Saturday, September 24, 2011

The Specials

Working for the Rat Race... You're no friend of mine


Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The state Lynching of another innocent Black man

The state Lynching of another innocent Black man

No rest til we bring some justice, death to this system and those who oversee it

We shouldn't be mourning for Troy Davis, we should be burning!

"Things have happen to me in my 29 years that I could NEVER imagine would happen to me. So when I say "I am Troy Davis" it's much more than being symbolic or empathetic. This is reality. A reality for black males in particular. It's easier for me to step outside of my door and guaranteed myself the death penalty or life in prison then it is to guaranteed myself a seat in a four year collage. How can we not feel powerless knowing that our reality does not have to be like this?"

"I just need to say this now: Dear white people saying, "we are all troy davis," no, no you are not. You have racial privilege. Just like I do. Troy Davis was black, and he got slaughtered because he was black. He was black in a white supremacist state that targets black people. You will never be Troy Davis. You will never be black. Nor brown, nor red, nor yellow. I love that you care. But, no. You ain't all troy davis. But you can make Troy Davis's spirit live forever if you tear that system down. Fuck the USA. Imperial Beast."

Thursday, September 15, 2011

"Expropriate!" by Ricardo Flores Magon on this Mexican "Independence Day"

On this so-called, Mexican "independence day" I want to share this piece:

"Expropriate!" by Ricardo Flores Magon ‎(our relatives down south aren't free yet/nuestras relaciones en el sur aun no estan libre).

...I'm a hopeless romantic ;)

Also read "Outlaws" by Ricardo Flores Magon:

Link to writings by Ricardo Flores Magon in Spanish


Flores Magon, Ricardo

Testimony by John Trudell. Free John Graham!

Free John Graham, he is innocent!

Snitches get Freedom?!

Testimony of John Trudell in the
Trial of Arlo Looking Cloud
February, 2004
MR. McMAHON: John Trudell.


called as a witness, being first duly sworn, testified and

said as follows:


Q. State your name, please?

A. My name is John Trudell.

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Trudell?

A. In Los Angeles, California.

Q. How long have you lived in California?

A. Since about 1979.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I am a writer and a performer, actor, speaker, in that area.

Q. You currently have a band?

A. Yeah, Bad Dog.

Q. Have you been an entertainer for quite a while?

A. Twenty years.

Q. Where were you born and raised?

A. I was born in Omaha, Nebraska, and I was raised in small

communities around Omaha, and my reservation is Sante in

Northern Nebraska. So I enlisted when I was seventeen, and up

until that time maybe I had lived in both communities, both

worlds equally.

Q. You did what at seventeen?

A. I enlisted in the Navy.

Q. In the Navy, okay. How long were you in the Navy?

A. Four years. Three years and ten months.

Q. Where did you go after that?

A. I stayed in southern California, because I was home

ported in Long Beach. I went to school for a while in San

Bernardino, and figured out that wasn't really working out for

me, and then I went to the Alcatraz occupation in 1969.

Q. What do you had mean by the Alcatraz occupation?

A. In 1969 collective native community, we called ourselves

Indians of all Tribes Alcatraz, but we occupied the former

prison under the 1868, in relationship to the 1868 Fort

Laramie treaty about surplus government lands reverting to

native use.

Q. About 1969 or so did you become somewhat of an activist?

A. Yes, 100 percent.

Q. How old are you now?

A. I will be 58 next week.

Q. Have you ever been involved with the AIM organization?

A. I was chairman of AIM from 1973 to around 1979.

Q. What did you do as chairman of AIM?

A. Me, I think basically I acted as a spokesman. You know,

really what, I mean the title is chairman, but in reality I

acted as a spokesman. I looked at that as what my role was.

It wasn't so much, because AIM at that time with the

leadership, you know, we all had different supporters. I mean

each leader had their own group of people around them, but I

never really looked at my role as being an order giver, it was

more to speak, because that is, I always felt that's why.

When I was nominated to be, actually was named cochairman, and

there was an incident and I became chairman, but I always felt

it was the people liked my analysis of things.

Q. Did you know Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash?

A. Pardon?

Q. Did you know Anna Mae Aquash?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you first meet her?

A. I met her at, I think it was in Minneapolis, but it was

at an Indian education conference in Minneapolis. I think it

was the summer of 1970. July or August, something like that.

Q. Did you become friends with her?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you see her occasionally off and on since 1970 then?

A. I didn't see her again until in the summer of '70, and I

think the next time I remember seeing her was in 1974 at the

Means-Banks trial in St. Paul.

Q. Did you ever see her in 1975?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What time of the year did you see her?

A. I saw her in, at the Farmington AIM conference or

convention in, that would have been in June of 1975. I saw

her then, and then I saw her again in September of 1975 in Los


Q. So when you saw her at the Farmington convention did you

have any conversations with her?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was she concerned about anything at that time?

A. She was concerned because she had been accused of being

an informant, and because we had some discussion about that,

but at the time my feeling was, what I got out of it, she was

just more angry. I didn't sense really it was about fear, but

she was really upset that people were making this accusation

to her.

Q. After the Farmington convention, when was it that you

saw her next?

A. Pardon.

Q. When did you see her next after that convention?

A. After that I saw her in Los Angeles, I think it was

September of '75.

Q. Where was that that you saw her in LA?

A. Anna Mae and Miwak (Nilak) Butler had arrived in LA and had

been detained at LAX, and Miwak (Nilak) Butler was taken and

locked up at the civil brand center, and Anna Mae was cut loose. So I

spent time with her. There was a Chuck Salazar, Ernie Peters

and myself, and the White Bear family.

Q. I am sorry, the what?

A. White Bear. So, and at that time because Miwak had been

arrested, and all of this was going on in relationship to the

fire fight in Oglala the previous summer. Between Chuck and

Ernie and myself we tried to, one of us always stayed with her

as much as possible just to act in the capacity of being security.

