Bruce Anderson's actual words

This portrait of Bruce Anderson appeared on the front page of New York Press, an alternative weekly, a couple of years ago. It illustrated an Alexander Cockburn article about Anderson's obsessive-compulsive campaign to discredit Judi Bari, her lawsuit against the FBI, and everyone who supports her.

"What's the matter with you fools!!??" Anderson bellows. "Pay attention to me! I'm number one! I'm number one! Me, me, meeeee!!!"

I personally asked Alexander Cockburn about the Bari Bombing. He told me that he believed Bruce Anderson version.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.htm

It don't mean shit whether Cockburn is dumb enough to believe Anderson's idiocy. My description of the Anderson illustration and the editorial intent of the New York Press is accurate.

All Cockburn knows about the case is what his circle jerk buddy Anderson whispered in his shell-like ear. Both of them are male chauvinist pigs who couldn't stand the fact that Judi Bari was smarter, funnier and more articulate than both of them put together (and what a disgusting thought that is, both of them put together, that is) and then some. Better looking too. And a far better musician to boot. Besides that she told them off, and they're never going to get over that.

The indisputable fact is that Anderson's crackpot theory of the Bari bombing comes directly to him from Irv Sutley, the spy and agent provocateur against Judi Bari who has been linked by his DNA to mailing the Argus police snitch letter that went with the photo of Judi holding Sutley's Uzi to the cops. Sutley offered to snitch Judi off when the cops might bust her for sending pot through the mail. He tried to follow through, but Judi wasn't that stupid. Sutley also mailed the first of many death threats Judi received in the two months before the bombing. He got Ed Gehrman, an amateur writer about UFOs and alien autopsies to become his stenographer and true believer, and duped poor Ed into spending three years of his life trying to dig up dirt on Judi's ex and writing an article for Flatland, a magazine of UFOs and conspiracies.

Anderson got wind of Gehrman's article and began promoting it even before Flatland was published, including plugging it to Cockburn, who wrote an amazingly silly and uncritical plug for it in his Counterpunch newsletter. Anderson jumped fully on the Flatland bandwagon and took over driving it. He drove off half the readership of his AVA by harping on the story every issue for over a year. He organized half a dozen road shows plugging the Sutley-Flatland red herring theory, most of them featuring participation by Sutley himself. The Berkeley edition of the roadshow featured Cockburn as well as Sutley, and Cockburn began the show by telling how Anderson drove all the way to tiny Petrolia, way out on Cape Mendocino where Cockburn lives, to fetch Cockburn down to Berkeley so he could kiss his ass in public.

So Cockburn bought Anderson's bullshit. That just proves that he has no critical ability left, if he ever had any, or at least he suspends it where his buddies' interests are concerned. Cockburn wrote an article about Anderson's obsession to pin the Bari bombing on the ex, and the New York Press picked it up and commissioned the previously sent graphic to illustrate it.

Anderson thought it was a great coup that Cockburn lent him his dubious prestige and got him on the front page of the NY Press. But the graphic makes it perfectly clear that the big city NY Press played the story as a farce about what the rubes in the sticks were doing to pass the winter. And of course they were buying Cockburn's name, which has been forever cheapened by his falling for Anderson's relaying of Sutley's Cointelpro bullshit.

And by the way, I'm not Tanya Brannan, I'm C. Light.

To Whom It May Concern:

Bruce Anderson, editor of the Anderson Valley Advertiser refuses to publish the following letter about the Bari bombing case. At first he claimed he didn't receive it. I faxed it again on 2/17 and called on 2/18 to ask if they received it. Anderson responded, via Mark Scaramella, "Tell him to send it to the [Ukiah Daily] Journal. I'm not interested anymore." I faxed it a third time on 3/1 with the following cover letter but received no response.

It has always been clear to me that the AVA is your paper and that you are free to publish, or not publish, anything you choose. No problem. It is also clear that you will always have the last word. Again, no problem.

However, your decision not to print my current letter undermines your claim that the AVA is the last bastion of Free Speech in America, and especially the only public forum where the Bari bombing case can be fully and freely debated. My letter was directly on point, perhaps too pointed for you, but don't blame me because your frequent self-contradictions have made it easy for me to debunk your skewed version of the case.

