the case
are ill-informed, baseless and generally ignorant. also, we should make
sure not to include her in future e-mails.

2nd draft:

hi jane,

we would appreciate it if you would keep your opinions to yourself, or, if
you can't do that, that you, at the very least, refrain from spamming our
e-mail list.

as always, being forced to deal with your antics remains a distraction
from the real and important work of supporting the J18 defendants in the
ways that they have all requested.

you can be sure that any actions that we do take in the future will not
include you and that your opinion will not be solicited.  once again, we
would prefer that you simply keep your opinions to yourself, or failing
that, to at least not bother telling us as a group or as individuals as
your opinions about which course of action we should take are
ill-informed, frivolous and generally ignorant.

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.

as for some of the specific points and/or allegations that you made:

1) i don't know where you get off calling me a "follower" but i would be
happy, once again, 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 how i want(ed) to be supported regarding the attempt
to charge me with arson, and, more generally, what i will do with my
activist time.  i believe that your characterization of em as a "follower"
comes from a) 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.

2) to date, there has never been any evidence that any police officer was
involved with the arson.  there was never any statement or evidence 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.

3) your understanding of the bail proceeding is clearly extremely limited
and based far more on opinion than on fact.

4) 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.

finally, as a more general point, sensible people choose not to talk about
things which they know nothing about.  we hope that you will see the
wisdom in this and refrain from opining further about the legal situations
of the J18 defendants.

matt for ottawa movement defense

_______________________________________________
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/20101210/0aaf5a80/attachment.html>