BREAKING: Hughes Arrested for 1981 Alavarez Murders

[desertfae]

So, AD:

Given that nobody other than you seems to feel that Rachel's goodwill is sufficiently in question to justify derailing the whole thread -- "meanwhile, the octopus," and so on -- until you're satisfied that all of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed, I invite you to start a thread on which you can explore those concerns without taking everybody else off-topic.

I'll be looking for the "desertfae needs to prove everything to me" thread lol

Meanwhile...

[American Dream]

desertfae wrote:

I gave my name, location, and even offered to meet a member of the board to SHOW my drivers license to them.

Yes you did, but no one ever went to visit you, so nothing moved on that front. My perception is that things melted down, and this was not mandatory, nor was it the most helpful thing to have happened.

If your identity really had been established- and there are many, many secure ways this could have happened that have nothing to do with posting your birth certificate on the Internet, things would have been different.

I know this because I know myself, and I am operating in good faith. You are entitled to think whatever you want- and indeed you will, but all I can do is tell you the truth. If you had ever bothered to look over my long, long history of posts here- I believe I'm in the Top 10- I think you might see this.

desertfae wrote:

VM and KD have attempted to interfere in my case, they have attempted to interfere in PAT's case, VM has sent "spies" to attempt to be my friends and get info from me (I have documented proof of that, that I will not share at this time). Why would I be happy with what she's doing trying to help the same people that have destroyed my life?

Earlier, before she started trying to screw up my case I received multiple warnings about her from multiple people whom she's dealt with in the past, who don't even know each other. At that point, I was highly cautious, but kept an open mind.. then I saw the types of 'games' she plays.

No offense, Rachel but you have a lot of very vague allegations and they're certainly not substantiated. So for anyone trying to take a neutral stance there's not much evidence that they are either true or false, most especially because we don't even know what you're talking about, really.

I'm hoping these are not stories that come from the Gunderson camp, because he is really, really bad news. I hope you know that, and I would be doing us all a disservice not to say it.

Anyway, Rachel, I'm really not a monster. Try treating me differently- just for an experiment- and see what happens.




compared2what? wrote:

So, AD:

Given that nobody other than you seems to feel that Rachel's goodwill is sufficiently in question to justify derailing the whole thread -- "meanwhile, the octopus," and so on -- until you're satisfied that all of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed, I invite you to start a thread on which you can explore those concerns without taking everybody else off-topic.

You have a very different interpretation of what I meant than I do. I am not questioning Rachel's goodwill- quite the opposite.

When I have raised the Octopus with the "Meanwhile...", I have always meant, as I explicitly stated above:

we're at risk of spending too much time and energy on relatively small squabbles at the expense of the much more important (and much more challenging) struggle, which should be effectively confronting the Octopus...

I still hold this to be true.

The Octopus is a huge international conspiracy which includes high government officials, drug runners, military/police organizations, financiers, weapons traffickers, and others. These people are responsible for many, many crimes, of which the Alvarez triple murder is one of many. They are well-connected, they are ruthless, and they have a lot to lose.

Up until now, hardly anyone has really been held responsible for anything related to their operations- certainly not at the higher levels. So creating real Justice when dealing with matters related to the Octopus should be considered anything but easy...



...

[desertfae]

desertfae wrote:

I gave my name, location, and even offered to meet a member of the board to SHOW my drivers license to them.

Yes you did, but no one ever went to visit you, so nothing moved on that front.

Why? Because Jeff locked the thread because of his "spidey sense" and the person in Louisville never contacted me privately.

No offense, Rachel but you have a lot of very vague allegations and they're certainly not substantiated. So for anyone trying to take a neutral stance there's not much evidence that they are either true or false, nost especially because we don't even know what you're talking about, really.

Perhaps it's your comprehension that needs to be checked if you don't know what I'm talking about. But guess what, I don't care what you think, so it's all good.

So, AD:

Given that nobody other than you seems to feel that Rachel's goodwill is sufficiently in question to justify derailing the whole thread -- "meanwhile, the octopus," and so on -- until you're satisfied that all of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed, I invite you to start a thread on which you can explore those concerns without taking everybody else off-topic.

Now, if you want to continue this with me, take it to another thread as C2W suggested. If you're unable to do that, I'll make one.

[desertfae]

Here.. so this thread can stay on topic.
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=25298

[American Dream]

desertfae wrote:

American Dream wrote:

No offense, Rachel but you have a lot of very vague allegations and they're certainly not substantiated. So for anyone trying to take a neutral stance there's not much evidence that they are either true or false, nost especially because we don't even know what you're talking about, really.

Perhaps it's your comprehension that needs to be checked if you don't know what I'm talking about. But guess what, I don't care what you think, so it's all good.