Your decision to abruptly cut off debate, without explanation to me or your readers, shreds any remaining vestige of journalistic credibility on your part. If my letter is so unworthy of publication, why not run it and hold me up to ridicule for the entertainment of your readers? You don't and won't because you have no answer to my criticisms of your factual shortcomings on the Bari case and you lack the gumption to admit you have been proven wrong.

Editor.
Boxed in by your own contradictory claims regarding the Bari-Cherney vs. the FBI federal civil rights lawsuit and the related bombing case, you now claim (AVA 1/16/02) that you were merely considering possibilities, yet each assault on the truth has been delivered with biblical certainty.

You claim to be operating in good faith, but only you and the FBI cling to the demonstrably false claim that Judi Bari could have been knowingly transporting the bomb that nearly killed her. Like the FBI, you fail to offer any facts or a single shred of evidence to support this baseless allegation. Unlike the FBI, you claim to be a "friend" of Judi Bari who only seeks the truth. Some friend.

For several years before and after the bombing you were a confidant of Judi Bari and the AVA was Judi's primary media outlet for discussion of the case. Despite your firsthand knowledge, you have repeatedly lied about the very nature of the lawsuit, falsely claiming that it alleges and must prove an FBI conspiracy to bomb, when in fact it alleges and must prove an FBI/Oakland PD conspiracy to frame. Not only did the FBI/OPD conspire to frame the victims, they also failed to investigate numerous obvious leads and potential suspects that could have led them to the real bomber.

You acknowledge that the FBI/OPD arrest of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney based on placement of the bomb was false. The FBI/OPD said the bomb was behind the seat where it was visible to the occupants, but all of the physical evidence, including the relative lack of damage to the back seat, the large hole under the driver's seat, the location of the end cap impact points, the hole blown up through the driver's seat, and Judi's injuries prove beyond doubt that the bomb was located directly under Judi's seat. If the authorities erred out of clumsy or hasty action, as you suggest, they would be shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects officers who simply make mistakes, even bad ones, in the course of their duties.

The only reason Bari-Cherney vs. the FBI/OPD is still in court is because the defendants knowingly lied about the placement of the bomb, knowingly lied about the existence of nails in Judi's car that were allegedly "identical" to nails taped to the bomb, knowingly lied about Judi and Darryls' alleged background as `'terrorists'. knowingly lied about numerous other evidentiary matters, and intentionally failed to conduct any semblance of an honest investigation to try and find the real bomber. This isn't a case where the authorities simply overlooked something or innocently came to the wrong conclusion but a case where they deliberately and repeatedly lied in a transparent attempt to manufacture evidence of guilt
and at the same time ignored evidence of innocence as well as clues that could have led to the actual bomber.

You claim to have made very few errors, and blame those on the "secretive" Bari-Cherney legal team. But the legal team made available at cost the 1997 motion and 500+ pages of exhibits that lay out the case in detail, maintain a web site, (http://www.judibari.org) put the reports of DNA testing commissioned by them on the web, and pressed the Oakland and Mendocino County authorities to investigate.

Ninety nine percent of the information under discussion is publicly available, but since you seldom check sources and routinely dismiss those that don't fit your flawed version of the events, mere access to sources doesn't do much for your accuracy. Most of your errors, and all of the major ones, could have been avoided with a little old-fashioned fact-checking and improved reading comprehension. Your problem is not lack of access to sources, but a reliance on your faulty memory, hearsay, innuendo, speculation and your tabloid style shoot-from-the-hip-check-few-facts approach to the case.

Speaking of which, you repeat the utterly baseless charge that Judi Bari could have sealed the "Lord's Avenger " letter while hospitalized, but you fail to account for the around the clock police guard and the prohibition on all physical contact, even with her elderly parents. And what would be the purpose of Judi merely sealing the letter, or did she type it too, injuries, traction and police guard notwithstanding? Since the letter describes the results of the bombing, which could only have been known after the fact, explain how Judi "certainly could have sealed it at any point prior to the bomb blast." In the discussion of who is acting in bad faith, it is very telling that you are willing, even eager, to trot out any canard, no matter how illogical, unfounded, or wholly implausible, and twist it in an attempt to skewer your "friend" and embellish your fanciful account.