Q. Who was Anna Mae staying with while she was in

California then?

A. Between White Bear's and I think maybe one evening or so

she might have spent at Chuck Salazar's, and but basically at

the White Bear family.

Q. What was her state of mind at that time?

A. At that time she, it was about more than being angry,

she was afraid.

Q. Did she leave while you were still there?

A. Pardon?

Q. I mean did you, were you in California when she left

California, let me ask it that way?

A. Chuck Salazar, Ernie Peters and myself, we took her to

the airport.

Q. You know where she was going?

A. She was going to Denver.

Q. You know why she was going to Denver?

A. No, I don't know why she was. She didn't say, but

somebody had gotten in touch with her, and I don't know who it

was, but someone had gotten in touch with her to go to Denver.

Q. Did you ever see Anna Mae again?

A. No.

Q. So September of '75 would have been the last time that

you saw her?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever talk with her on the phone after that?

A. No.

Q. How did you find out she had been killed?

A. I found out that she was killed, it was in a

conversation I had with Dennis Banks in Berkley some time in

'76. February, March, some time in '76. At this time I

didn't know there had been a body found, and Dennis mentioned

to me, he said, well, that body they found in Pine Ridge or

Wanblee, he said I think it is Anna Mae. This was the first

that I had known.

Q. Now prior to discovering that she had been killed, did

you ever receive anything that made you believe she was in danger?

A. Well, two things. I mean in September when I saw her,

because she was afraid, and she told me at that time, you

know, she had had a run-in with David Price and that Price was

trying to get her to tell about the Oglala fire fight, and in

the course of that she swore at him, and then he said to her

that he would see her dead within the year. And she was upset

about that. So when she came and I saw her in September, she

said to me, you know, that if you ever want to, if you had to

go somewhere, she would go, there was an island where she grew

up, and that would be the place she would go that would be

safe for her. Then she told me to, that in the rain, she

loved the rain, and to always remember her in the rain, and we

had this conversation, and at that time her fear was about

that. She was angry because still accusations, name calling

about her being an informant or a pig, she was angry about

that, and then now, but then now the element of fear has been

added because of this dialogue she said that she had. Then

after she had been arrested in the mobile home incident in

Oregon, so this would have been around the end of November or

December, I don't remember the exact time, but I got a letter

and a ring from her that was delivered through Mathalene White Bear.

Q. Who's ring was it?

A. It was Anna Mae's ring.

Q. How did you know that?

A. Because Anna Mae and I had an understanding that just

because the way things were at that time if she needed to

communicate with me, that she would send this ring, because

then I would know somebody wasn't playing a bunch of games.

Q. You also said you received a letter.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you still have that letter?

A. No, it burned down in my, there was a fire in my home in

1979 and it burned.

Q. Do you know Arlo Looking Cloud?

A. I have met Arlo once that I can remember.

Q. You see him in the courtroom today?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you point out where he is seated, please?

A. Sitting right there. (Indicating).

MR. McMAHON: May the record reflect he pointed to

the defendant. Your Honor?

THE COURT: It may.


Q. Have you ever had an occasion to visit with Mr. Looking

Cloud about Anna Mae's death?

A. One time, in 1988.

Q. Where was that at?

A. My band, we were on tour with a band called Midnight

Oil, and we played in Denver, and I saw him then after the


Q. How is it that you had a conversation with Mr. Looking Cloud?

A. Troy Lynn brought him, Troy Lynn had said to me that

Arlo wanted to talk with me.

Q. Troy Lynn Yellow Wood?

A. Yes. So she brought Arlo to where I was at.

Q. And where were you at when you saw Mr. Looking Cloud?

A. I think it was in my hotel room in Denver.

Q. Who was present during this conversation?

A. Myself, Troy Lynn and Arlo.

Q. Did Mr. Looking Cloud talk to you about what had

happened to Anna Mae?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. What do you remember about him telling you what had

happened to her?

A. Well, first, I mean I was surprised that he was coming

to talk to me about this.

Q. You didn't know him at that time?

A. No, I may have met him. But, no, I didn't know him. So

he told me that he and John Boy and Theda, they had taken her

from Troy Lynn's house in Denver, and that they brought her to

a place in Rapid City, they took her to one house, one place,

and then from there to an empty apartment or house, and that

this house belonged to Thelma Rios, and that they kept Anna

Mae there for maybe a day. And that while she was there that

Laurelie Means and Madonna Thunder Hawk and Thelma Rios and

John Boy and himself, between them, somebody always stayed

with her, and she was kept in that house not free to leave.

Q. Did he ever mention to you why Anna Mae had been taken

to South Dakota?

A. To be questioned.

Q. About what?

A. Being an informant.

Q. Did he tell you where they went once they left Rapid City?

A. The best I can remember what he said was that they were

in Rapid City maybe 24 hours, a day or so, something along

that time line, and then they took her to a house near the

Indian hospital in Rosebud.

Q. Did he say what happened at that house in Rosebud?

A. During this whole process that Anna Mae was trying to

get them to let her go, talking to them about letting her go,

and that she was very afraid. Then they took her, so then

when they went to this house near the Indian hospital, then

Arlo stayed in the car with Anna Mae and John Boy and Theda

went in the house.

Q. Did he say if Anna Mae and he had any type of a


A. Is that she was just asking them to let her go. She

wanted to be free, she was afraid, you know, and basically it

was that kind of, but I don't know if that is really a

conversation. She is saying to him she wants to, would he let her go.

Q. Did he ever mention to you that they had also stopped in

Pine Ridge?

A. I don't remember him telling me that.

Q. He didn't ever mention to you that they stopped at a

house in Allen?