So we should believe these very vague and unsubstantiated allegations why? Just because you said so?

Sorry, not very convincing.


I'm also noticing you didn't say anything about Gunderson's role in all this.

Please tell me you have some critical consciousness about him, assuming that it's true...

[desertfae]

So we should believe these very vague and unsubstantiated allegations why? Just because you said so?

Sorry, not very convincing.


I'm also noticing you didn't say anything about Gunderson's role in all this.

Please tell me you have some critical consciousness about him, assuming that it's true...

FOCUS AD...... Try for a moment to read what was said above, multiple times. TAKE IT HERE SO THE THREAD STAYS ON TOPIC:
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=25298

(do you need big bright colors to understand this?)

[American Dream]

Rachel, I think the thread very much is on topic, but it seems that there are a few topics here that you have chosen to ignore.

This seems significant, somehow.

Look back over today's posts and you will see that this is so.

[desertfae]

Rachel, I think the thread very much is on topic, but it seems that there are a few topics here that you have chosen to ignore.

This seems significant, somehow.

Look back over today's posts and you will see that this is so.

So you want to continue to disrupt this thread with trashing me huh?
Sorry C2W, I tried to get this BS into another thread.
AD, you've been asked by C2W, and now me, to take your interrogation of me into another thread, but you're refusing to do so.. very telling.

One more time (with big bright colors this time so you can understand).. take it here-
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=25298

[compared2what?]

It is absolutely true that I had lingering doubts about desertfae's bonafides until she came out into the limelight with the Jimmy Hughes case. However, I do seem to recall that a bunch of people here had doubts or concerns about this.

However, when she was coming more into the public light, I waited cautiously, and said I would apologize if I was wrong, which I did. That was many months now and I have had no doubts about this since.

However, the whole misunderstanding seems preventible and that's why I'm still wondering what happened, and why...

Well. Given that the misunderstanding was on your side, not hers, if you're still wondering what happened and why, I'd say that you really shouldn't have to look any further than your own backyard. Because if there really was some way of preventing it, if it isn't there, you never really overlooked it in the first place.

Unless, just possibly, it's somewhere in the same uncharted territory in which Virginia McCullough's perfectly good reason for confidently representing her apparently totally baseless characterization of Rachel as, essentially, an impostor, whose fraudulent claims of involvement in the investigation were (via some kind of circularly reciprocal logic) simultaneously proof of and proven by the total thrall in which Michael Riconosciuto and Ted Gunderson had so completely succeeded in keeping her that there wasn't so much as a hint of evidence that she was even particularly allied to them at all.

Speaking of which, I'm still wondering on what grounds Virginia McCullough's forehead remains free of the scarlet "MR/TG" you see on the brow of anyone who hasn't denounced one or both of them in terms strong enough to satisfy you when the entirety of her case for the outrageous injustice that was visited on Richard Hamlin by the court that convicted him is based solely and exclusively on the word of Michael Riconosciuto, with whom Hamlin was put in touch by the PI he hired. Fellow by the name of Ted Gunderson, IIRC.***

So, AD:

Given that nobody other than you seems to feel that Rachel's goodwill is sufficiently in question to justify derailing the whole thread -- "meanwhile, the octopus," and so on -- until you're satisfied that all of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed, I invite you to start a thread on which you can explore those concerns without taking everybody else off-topic.

You have a very different interpretation of what I meant than I do. I am not questioning Rachel's goodwill- quite the opposite.

Is that a fact. Then what exactly was your reason for not only suggesting...

So, let's assume for a second that it actually is possible to build more goodwill here- it is- so a brief explanation as to why you declined to better I.D. yourself before would actually be helpful.

... that more of it needed to be built, but also introducing that suggestion with eleven words into which you somehow let not one, not two, but three (3) rhetorical indicators of with what longsuffering patience and how few hopes you were making it? ("So, let's assume for a second that it actually is possible..."

And just to save a round or two of prevarication, please consider whatever explanations you might have offered for the first two as fully pre-accepted. Just tell me by what logic you arrive at a very different interpretation of your italicization of the word "possible" than I do.

Thanks.

When I have raised the Octopus with the "Meanwhile...", I have always meant, as I explicitly stated above:

we're at risk of spending too much time and energy on relatively small squabbles at the expense of the much more important (and much more challenging) struggle, which should be effectively confronting the Octopus...

I still hold myself primarily responsible for starting the squabbles that cause this to be true.

Fixed.
________________

*** I'm cross-posting to the "NO DEZERTFAE ALLOWED" thread. So fwiw, since I really do wonder about this, if you have an explanation for it, I'd very much appreciate it if you could find a moment to briefly summarize it for me over there. FYI -- and also just to keep myself honest -- I hereby solemnly vow that from now on, I'll take all small squabbles for which I bear the primary responsibility elsewhere.