You keep referring to "the timer with twelve hours on it" as if this were an established fact, but the timer could have been set for anywhere from zero to slightly less than twelve hours. Only the bomber knows for sure. Unless you are confessing. please cite your source for this critical piece of information.
You cite Jim Martin and Ed Gehrman to refute my contention that "aside from the original hoaxers, only you support the ludicrous idea that the ex would place a bomb at high noon on a busy street," but "original hoaxers" was a direct reference to Martin and Gehrman. You confirm my original point and your poor reading comprehension at the same time.

You are correct that the FBI had no interest in taking Judi's deposition, but you illogically attribute this to her status as alleged co-conspirator. After all, the surest way for the FBI to prove that Judi wasn't framed. would be to prove her guilty. If the FBI really believed that Judi was guilty, they would have been eager to question her under oath about her activities, her associates, her political beliefs and the bombing itself. The obvious conclusion is that the FBI attorneys knew they had no case and that any verbal sparring with Judi (who knew more about the case than anyone) would have only further damaged their chances at trial.

When it became clear that the FBI preferred that Judi's knowledge of the case die with her, and following typical FBI delaying tactics, Judi arranged and paid for her own deposition. Scarcely a month before she died of cancer, Judi underwent two grueling days of depositions. The FBI objected to nearly every question by her lawyer, and nearly every- answer from Judi. They did everything they could to harass and obstruct Judi, even accusing her of faking cancer, but they never asked her a single question.

If the case doesn't go your way, you have vowed to fold the AVA. You declined my proposed bet regarding the replica bomb that wasn't (my house vs. your word processor and/or the MEC building vs. the AVA) but I'm willing to renew the offer. If you lose. either way you're out of the newspaper business. Of course. failing to take the bet preserves your option to weasel out of your pledge to fold the AVA once your fact-free rhetorical house of cards comes tumbling down into its final implausible jurnble of hearsay. innuendo. speculation, fabrication, mis-representation and outright lies.

John McCowen, Ukiah

It will be interesting to see how this trial turns out. I predit the following:

1) the FBI will be found Not Guilty, and

2) when found not guilty, the people on this site will immediately decry the verdict and make various unsubstanciated claims, including how the FBI and the government, through the judicial system, had prearranged the verdict and/or how the trial was, in some manner, unfair.

Bookmark this.

GV Lipton predicts the FBI will be found "Not Guilty." That verdict is possible only in a criminal case. This is a civil case.

It's a safe bet that the outcome of this trial will be appealed by one side or the other, and possibly both. One thing that will certainly be appealed is Judge Wilken's pretrial ruling that the documented FBI history of targeting dissident political groups and activists for "neutralization" can't be mentioned, while this jury has heard 50 times or more that Earth First! has a reputation for tree-spiking, property destruction and sabotage.

Wilken may have had an arguable legal reason to rule that before the trial, but once she saw the totally skewed result at trial she should have granted one of the many plaintiffs' motions to reverse herself on that point. I'll bet on the 9th Circuit reversing that one.

This case would have been at least 5 times more persuasive with the FBI's history included and COINTELPRO mastermind Richard W. Held still included as a defendant. Wilken's decision to cut Held loose in 1997 will certainly be appealed too.

>the judicial system IS the government, in case you haven't noticed

I said >"...including how the FBI and the government, through the judicial system,..."


nessie, just what part of my statement lead you to conclude I thought the judicial was seperate from the government?

Hang in there kiddies. The rhetoric may be starting BEFORE the verdict is rendered.

Road Scholar said , "GV Lipton predicts the FBI will be found "Not Guilty." That verdict is possible only in a criminal case. This is a civil case."

Another post re: the Bari vs. FBI trail states:

"The jury was informed that a preponderance of evidence was required to find a guilty verdict in a civil case, as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases."

So...
It follows that if "a preponderance of evidence was required to find a guilty verdict ", then the opposite of that would be to render a "not guilty" verdict.

Next time I make a statement Road Scholar, just keep your fucking mouth shut!!