A. I don't, I truly don't remember it. I mean he may have

said it, but I don't remember that.

Q. So what did he tell you happened once they left the

house in Rosebud?

A. Well, John Boy and Theda came out of the house, and that

they got in the car and they basically drove up to the place

near Wanblee where she was shot.

Q. Did he tell you what happened at the site where she was shot?

A. That they had, that he and John Boy and Anna Mae got out

of the car, and that they walked Anna Mae to a spot where she

was shot, and in the course of this walk that Anna Mae was

crying, praying, talking about her daughters. She didn't want

to lose her daughters, and what were they going to do, please

let her go, and things of that nature, and then she knelt,

that John Boy had her kneel down, and John Boy shot her in the

back of the head.

MR. McMAHON: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Cross exam.


Q. Morning, sir. Or almost afternoon I guess it is. In

this conversation that you had with Arlo, what year was that?

A. 1988.

Q. Who else was present during that conversation?

A. Troy Lynn.

Q. Was she adding to the conversation at all?

A. Pardon?

Q. Was she talking at the time?

A. She may have been, but I don't really remember that.

Q. You had spoken to Troy Lynn prior to meeting with Arlo,

had you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And she had told you what she thought Arlo would say to

you, isn't that correct?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Did she tell you anything about?

A. She said he wanted to talk to me, that he wanted to talk

to me, but it was about what happened with Anna Mae, it was in

relationship to Anna Mae.

Q. Where did this conversation take place with Arlo?

A. In a hotel room.

Q. In a hotel room?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any possibility it took place in a car?

A. We may have went down to the car from there, but

basically because they came to my room.

Q. First of all, you didn't write any notes of this or

anything like that, did you, sir?

A. No.

Q. I suppose that through the years because you knew

Ms. Pictou-Aquash that if something comes out on this subject

you would read it if you could?

A. I would what?

Q. Read something that comes out on this subject, isn't

that correct?

A. Well, maybe, because it depends on who is writing it,

because a lot of people write things that have no basis to reality.

Q. It seems to me that at some point in this case you have

made a statement to somebody to the effect that it is kind of

hard to keep it all straight, what you have read and what you

have heard and things like that. You recall anything like that?

A. Yes, I do, and it was in regard to a specific statement.

Q. Now when we are talking about then what Arlo is telling

you in this vehicle, or in the hotel room, as the case may be?

A. In the course of the evening.

Q. When ever he was there. Can you, as you sit there

today, specifically recall him telling you names of people in

Rapid City, or could you have filled that information in?

A. He told me the names, because I did not -- he told me

those names, there is no mistake about this.

Q. There is no mistake about that?

A. No mistake about this.

Q. And this conversation occurred I think we have

established was it '88?

A. In 1988.

Q. 1988, okay. Did he ever say anything to you about

wanting Ms. Pictou-Aquash to die?

A. No. I mean no, he didn't say that. The impression I

got was that he didn't know what the end result was going to

be. That I will say that, but it happened, and he played his role.

Q. When you were speaking to him, was it clear to you that

the fact that she was killed was a surprise to him?

A. I got the impression, I don't know about surprise, but

up until the time they left that house. See after they left

that house, I don't know about surprises any more, alright,

because somebody said to do this, but up until the time they

went to that house I don't think he expected that she would be killed.

Q. You just said at that house somebody said to do this?

A. Yes.

Q. What are you referring to?

A. Well, John Boy and Arlo and Theda, they weren't decision

makers. I mean they couldn't give this kind. It wasn't their

idea to go down there and pick her up, it wasn't their idea.

They did what they were told.

Q. You have told us what Arlo told you already, and I don't

recall you saying anything about him saying that someone

issued an order or said anything at that house. Do you recall

him saying that anybody at that house said anything about

Ms. Pictou-Aquash being killed?

A. John Boy and Theda went in that house, and when they

came out it was with the instructions to kill her.

Q. That's what Arlo told you?

A. I almost say it verbatim in those exact words, but that

was the impression of what I got out of what he told me.

Q. I am not trying to nitpick with you.

A. I understand.

Q. I nitpick with you, but it is very, very important. I

want to know if you heard from Arlo's mouth something about

him knowing that she was going to be killed in advance of her

death? Did you hear anything in that regard?

A. Up until the time they went to that house, my opinion he

didn't know she was going to be killed, but when they left

that house they knew.

Q. Arlo told you they knew?

A. They took her out and shot her. Somewhere in there, so

I mean --

Q. Well, we are here about what Arlo said, and did Arlo

tell you that he knew, or are you making that assumption?

A. I am very careful about making an assumption on this.

It is just that when John Boy and Theda came out of that

house, because Theda took Anna Mae's jewelry, took some of her


Q. So as you are talking to us now you remember Arlo saying

something about Theda taking Anna Mae's jewelry?

A. Somewhere in the course of that, yes.

Q. Is that something that you could have read, sir?

A. No. Certain things I remember because I had not heard

them before. I can't remember the point that you are going

to, but there was something I had been asked, and I wasn't

sure if I had read that part.

Q. Mr. McMahon had asked you what Arlo had said, and I

don't recall you saying anything about jewelry. Maybe I missed it.

A. Maybe I forgot to say it to him, but the deal is --

Q. Because you and I have had a telephone conversation?

A. Yes, we have.

Q. Didn't you say to me that this is a situation of Arlo

being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

A. That's my feeling.

Q. Didn't you say to me that from everything Arlo told you

that this was a complete surprise on his part?

A. Something to that effect.

Q. I guess I am asking you if you would say something to

the effect that from what Arlo told you, this was a complete

surprise on his part, why the change?

A. I don't think I am changing. See, because it all hinges

at that house, alright, because I think there was a complete

surprise to him that that decision had been made.

Q. Well, do you know at what point he became aware of the

decision, did he tell you?