But in all fairness, since I'm unapologetically off-topic here myself, I certainly couldn't fault you if you opted to respond to this post here. Sauce for the goose, et cetera.

[American Dream]

(Sigh...)

The misunderstanding that happened before was created by most all of those who participated near as I can tell, and there were quite a few.

I've invited Rachel to explain why she never documented her I.D. to us better and also to explain to us why she is so negative towards Virginia and Kate. The former she did to some degree, the latter not so much.

As to Riconosciuto and Gunderson, they are two different people. Riconosciuto may have good information at times, but he also talks a lot of smack, and works his own agenda. Gunderson may be personally opportunistic but he sure has turned some important cases to shit and he seems to pump up the worst tendencies in the Militia Movement.

Since Rachel laid out what are truly sketchy allegations against VM and KD, and they weren't supported by what you could characterize as solid evidence at all, my mind starts to turn towards Gunderson and to wonder if he has had any influence on Rachel in this regard, since he and VM have some major differences. Not saying this is true, and Rachel could clear things up very easily by stating a clear position regarding Gunderson.

As to the Hamlin Case- I have no strong opinion on that. I read about it some at the time, but I don't claim to fully understand it.

As to Rachel's goodwill, of course I'm assuming she has it. And I know I do. So I can't really validate the assumption that I think Rachel lacks goodwill, in the sense of positive intent. I do believe she has it, and I do want to cut through the bullshit. So that is the basis of my recent comments.

[American Dream]

[Duplicate post to the one immediately below- DELETED].

[American Dream]

I just got an email from Virginia McCullough, which I will reproduce in its entirety here. Her comments are the italicized ones below.

A.D.



compared2what? wrote:

Speaking of which, I'm still wondering on what grounds Virginia McCullough's forehead remains free of the scarlet "MR/TG" you see on the brow of anyone who hasn't denounced one or both of them in terms strong enough to satisfy you when the entirety of her case for the outrageous injustice that was visited on Richard Hamlin by the court that convicted him is based solely and exclusively on the word of Michael Riconosciuto, with whom Hamlin was put in touch by the PI he hired. Fellow by the name of Ted Gunderson, IIRC.***

The previous quote from one of the last postings by C2W is as off base as they come. Judge Eddie Keller, who tried the Hamlin case, all but totally ignored MR’s first letter to the court and then Richard Hamlin did absolutely nothing to bring MR to Calif. to testify at his trial. Richard Hamlin was first chair and the brilliant and dedicated defense attorney Bob Banning was second chair. Hamlin controlled the defense and he did a lousy job of it. Hamlin alleges to be very religious has a long history of being a good schmoozer and a good trial lawyer. However he is also arrogant, sexist, and was his own worst enemy before the trial when he refused a 12 year deal offered by the prosecution that was contingent upon a mental evaluation that could have provided him with an excellent “snapped” defense. The prosecution probably believed he was delusional because of his stated belief in satanic cults out to kill him and the two incidents of discharging a firearm during February 2004, the month prior to his arraignment.

More importantly, Hamlin convicted himself, much like Philip Arthur Thompson, when he (1) took the stand and (2) audio taped himself beating his wife Susan while he called her every name in the book.

Kate and I each met separately with Richard many, many times in the El Dorado County Jail and we attended every day of the trial.

Where was C2W or maybe I just did not recognize her sitting in the courtroom of visiting Richard in jail. It amazes me how very much C2W thinks she knows when she knows next to nothing.

.

[Dr_Doogie]

Evidently both VM and KD feel that their opinions are the only valued opinions since they both have played the "I-was-there / where-were-you?" card in recent days. But let me point out the inconsistency of their positions: Both TG and MR were there at Cabazon. KD and VM were not (unless there is something that they would like to share with us). As a result, the same logic that they use to bolster their currency ultimately destroys their position that TG and MR should ignored. As "unreliable" as Ted and Michael are, they were there / where were Virginia and Kate?

[American Dream]

Dr. Doogiewrote:

their currency ultimately destroys their position that TG and MR should ignored.

I can not speak to Kate and/or Virginia thoughts on this, but what makes you say that this is their position?

[desertfae]

Well, it seems that the above link to the other thread to avoid disruption in this thread has been locked by Jeff with the quote: "I think at this point, and before this point, this thread could be described as a trolling exercise, and I apologize for my inattention to it. Locking." I'm not sure to whom he's referring to as trolling though.
C2W, I tried to get the junk out of this thread, but apparently between AD and Jeff, it's not going to happen, unless you have some other ideas?