Hey Lippy,

The post you cited about preponderance of the evidence was wrong in referring to a guilty or not guilty verdict. Neither verdict is possible in a civil suit. You made the same mistake. Two wrongs don't make a right, but misery loves company, so don't mix your metaphors, but remember, a stitch in time saves nine lives, and curiosity killed the cat.

in both criminal and civil cases, guily & not guilty verdicts are rendered. the biggest difference in the two was mentioned by the judge correctly in the bari. vs. fbi case, that being the difference between "reasonable doubt" & "preponderance of evidence". the OJ trial is a good example. the criminal court found not guilty based upon reasonable doubt, whereas in the civil court perponderance of evidence lead to a guilty verdict.

The past tense of the verb to lead is spelled led. Lead, when pronounced like the latter, is a greyish, heavy metal.

There has not been a single mention of the words guilty or not guilty in the courtroom during this trial. The jury instructions and verdict forms are available online, and they do not contain the words guilty or not guilty.

So maybe Mr. or Ms. Lawyer is referring to the customary usage in places other than U.S. District Court, which is the jurisdiction relevant to this discussion.

Broadly speaking, civil procedure consists of the rules by which courts conduct civil trials. "Civil trials" concern the judicial resolution of claims by one individual or group against another and is to be distinguished from "criminal trials," in which the state prosecutes an individual for violation of criminal law.

A procedural system provides the mechanism for applying substantive law to real disputes. A good procedural system should provide guidelines as to what information is received by the judge or jury, how that information is to be presented, and what by standards of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt," "by clear and convincing evidence," "by a preponderance of the evidence") the information will be adjudged. A good procedural system ensures that similar cases will be treated similarly by the courts.

When a Civil Procedure is handed to a jury for consideration, they return with a verdict or verdicts (depending on the nature of the case). That verdict becomes an Entry Of Judgement and is filed by the Clerk Of Court. The verdict may provide relief or it may be a dismissal. These terms are colorful metaphors meaning that the jury found the defendants guilty (relief) or not guilty (dismissal). Because the terms are a matter of schematics, I will concur with the attorney who wrote earlier. The OJ trial is a publicly well know case which demonstrates the difference.

Tanya,
You and I both know that Mike Sweeney constructed and placed the bomb in Judi's car. And you also know about Judi's offer, through Pam Davis, to pay Irv to kill Mike.
Also, while it's true I write about UFOs and the Alien Autopsy, I also cover many other important subjects.

See:
http://www.psln.com/egehrman/

Irv was only one of my many (over thirty) informants and witnesses. Almost all would be more than happy
to testify under oath about what they know.

I'm very disappointed about the way you and the legal team used the new evidence we presented.
This case could have been solved long ago.
Perhaps you can explain why Sweeney hasn't submitted his DNA for testing.
Ed

Golly Mr. G, you sure are dense.

In your Flatland article you said you had to begin your investigation with a kernal of truth, and you wrote that for you it was that Irv Sutley was telling you the truth about everything he said. You built your house of cards on that false foundation.

Sutley's DNA links him to the Argus letter beyond any reasonable doubt. He sent it early in 1989. When it was discovered in 1991 through Steve Talbot's investigator, Judi could immediately see that it came from Sutley, just by analyzing its content.

Sutley immediately denied that he sent it or that he was any kind of police informant. He lied. He's been lying about it ever since, for 11 years now. He tried to deflect attention from the true accusations against him by making false accusations about Judi, and also about her ex.

You fell for his sucker bait, Mr. G, and talked to whoever Mr. Secret Agent Man told you to talk to. You claim several dozen "witnesses" as you refer to them in your article, but you only gave the name of one, Irv Sutley.

You signed on to a petition supporting Sutley many years ago in his dispute with Judi and Darryl, long before you started your "research" for your "investigation," which consisted of compiling rumors, gossip and innuendo from Sutley's pals and from people who had an axe to grind against Judi.

You ignored vast amounts of available information that didn't fit your and Sutley's "the ex did it" theory. You became Sutley's true believer and an acolyte in his anti-Bari cult.

It's not hard to rule out the ex as the bomber. He had every opportunity to put a bomb in her car any time up until Judi left their shared property on the morning of May 23, 1990.

But the bomb that exploded on May 24 could not have been placed then, or it would have exploded no later than the night of May 23 when she drove from Seeds of Peace to Oakland where she spent the night.