A. When he got out of that car and started walking to where

she was killed.

Q. What did he say about that?

A. They got out of the car, and they had the gun and they

walked to the thing. So now I am making an assumption, okay,

I am making an assumption he knew by then that something was

going to happen.

Q. You use the word they, it includes a lot of people?

A. John Boy and Arlo got out of that car with Anna Mae and

walked her to that spot.

Q. Arlo never said he had the gun, did he?

A. No, he never said he had the gun.

Q. He didn't know that John Boy had the gun, would you agree?

A. No, I can't agree or disagree with that.

Q. You don't know?

A. Right.

Q. And that John Boy shot her, and that was a surprise to

Arlo that she would be shot?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did he say that to you?

A. Did he say that it was a surprise to him.

Q. It was a surprise when she was killed?

A. No, he didn't use those words.

Q. What words did he use that led you to say to me that

something to the effect this was a surprise to him?

A. He was picking Anna Mae up in Denver and taking her to

the house, wherever she was held here in Rapid and then taking

her to the house in Rosebud, alright. I had the feeling that

none of those three that took her up to that point really knew

what the outcome was going to be, because somebody was telling

them what to do. But when they left that house, somebody

amongst them knew what was going to happen. So to me I would

say that the surprise, Arlo was surprised that this happened

to her, but it was after that visit to that house.

Q. You just said that you think that somebody knew what was

going to happen when they left that house, right, sir?

Somebody in that car?

A. Somebody did.

Q. But Arlo didn't tell you that he knew what was going to

happen when they left that house, did he?

A. The best I remember what he said was that when John Boy

and Theda came out of that house, they took her where she was

shot, and then he and John Boy got out of the car, alright,

and walked her to where she was at, alright, and John Boy had

her kneel down and shot her in the back of the head. And if I

remember correctly, there was something about maybe a blanket

or something, but I may be confused about that.

Q. So you are telling us what he said, you are remembering,

you are visualizing him talking to you wherever it was you

were talking and trying to tell us also what he said?

A. I mean he said what he said to me, yes, he did.

Q. As you recounted all this you didn't say anything about

her begging for her life, or saying please don't shoot me, or

mentioning anything about her kids?

A. Say this again.

Q. As you just told us what you he said happened?

A. He told me about her begging for her life and her kid.

Q. Is your position he told you she was begging for her

life on the walk out to the ravine?

A. Yes.

Q. And sir, you don't know whether she was begging when

Theda and John Boy went in to this house by the Indian

hospital from his conversation?

A. No, she was.

Q. You are telling us that he told you she was begging when

they went in to the house, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that when the other two of course went in the house

he would be in the car alone with her?

A. Yes.

Q. I want to ask you if you, now you have spoken with an

individual about this matter and that was tape recorded, have

you not?

A. Yes.

Q. You know an individual by the name of Neil (Serle) Chapman?

A. Yes.

Q. He interviewed you about this, did he not?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know he was taping it as he was interviewing you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you say this to him, and I am at page 8.

MR. McMAHON: Excuse me, Your Honor, I believe this

is improper impeachment, he can refresh his recollection?


MR. RENSCH: Can we approach for a moment, please?

THE COURT: You may.

( Bench Conference)

MR. RENSCH: This is a prior inconsistency, it need

not be under oath. I can ask him if he was asked the question

and he denies it, then he has access to the document. I am

looking at a prior inconsistent statement in this interview

and it's my intent to ask him if he made the statement.

THE COURT: You haven't asked him yet.

MR. RENSCH: No, I haven't, I think it's my choice

if I want to let him refresh his recollection or ask him outright.

THE COURT: You were referring to the pages were you

impeaching him before you asked the question.

MR. RENSCH: I was just doing that so counsel would

know where I was at. Do you want me to do some other

procedure, I think I can, but I think I am allowed to say did

you say this, and if he didn't, he can deny it, and it would

be my option to bring in the person who made the statement to

tie it up. I don't think I have to throw it in front of him

to ask him the question.

THE COURT: You haven't asked the question yet, I

think that's the point.

MR. RENSCH: Do you want me to put it in front of him.

THE COURT: What you do is up to you, but you

haven't asked a predicate question yet that you have either to

refresh him with or impeach him with.

MR. McMAHON: I thought he was going to try to

impeach him, and there wasn't anything pending.

THE COURT: That's what I thought, too, but I think

we have that ironed out, I think.

MR. RENSCH: So everybody knows, the predicate

questions I asked him about him claiming that she was begging

in the car, that's what this impeaches, that's why I was

asking those previous questions.

THE COURT: Let me look at what you are looking at.

MR. RENSCH: Right here.

MR. McMAHON: I don't think that even talks about it.

MR. RENSCH: I think a prior inconsistent statement.

MR. McMAHON: Why is it inconsistent?

MR. RENSCH: Because he said she was begging in the

car, here it says she wasn't. It says what ever she was

stating to him when she was by herself with him in the car.

MR. McMAHON: What ever she was saying, it doesn't

say she wasn't saying.

MR. RENSCH: If she wasn't saying, that would imply.

THE COURT: I don't think so, but you can do what

you want, but that doesn't mean I am not going to sustain an

objection, we will see.

(End Bench Conference ).


Q. Sir, you have just indicated to us that

Ms. Pictou-Aquash was saying things to Arlo while he was alone

in the car, and that's what Arlo had reported to you, okay. I

would like to ask you if you made this statement on another

occasion. Page 8. Statement by you. And he and Anna Mae

stayed in the car, and what ever he was saying, and I don't,

see what I think is I don't think that whatever she was saying

to him when he was by himself with her in that car, I think

she was saying the same things to the rest of them when they

were going. Did you make that statement, sir?