You strain to make the case that the ex _could have_ placed the bomb in the car after noon on May 23 while it was parked in Ukiah, next to the county courthouse at the hub of downtown at the peak of lunch hour pedestrian traffic on the street next to the sheriff's headquarters. How ridiculous is that to anyone with an atom of common sense?

You have no one who witnessed anybody put anything into Judi's car. You have no one who can place the ex in Ukiah at all that day. The likelihood of your scenario is nil.

The bomb was placed in Judi's car in the dark, early morning hours of May 24 while it was parked on a quiet residential street in Oakland. The ex was taking care of his and Judi's 4 and 9 year old girls in Redwood Valley, and he has a witness. However he doesn't have to prove his innocence. He hasn't even been accused of any crime, except by loonies like you and members of your Irv Sutley / Bruce Anderson cult.

There's a good reason why no law enforcement agency picks up your theory and runs with it. It's not because there's a conspiracy. It's because it's dumb! It doesn't hold up to critical analysis.

Your credulity suits you well for writing about alien autopsies, Mr. G. Better stick to that instead of being a pawn in the FBI's COINTELPRO game against Earth First!, Judi, Darryl and their righteous lawsuit against the FBI and OPD for framing them and smearing them in the media.

Tanya Brannan is still pedaling her same old tired bull while writing as "C. Light". She even managed to get my last post taken off the SF Indymedia site, but I'll say it again: Judi Bari lied in her videotaped deposition when she talked about about Irv Sutley. Bari committed PERJURY. Sutley never took any pictures of Darryl Cherney or Judi Bari at the Bridgewood Motel. Pam Davis was the photographer. Pam Davis is the same person who solicited Sutley to kill Mike Sweeney at Bari's behest. Davis can be contacted at 707 523 1229. Pam has already admitted her role, but has tried to characterize it as a "joke" not surprisingly as the solicitation of murder can be prosecuted as a capital crime (punishment can be life in prison or even the death penalty and there is no statute of limitations in California). If you are seriously interested in learning the truth around the Judi Bari bombing you will do well to avail yourself of any or all if the following resources: FLATLAND Magazine #16, February 1999, online at <http://www.flatlandbooks.com>; EARTH FIRST MEDIA online at <http://www.efmedia.org>, the SONOMA COUNTY FREE PRESS which has a new online site at <http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com>, and of course Alexander Cockburn's web site <http://www.counterpunch.org>. Cockburn was as featured speaker during Redwood Summer and his material on Bari and Cherney can also be read by looking for the sites of the North Coast Journal out of Eureka, California as well as at the site for the New York Press. In fact C. Light/Tanya Brannan stole the graphic of ANDERSON VALLEY ADVERTISER editor and publisher Bruce Anderson. Anderson's paper, the AVA has the best coverage of any of the media covering the trial in Oakland. Cherney attorney Robert Bloom this past week tried to stop fellow counsel Tony Serra from conversing with AVA reporter Hank Sims. Admirably Serra declared that he "likes the AVA". The Anderson Valley Advertiser is available in many bookstores in the Bay Area but it sells out fast when it makes its appearance in this area each Thursday. It is also available by paid subscription by writing to: Anderson Valley Advertiser, 12451 Anderson Valley Way, Boonville, CA 95415 or by calling 707 895-3016 or emailing <ava [at] pacific.net>. I'll keep track of how long before Brannan (C. Light), the purple hatted brownshirt is able to pull down this post. Maybe some kind reader can download it and the repost it if it turns up missing. Let's join the skeptics of the court case and try to find out who really bombed Judi Bari (and her old sidekick the cowardly but self proclaimed suicide bomber, Darryl R. Cherney). The smart money is on Mike Sweeney as numero uno suspect.

Pam apparently can't read what's posted above. She didn't deal with the points I raised, but instead directed her venom at Tanya Brannan, who I'm not.

Instead she repeats the same old tired Sutley, Anderson lies. She must be president of the Liars Club she titled her piece with.

Judi in no way committed perjury in her deposition or any other time. Irv Sutley was the producer/director of the Uzi photo session. Pam Davis was just the camera operator. Sutley suggested the photo, provided his gun, showed Judi how to hold it, and posed Judi with it so her Earth First! logo on her t-shirt would show. Then he took the photos from Davis's kitchen, where he had access because he rented a room from her, and sent one anonymously to the cops with the Argus letter, which has been proved to be linked to Sutley by DNA tests.

So Sutley is a liar. Gerhman is a dupe. Anderson is a fool who's blinded by his old grudge against Judi. and Pam the poster of the previous comment is just another member of the Sutley-Anderson cult.

Sutley made Bari wear her Earh First t-shirt? He got her dressed that morning? He slipped her into her camo pants? Please. Nobody ever made Judi Bari do something she didn't want to. After Cherney, Davis, Bari, and Sutley all discussed doing a photo shoot the night before while hanging out in Darryl's unit of the Bridgewood motel. And C. Light, you conveniently omit the solicitation to murder Bari's husband, Mike Sweeney made by by Pam Davis to Irv Sutley - a fact which even Bari publicly admitted occured when she was interviewed by Annie Esposito on KZYX - FM out of Philo. (I've heard the tape) Yes, Bari perjured herself on the videotaped deposition. This video only shows as has been said before that Judi lied about this case under oath, on stage, and at every other opportunity. As others have already pointed out, Bari's falsehoods may be enough to overturn any judgements which might be handed down in this case. Now that would be justice! And as you'll soon find out you be totally wrong about the DNA aspects of this case.

The Redwood Summer Justice Project, under the direction of Tanya Brannan, the P.C. Queen of the Wino Country, is a scam operation that has raised over a million dollars re: the lawsuit but NOT ONE PENNY toward finding the actual bomber. Sweeney was the ONLY suspect that Steve Talbot tried to interview that was HOSTILE toward him!! Deal with that fact C. LIght and SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! Sweeney and Cherney claim that DNA testing is a "violation of their right to privacy". If Sweeney is so fucking innocent why hasnt he sued Bruce Anderson for libel for printing "lies" about how he is the bomber?? Huh, C. LIght?!?!! Can you fucking explain that one dumbass???

C. Light is a big fat liar. Tanya Brannan is a repulsive, full of shit liar, and Darryl Cherney is a fucking fraud who drives an SUV.

All Mary Moore has asked for is a NEW INVESTIGATION. Why hasnt one ever been conducted??

DeeAnn is using the old straw man tactic of rebutting an argument that wasn't made. A photo of Judi in EF! T-shirt and camo pants and cap is not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about a photo of Judi holding Irv Sutley's Uzi, which was his idea, his gun and his showing Judi how and where to hold the gun. Sutley was the producer/director of that photo, which makes it his photo whether he pointed the camera and pushed the button or had someone else do it.

What we're talking about is the fact that Sutley sent the photo to the cops along with an offer to be a confidential informant on Judi and EF!. We know it was Sutley because his DNA is linked beyond a reasonable doubt to the DNA of the person who licked the envelope and stamp the letter came with. That's a fact. He said he didn't send it. That's a lie. Sutley is a liar. It's proven.

Now, up against that, DeeAnn says I'm ignoring Sutley's allegation that Judi had Sutley's landlady who was Judi's friend offer him money to kill her ex. Sutley is a liar. He is a proven agent provocateur and wanna-be informer and liar. His 'tried to hire me to kill her ex" lie is a classic tactic right out of the COINTELPRO playbook. It's part of his ongoing effort to discredit Judi Bari, a non-violent activist, by first tricking her into posing with his gun for a joke photo and sending it to police as the real thing, then lying that Judi tried to hire him to kill her ex.

Sutley's tactics are perfectly in sync with the tactics of whoever bombed her and arranged for the FBI to collaborate in framing her for it. It is part of a campaign of covert operations operations to discredit Judi and EF!.

The timber industry used the Bari bomb frame-up as ammo to defeat Prop. 130, the Forests Forever Initiative on the fall 1990 ballot. They falsely connected it to Earth First! right after two solid months of media smear following the bombing created a public perception that EF! was a violent, ecoterrorist group.

If Prop. 130 had passed, the three redwood logging corporations that spent millions of dollars to defeat it would have lost at least a billion dollars each just in the next ten years. That's who benefited from the bombing and framing of Judi Bari, not her ex.