A. Say that again, it's confusing.

Q. Here, let me show it to you. So much for that.

A. Yeah, I probably said that, but I don't, I am confused

by the question.

Q. You don't really remember where it was that Arlo was

saying Ms. Pictou-Aquash was asking to be let go, do you, sir?

A. No, I do remember. It was in the car, because when John

Boy and Theda went in to that house, alright, she was having

this conversation with him not to, about to let her go, her begging.

Q. What did he say his response was to her?

A. That he couldn't do anything.

Q. Did he say anything to her about not thinking that she

was going to be killed that you recall?

A. No, not that I recall.

Q. Do you know an individual by the name of John Graham?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How do you know him?

A. Well, I met John Boy, I know him as John Boy, but I met

him in the spring of 1976.

Q. Okay. You sundanced with him, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What does that mean to sundance with somebody?

A. I can't say what it means for everybody. For me, you

know, it is like, it is making an offering, it's an offering

of yourself either in return for help that has been given, or,

so it is a personal physical sacrifice that is part of a

mental psychological sacrifice that you make to the people for

this endurance.

Q. Do you do that in a circle?

A. Yes.

Q. Was John Boy in the circle?

A. He was sundancing, yes, he was.

Q. After that point did John Boy take on some position of

prominence within the American Indian Movement?

A. Not that I recall. I mean when you say position of

prominence, I can't say that.

Q. He continued to remain active in the American Indian

Movement ?

A. See, during this time in '76 the Butler Robin (Robideau) trial on

the FBI thing was taking place in Cedar Rapids, and then I

went to the sundance. Actually maybe it had already, the

trial was over, and then I went to the sundance. And John Boy

was there, because I had some involvement with him there at

the sundance, and then I don't really remember seeing John Boy

again until 1980. I am not going to say I didn't, or '79 and

'80. So he kind of, I mean see I lived in my own reality, my

family was in Nevada, and I was doing what I was doing. So I

wasn't around a lot of activities, but I don't remember seeing

John Boy again until about '80, '79 or '80.

Q. If you were friends with Anna Mae, why, if Arlo said

these things to you in '88, why didn't you call the police and

do something about it?

A. Because I told Arlo that I would say that what he said

to me he said in it in confidence. And I have to respect

that, because I felt it was something he wanted to get off his

chest, and the reality of it is what he said to me, I had to

respect the confidentiality, but at the same time I wanted to

know, because up to that time there had been many rumors Anna

Mae had been spotted here and spotted there, there had been

many rumors around '75, '76, but nobody really knew what

happened. But when I talked to Arlo, it made it more concise

to me. I mean go to police, pragmatic, I mean no offense, but

my relationship with the United States government isn't a real

good one. I have no basis to be trusting police, I don't want

to be a pawn and be used against my own people. No, I don't

want that, and what if what is being said is a mistake. So I

can't just, yes. I wanted to know what happened to Anna Mae,

and I kept my agreement to Arlo until later when I see it in

the News From Indian Country these are the things that Arlo

has said, and somewhere because I wasn't the source of that

information, and then I knew alright, I can now publicly do


Q. Let me ask you, based upon what you heard as you looked

in to Arlo's eyes as he was telling you these things, was it

your impression that he wanted her to die?

A. Was it my impression that what?

Q. Arlo wanted her to die based on what he said?

A. No.

Q. Was it your impression that he wanted to help see that

she died when he told you what had happened?

A. No, because he wouldn't have told me if he wanted those

things to happen, but those things did happen.

MR. RENSCH: Thank you, sir. That's all.


Q. Mr. Trudell, you remember the fact that Mr. Looking

Cloud told you Anna Mae was begging for her life in the car?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. You remember that?

A. I remember that.

Q. And you remember the fact that he was, she was begging

for her life all the while she was walking out to that cliff

with them?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And she begged them not to kill her?

A. Yes.

Q. She talked about her two daughters?

A. She was saying what are her daughters going to do. See,

Anna Mae love her daughters very much, because the time I knew

her whatever went on in her family and her daughters, I knew

that was a very traumatic thing for her to not have her

daughters, so she talked about them, I mean before this. Her

daughters were a very focal point in her life, and that night

when they were walking her, yes, she was talking about her daughters.

Q. I think you said in response to a question by Mr. Rensch

that once they came out of that house on the Rosebud they were

under instructions to kill her?

A. Somebody was.

Q. And they went and did that?

A. Yes.

MR. McMAHON: That's all I have.

THE COURT: Anything further?


Q. And Arlo told you that, that somebody gave instructions

for her to be killed?

A. I don't remember the exact words, alright, but they came

out of that house. John Boy, or Arlo told me John Boy and

Theda came out of that house and they drove from there and

took her out and walked her and killed her. Maybe he didn't

say the exact words you are trying to get me to say, but

basically he said that, because see, they weren't --

Q. Is it possible?

A. It's not something they thought up on their own.

Q. Is it possible what Arlo was describing to you was him

sitting out in the car, these two coming out of the house,

getting in the car, driving to a point, stopping the car, and

then this activity took place?

A. Say that again?

MR. RENSCH: Forget it, nothing further.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. McMAHON: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, you may step down. We will

take our noon recess now, and I went a little longer because I

wanted the witness to be able to finish his testimony. So you

are excused, thank you. So we will be in recess until 1:30

this afternoon, thank you. Please stand for the jury.

(Recess at 12:20 until 1:30).

Friday, September 9, 2011

I'm not waiting out the economy...

I'm not waiting out the economy, hoping it gets better, I'm hoping capitalism falls.

...Hoping to fan the flames of people's revolt until this system is no more and we replace it with the people's institutions. :)

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Upping the Anti Interview

Upping the Anti Interview at the International CopWatching Conference

Sunday, September 4, 2011

PAPERS By SHINING SOUL ( extended version)

Shining Soul will be performing on 9/11 at the Maravilla Handball Courts


No Borders! Stop u.s. terrorism on indigenous people!