The first rule of criminal investigation is to follow the money. Following the money in this case leads straight to Harry Merlo, Charles Hurwitz, and T. Marshal Hahn, the CEOs of Louisiana Pacific, Maxxam/Pacific Lumber, and Georgia Pacific corporations.

Who bombed Judi Bari? Follow the money instead of believing the lies of proven liar and informant Irv Sutley. Those who amplify and spread Sutley's lies include Ed Gehrman and Jim Martin of Flatland (the UFO/conspiracy theory magazine), and especially Bruce Anderson, who boasted in print in his AVA tabloid that he met with FBI lawyer Joe Sher last year and offered Sher helpful hints on how to defeat the Bari vs. FBI suit.

This gang is aided by DeeAnn and several others who keep tagging Sutley's lies on as comments to every article in the Judi Bari vs. FBI section. Whose side are you on guys? It sure looks like you want to join Anderson and Sutley to help out the FBI in their ongoing covert action against progressive political groups.

The DNA report clears Sutley. There could be a 300 to 1 chance that the DNA sample from the Argus and Warning letter might be from a relative of Sutley's but who would hang a case on odds like those? Only simpletons and frauds! Sutley could not have written those letters because his DNA is not a match. Why is that so hard for you to understand??? His DNA is not a match!
Sweeney was in Ukiah, working at his office at the MEC all day on the 23rd of May 1990. That's when he put the bomb in Judi's car.
The evidence is clear. He bombed Judi, and no amount of lies and distortion will change that fact.

Bob in Ukiah

Bob is correct. Sweeney, by his own admission,
was "at work in Ukiah" all day on May 23, 1990.
He now denies this but we have proof, in writing,
and signed. Tanya was correct when she writes
that Sweeney was never investigated. Isn't that strange? Why wasn't he? This is the 20million $ question. Husbands or lovers are always prime suspects, and quilty in most cases.
Sweeney could clear his name by giving his critics
a DNA sample.
For those who still think I'm a dupe, I invite you to
visit:
http://www.psln.com/egehrman/

Ed

Gehrman and Ukiah Bob got the DNA figures exactly backward. The DNA expert said there was only 1 chance out of 300 that the DNA on the Argus letter flap and stamp was NOT a lineal relative (father or son) of Irv Sutley. His father, who lived in Mill Valley, California, died in 1997. He was a right winger, which Sutley secretly is although he pretends to be a leftist. Sutley's brother is a right winger and a christian fundamentalist last heard from in Idaho.

Irv Sutley watched too many episodes of the 1950's McCarthy era TV show "I Led Three Lives," an anti-communist, pro-FBI propaganda vehicle in which the lead character, Herbert Philbrick, was an FBI infiltrator and informer in the CP-USA.. After many years of reenlisting in the Marine Corps, Sutley made a career of playing commie for the FBI, pretending to be a peace activist and joining the Peace and Freedom Party, all the while engaging in behavior designed to discredit the party.

According to Gehrman's Flatlant article about Sutley, "In 1970-1972 he served as the state chairman of the state central committee (of the Peace and Freedom Party) and soon became an authority on laws that restrict access to the political process. Beginning in 1971, Sutley was also a member of the American Communist Party and was always open about his membership."

Gehrman apparently didn't get it, and still doesn't. In 1971 the Cold War was still raging, and communism was totally demonized. A communist was the most evil thing imaginable. So of course state P&F chairman Sutley was "always open" about joining the CP. It was an obvious effort to brand P&F as what was then labeled a "commie front," which would totally discredit it with the majority of Americans at the time.

Gehrman and his pals don't want to admit that Sutley is nailed by his DNA to the Argus letter, and he totally lied about not sending it or not writing it or whatever weasel-wording he used. Sutley is a snitch and agent provocateur for the forces of repression, and he totally duped Gehrman into defending him from Judi Bari's correct accusations and wasting years of his life trying to persuade people that Sutley is innocent and Judi was bombed by her ex, both of which are false.

By the way, I am not now, nor have I ever been, Tanya Brannan. But it doesn't matter. The facts and my arguments stand on their own. It is fallacy to attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.