Saturday, September 3, 2011

"I Live, I Die, I Organize": What is hacking?

"I Live, I Die, I Organize": What is hacking?

NYM Presents: No Borders! Stop U.S. Terrorism Against Indigenous People

Sunday, September 11 · 6:00pm - 10:00pm

Maravilla Handball Court
501 Mednik (cross Street is Chavez)
East Los Angeles, CA

Native Youth Movement (NYM) Presents:

No Borders: End U.S. Terrorism Against Indigenous People

Hip Hop, Speakers/Presentations, and BBQ

O'odham Struggles 101
-Indigenous Nation in Resistance to the "U.S./Mexico" border

Speakers from the Native Youth Movement and indigenous struggles from all over.

Performance by:
Shining Soul with DJ Lingos-Phoenix, AZ
Cozmobrown and DJ Lingos-Tucson AZ
Guerrilla Queenz
Sherman Austin
and more...

Pupusas for sale

Fundraising Event for: the space and indigenous communities and ceremonies

Friday, September 2, 2011

Illinois Man Faces 75 years for Recording the Police

It's Illegal to film Police in 12 States WE HAVE TO BE OUTLAWS!

Grassroots Gathering to Resist Proposed Pipelines

Report Back from Unist’hot’en Gathering, Wet’suwet’en Territory

By Gord Hill, August 22, 2011

From August 12-15, 2011, members of the Unist’hot’en clan of the Wet’suwet’en nation hosted their second gathering to oppose industrial threats in their traditional territory. Specifically, they are opposed to two major pipelines that will cut through their territory, the Pacific Trails Pipeline and Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline system.

According to the Wet’suwet’en organizers of the camp, these pipelines threaten their way of life by endangering land and water along the proposed route, which roughly parallels Highway 16. In Wet’suwet’en territory, the pipelines are proposed to be built directly alongside the Morice River (Wedzin Kwah in Wet’suwet’en). The river remains pure and pristine, despite extensive logging in the region.

The Unist’hot’en Camp is located some 66 kilometres south of Houston and alongside the Morice River. Over the previous year, a large log cabin has been built at the site in the route of the proposed pipelines. At this year’s gathering, a “No Pipelines” banner was placed in trees near the entrance and wire fencing constructed. A previous cabin built at another site was burned to the ground last year, and the Wet’suwet’en are taking measures to increase their security at the camp.

Approximately thirty people attended the gathering, ranging from independent journalists & film makers to hardcore anarchists from East Vancouver. Discussions were held in the cabin and around camp fires, focusing on organizing strategies to mobilize grassroots opposition to the Pacific Trails Pipeline. The Wet’suwet’en also conducted a traditional welcoming of guests, shared songs and stories, as well as food from their territory.

Who Are the Wet’suwet’en?

The Wet’suwet’en are closely related to the Dakelh, or Carrier, and were once referred to as the Western Carrier. There are four main communities of the Wet’suwet’en: Burns Lake, Palling, Hagwilget, and Moricetown. The current population of the Wet’suwet’en is approximately 3,000.

According to Mel Basil, a Gitxsan/Wet’suwet’en who helped organized the gathering, “The Wet’suwet’en have five clans, Tsayu (Beaver Clan), C’Iltsehkhyu (Unist’hot’en Night Hawk and Big Frog Clan), Lihksilyu (Caribour and Small Frog), Lihkts’amisyu (Fireweed and Killerwhale Clan), and Gitimt’en (Bear Clan).
“We were known to the settlers as the Western Carrier, but prior to contact we knew ourselves as Yinka Dini. The eastern Nuutseni’s called us Wet’suwet’en.”

Oil and Gas Stolen from Native Land

Like most of BC, Wet’suwet’en traditional lands remain unceded Indigenous territory, over which BC and the federal government lack jurisdiction. Having failed to legally extinguish Aboriginal title, BC today constitutes an illegal state entity occupying sovereign Indigenous territories, in violation of Canadian and international law. As is the case historically, however, the real imposition of colonial control is achieved through force, and for nearly 150 years state-sanctioned resource exploitation and settlement has occurred on Native land.

As early as the 1880s, Natives in BC began protesting this blatant theft of land. By 1927, the Indian Act was amended to outlaw land claims organizing. During the 1960s and 1970s, Indigenous peoples throughout North America began to mobilize to defend their lands. Along with direct actions carried out by grassroots radicals, band councils began litigation in the courts to change laws and policies (i.e., the Nisga’a land claim).

In 1987, the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en launched their joint land title court case known as Delgamuukw (a hereditary title). The case was accompanied by rallies and civil disobedience-style blockades, most often carried out by the band councils (the Office of the Wet’suwet’en was formed during this court case, essentially a tribal council).

After appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Delgamuukw case was concluded in December 1997. The court recognized the prior existence of Aboriginal title but that it must now be accommodated with the assertion of British sovereignty. Negotiations were encouraged to resolve this difference. Nearly 15 years after the Delgamuukw decision, however, there has been a rapid expansion into the most remote Indigenous territories by corporations in search of new resources to extract.

Along with mining, the oil and gas industry has seen record-breaking growth. In 2008-09, the industry contributed some $2.3 billion to the provincial revenue. In 2010, there were some 20,400 oil wells in the province. This growth has been stimulated by increased demand from US and Asian markets. In 2011, PetroChina invested $5.4 billion in Encana to secure supplies of natural gas. In order to transport all this oil and gas from northeastern BC and northern Alberta, several major pipelines are now planned, many of which cross through Wet’suwet’en and other Indigenous nations territories.

No Go for NGOs

Noticeably absent from this year’s Unist’hot’en gathering were delegates from environmentalist Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). One reason for their absence may be that, unlike the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which will transport Tar Sands bitumen, the Pacific Trails Pipeline is intended to carry natural gas from the Prince George area to Kitimat (some 463 kilometres). The Enbridge line, which has seen significant opposition from Indigenous peoples, environmentalists and NGOs, would comprise two pipelines running some 1170 kilometres, from northern Alberta to ports in Kitimat. These would cross two mountain passes and 733 rivers, creeks and streams, carrying up to 525,000 barrels of bitumen each day from Alberta to Kitimat. There, it would be shipped out of the long arm of Douglas Channel by supertankers bound for Asian markets. The estimated cost is some $5.5 billion. Its link to the Tar Sands has made it the target of NGOs, whose single issue focus remains Enbridge. According to some critics, this is the because their funders—some of whom are funded by oil corporations—dictate their campaigns.

According to Basil, “There are 4 pipeline companies proposing to infiltrate our territories, they are Pacific Trails Pipelines, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, Pembina, and Kinder Morgan. The latter three propose to construct two pipelines each totaling all four companies proposed impacts at seven pipelines.

“Pembina and Kinder Morgan have enjoyed clandestine proposal and a lack of resistance to their pipeline construction proposals, as has the Pacific Trails Pipeline. It appears that the large resistance to the Enbridge provides the Pacific Trails Pipeline a smokescreen. Too much focus on the loser Enbridge is allowing the three other corporations to establish themselves with little to no resistance.”

Facts and Figures

Officially, the Pacific Trails Pipeline is referred to as the Kitimat-Summit Lake Natural Gas Pipeline Looping (KSL) project. It will move natural gas from Summit Lake (near Prince George) to Kitimat using an underground 36 inch diameter pipeline with an 18-metre right of way on each side. It is planned to have a carrying capacity up to approximately 1,000 Mmcf/d (million cubic feet per day).

Near Kitimat, a Liquid Natural Gas processing facility will be built (at Bish Cove, on a Haisla reserve, approximately 650 kilometers/400 miles north of Vancouver). The facility is planned for an initial output capacity of 5 million metric tonnes per annum. From ports in Kitimat it will be shipped by oil tankers to Asian markets. The total cost of the pipeline is some $1 billion, and it is planned to be operational by 2015.

According to the Pacific Trails Pipeline website (,

“Pacific Trail Pipelines will provide a direct connection between the Spectra Energy Transmission pipeline system and the Kitimat LNG terminal for the transportation of natural gas from Western Canada to Asian markets.”

The current Spectra natural gas pipeline runs from the far north-east corner of BC (the Horn River area, located within Treaty 8 lands) to the lower mainland. Much of this natural gas is acquired through fracking, a highly destructive method of extraction that pumps liquid into rock layers to create fractures through which gas or oil is removed (also referred to as hydraulic fracturing).

Pacific Trail Blazer for Enbridge?

According to the Wet’suwet’en and others, the proposed Pacific Trails Pipeline has a similar right-of-way to Enbridge’s pipeline. Originally permitted to take natural gas into the tar sands, the proposed pipeline flow has since been reversed, and is now proposed to serve to transport natural gas from shale deposits extracted through fracking in north east BC to export markets via Kitimat. The Pacific Trails Pipeline is slated to measure nearly a meter in diameter, with a wide right of way on each side. Because it is liquid natural gas, it has also faced less regulatory hurdles and has slid through with barely any opposition expressed. A very real danger is that the Pacific Trails Pipeline will serve as a trail blazer for Enbridge; after all, why oppose a pipeline if there is already one built (a common argument used by industry in other areas)?

During a recent May 2011 interview with Fox News’ Mad Money host Jim Kramer, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel discussed Enbridge’s move into the natural gas market and its collaboration with other corporations, including the possibility of joining their respective pipeline projects (Enbridge’s Gateway and the Pacific Trail Pipeline).

“We think we’re in a very strong position with regard to exporting Canadian natural gas in particular. We’re currently putting forward our credentials to the proponents – EOG, Apache, Shell and others – that are working on moving Western Canadian natural gas out to the West Coast; and we would hope to be able to see some synergies with the right-of-way that we’re working on with our Gateway pipeline out to the West Coast. So, yes, we’re very interested in doing that and we would hope to be the the pipeline provider for one or both of those alternatives” (see, which includes a transcript of the interview on a sidebar).

Band Councils Cash In

While many NGOs and band councils have opposed the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the Pacific Trails Pipeline is actually supported by 15 band councils along the planned 463 kilometre route. An agreement signed in 2009 gives these bands a combined 30 percent stakes in the pipeline. Some of the supporting bands include Burns Lake, Stallat’en First Nation, the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, and the Wet’suwet’en First Nation.

According to Chief David Luggi of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, the 15 bands “could realize cash flows of $540 million to $570 million over the life of the 25 year deal” ( ). The bands will also receive $18 million each over the next two years from Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). This funding will be used to train some 600 Aboriginal people to work in the construction of the pipeline (Pacific Trail Pipelines Aboriginal Skills Employment Partnership). 300 have already begun training, according to Luggi.

Know Your Enemy: Pacific Trails Pipeline

The three major stockholders of the Pacific Trails Pipeline are Apache Canada Ltd. (40 % and operator), Encana (30 %) and EOG Canada (30%). The Kitimat processing plant will be jointly owned by Apache and EOG.

Apache Canada Ltd. is a subsidiary of the Apache Corporation, which is based in Houston, Texas, with regional offices and operations in the US, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Egypt, and the UK North Sea. In 2010, its market capitalization was approximately $30 billion. The proven reserves at the end of 2009 totaled 2.37 billion barrels of oil equivalent, roughly half oil and half natural gas. The company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange as APA, and its website is

EOG Resources Canada Inc. is a subsidiary of EOG Resources, Inc. based in the US with operations in Canada, the UK, China, and Trinidad. It is traded on the NYSE as ‘EOG’. The company’s website is

Encana is a Canadian natural gas corporation created by Canadian Pacific Railway and later merged with the Alberta Energy Corporation in 2002. It is based in Calgary, Alberta. Its operations have been opposed in Alberta and northern BC, where its pipelines have been subjected to explosive attacks by persons unknown near Dawson’s Creek. Encana’s US subsidiary has also been criticized for its fracking practises (which it also uses in northeastern BC. It is traded on the NYSE and Toronto Stock Exchange as ECA. For more information, visit the company’s website:

The Final Conflict

Today, the BC Central Interior and far north are facing a renewed onslaught of mining and oil & gas projects, as well as infrastructure to support these (i.e., power lines, roads, etc.). As the global capitalist system continues to decline, facing growing economic and ecological crises, it is also experiencing resource depletion. Some analysts believe we have already reached peak oil, a vital necessity to industrial capitalism, and that in the next 1-2 decades there will be significant disruptions to the entire capitalist system.

As a result, corporations and government are turning to the most remote and previously inaccessible sources of gas and oil, as well as minerals. The Alberta Tar Sands, the largest industrial project in the history of the world, is one aspect of this. Proposals to drill for oil in the Arctic, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and offshore drilling, also arise from the depletion of resources and the capitalist’s need to acquire more. Despite plans to develop railway ‘pipelines’ by CN and CP Rail (to Prince Rupert and Vancouver, respectively), pipelines are the main method of transporting oil and gas from northeastern BC and Alberta to either US or Asian markets.

Since the early 2000s, however, numerous Indigenous peoples have been organizing to oppose many of these industrial projects. In 2008, the Tahltan won a temporary victory when Shell announced it was suspending its plans to drill for coal-bed methane gas in the headwaters of the Skeena, Nass, and Stikine rivers. The proposed Kemess North mine in Tse Keh Nay territory was also turned down after significant opposition to the company’s plan to turn Amazay Lake into a tailings pond. Most recently, the Tsilhqot’in organized opposition to the proposed gold and copper mine at Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and succeeded in temporarily halting it. In these struggles, as well as that against the Enbridge pipeline, there has been significant alliances built with non-Native settlers in the region.

Along with organizing against major industrial projects there has also been a campaign by Native peoples to raise awareness about the over 30 missing/murdered women (most Aboriginal) along Highway 16, also referred to as the ‘Highway of Tears.’

When asked to summarize his opinion about the ongoing struggle to protect Wet’suwet’en land and territory, Basil stated:

“We can drink straight from the river Wedzin Kwah [Morice River] and we aim to maintain that for thousands of more years and will escalate in our resistance to viciously protect our future generations and their relationship with our world that is largely governed by laws of respect!”

For more info:

Unist’hot’en Wet’suwet’en Contacts:

Freda Huson at 250 847-8897 or her email at;

Mel Bazil at 250 877 2805, or his email

See also the article “In BC, Pipes Spell Double Trouble,” by Dawn Paley at

Los Ilegales - Ricardo Flores Magon

Los Ilegales (Ricardo Flores Magon)

El verdadero revolucionario es un ilegal por excelencia. El hombre que ajusta sus actos a la ley podrá ser, a lo sumo, un buen animal domesticado; pero no un revolucionario.

La ley conserva, la revolución renueva. Por lo mismo, si hay que renovar hay que comenzar por romper la ley.

Pretender que la revolución sea hecha dentro de la ley, es una locura, es un contrasentido. La ley es yugo, y el que quiera librarse del yugo tiene que quebrarlo.

El que predica a los trabajadores que dentro de la ley puede obtenerse la emancipación del proletariado, es un embaucador, porque la ley ordena que no arranquemos de las manos del rico la riqueza que nos ha robado, y la expropiación de la riqueza para el beneficio de todos es la condición sin la cual no puede conquistarse la emancipación humana.

La ley es un freno, y con frenos no se puede llegar a la libertad. La ley castra, y los castrados no pueden aspirar a ser hombres.

Las libertades conquistadas por la especie humana son la obra de los ilegales de todos los tiempos que tomaron las leyes en sus manos y las hicieron pedazos.

El tirano muere a puñaladas, no con artículos del código.

La expropiación se hace pisoteando la ley, no llevándola a cuestas.

Por eso los revolucionarios tenemos que ser forzosamente ilegales. Tenemos que salirnos del camino trillado de los convencionalismos y abrir nuevas vías.

Rebeldía y legalidad son términos que andan de la greña.

Queden, pues, la ley y el orden para los conservadores y los farsantes.

Viva Tierra y Libertad

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Vyacheslav Molotov Cocktails

Posted by Rebecca

Celinicus (spelling?), a Syrian, invented the first Molotov Cocktail in 672 AD. Later, it was named and the Euros took all the credit.... wiki has no history of the Syrian but an interesting read about the naming nonethelessi:

"The Molotov cocktail is a term coined by the Finns during the Winter War, as a generic name used for a variety of improvised incendiary weapons. ... the Soviet air force made extensive use of incendiaries and cluster bombs against Finnish troops and fortifications. When [Stalin's 1st Deputy] Vyacheslav Molotov claimed in radio broadcasts that they were not bombing, but rather delivering food to the starving Finns, the Finns started to call the air bombs Molotov bread baskets. Soon they responded by attacking advancing tanks with "Molotov cocktails" which were "a drink to go with the food". According to Montefiore the Molotov cocktail was one part of Molotov's cult of personality which he highly disliked."

(I've been watching Netflix historical docs again... this one is called "Ancient Inventions: War and Conflict." I really recommend checking it out) or if your don't have netflix watch it here: