rigorousintuition.ca

I have lurked on this site for a long time. I realize the nature of this site. My interests are not mostly with this topic. Actually this particular topic is not of my main interests. But since I spent so much time reading this thread I felt compelled to comment. So no, there is no reason to believe anything I say. I am only an observer, an observer that shares the opinion of many people here. My main interests are other places and topics.

I'm going to post something I wrote a page back, because I'd hate to see it to get lost in the shuffle:

I've been thinking about this and I'm realizing I really don't understand the basis of the original rift between Rachel and Virginia and/or Kate.

I'm puzzled as to when, where and how they all first heard of each other and how the animosity which now exists first began.

This really is not clear to me, and I'm also left wondering how much peripheral people who have some kind of longer history with each other might have been a part of bringing things to the point where they are now.

Anyone who has insight or information that is relevant is welcome to share what they've got.

It interesting that you've been unable to ascertain the answer to that question via coorespondance with Virginia. Seems like she might have an opinion there, no?

That is one reason why I'm posting the question here- it seems like most of the relevant parties are reading this thread, and so they are all getting the same invitation to share their perspective.

audioslave wrote:My opinion is that Thompson might have also been involved with Susan Hamlin's claim of being assaulted.

If you are suggesting that Thompson himself may have committed the assault of Susan, then you should be made aware that Thompson has been continuously in prison since the mid 1980's. California is notorious for being soft on crime, but even they do not have a "work furlough program" for hitmen/goons.

However, I am with you in spirit on this. Thompson is surely involved in many other crimes including murder. The NMN crew's attempt to explain away their advocacy for Thompson by saying that there is a presumption of innocence is hollow - did they give Rachel, who was not even charged with a crime, the presumption of innocence or did they immediately "convict" her of being an actress and having no famial connection to the case?

The distrust of NMN that is being shown here by several posters is, I believe, a direct result the slanted reporting of the Thompson trial. The writers used the same techniques that they had used in the past, but they went so over-the-top this time that their agenda became clear to the critical observor. We now see that the emperor has no clothes and any attempts to obscure that fact now by them or their apologists are failing miserably.

American Dream wrote:I'm going to post something I wrote a page back, because I'd hate to see it to get lost in the shuffle:

I've been thinking about this and I'm realizing I really don't understand the basis of the original rift between Rachel and Virginia and/or Kate.

I'm puzzled as to when, where and how they all first heard of each other and how the animosity which now exists first began.

This really is not clear to me, and I'm also left wondering how much peripheral people who have some kind of longer history with each other might have been a part of bringing things to the point where they are now.

Anyone who has insight or information that is relevant is welcome to share what they've got.

How can you sit there and play innocent like this AD? You are the one who posted the e-mail from VM when VM told the entire RI board that Rachel was a FAKE, she wasnt Boger's daughter and she was an ARG actress who had nothing to do with this case.

I will ask again, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PUT VM ON THE HOT SEAT AND MAKE HER EXPLAIN TO YOU AND THIS FORUM WHY SHE LIED TO US ABOUT RACHEL. What she herself misinformed, if so why not say that and restore her credibility? Or did she simply just lie and think that she would get away with it because she thinks we are all too fucking retarded to find out the truth?

Please explain this to me. I really want to like you AD because you do contribute some good things but you are making it very difficult for me to continue to support you on here and vouch for you.


When are you going to demand that VM come clean about what she said to you in that e mail that you then posted here and which led some of us who RESPECTED and BELIEVED IN VM to take her word and accordingly run Rachel out of here calling her a fake and a poser?

VM misled us and I want to know WHY. You are her errand boy since she cant post here and I have no desire to speak with her myself until I feel she can be trusted again so can you handle this for us and put it to rest?

Dr_Doogie wrote:

audioslave wrote:My opinion is that Thompson might have also been involved with Susan Hamlin's claim of being assaulted.

If you are suggesting that Thompson himself may have committed the assault of Susan, then you should be made aware that Thompson has been continuously in prison since the mid 1980's. California is notorious for being soft on crime, but even they do not have a "work furlough program" for hitmen/goons.

However, I am with you in spirit on this. Thompson is surely involved in many other crimes including murder. The NMN crew's attempt to explain away their advocacy for Thompson by saying that there is a presumption of innocence is hollow - did they give Rachel, who was not even charged with a crime, the presumption of innocence or did they immediately "convict" her of being an actress and having no famial connection to the case?

The distrust of NMN that is being shown here by several posters is, I believe, a direct result the slanted reporting of the Thompson trial. The writers used the same techniques that they had used in the past, but they went so over-the-top this time that their agenda became clear to the critical observor. We now see that the emperor has no clothes and any attempts to obscure that fact now by them or their apologists are failing miserably.

Thanks for the feedback. This is a perfect example of what Detective Powers has been up against. He was a newbie. We were all newbies with this topic at some point. I rely on people like yourself to fact check my ideas.

I have no problem with Mr. Wells locking my thread on Kate Dixon's disbarment. It kind of went as far as it could go, unless a real tie to Reese Jones can be established. Plus, perhaps it would be a good idea to have an extra thread or two going to give us all some breathing room.

Think of the Octopus. It's about some monster with all those different tentacles. It could be really easy for someone to misunderstand one of our posts as going off-topic. There are the individual parts of the tentacles that seem to have legs. BCII. October Surprise. Wackenhut- Iran-Contra, etc.. This is a huge enterprise you guys are trying to solve.

I'm going to be upfront with people and hope this doesn't get me banned. I'm not exactly on board with what took place in the 1980's concerning claims of satanic ritual abuse being widespread and protected by the highest members of government. I'm not saying it isn't possible. But I don't see any concrete proof.

I don't have an agenda, or at least now it isn't hidden.

My desire is for this story to make it into the history books, period. If that means having to cut off the unconfirmed speculations, then so be it. It's not like anyone is stopping anyone from discussing satanic pedophile rings elsewhere. I'm not gonna go out of my way to post on such threads. I'm not what one would consider to be a debunker. I'm open-minded, but I simply demand concrete sources to determine how I personally put together the story. This is non-fiction. We are acting as citizen journalists. Alone we probably can't accomplish much. Unless one is Rachel. Most of us have the internet and that alone to suss things out. It doesn't mean each of us can't make a contribution.

I'll try one last time to give American Dream a way out of this hole he's in, even though he just implied myself and eyepen are the same person.

Where did the rift begin between Desertfae and the NMN ladies? You nailed it. Rachel was accused of being an ARG actress. I'll repeat what I wrote earlier. No one except for a very few could give a sh*t about args. They're goofy and I'd rather play video games than waste my time with some modern version of dungeons and dragons or whatever args are.

The link I gave earlier to an alleged 1991 interview shows that McCullough has been on this case since way back. She even has said that Casolaro was a friend or associate of hers. Now if American Dream can't understand why the royal or most of us "we" do not understand how NMN was late to realizing who Rachel is, then I'm at a complete loss to how to communicate with this anonymous username.

Now this is where I want to ask Desertfae a question. It goes to the heart of why AD was having trouble with her. It had to do with her not wanting to throw Gunderson or Riconosciuto under the bus. I see she has a bad feeling for Sid Siemer. I want to know what is the best available internet evidence against the man. Where's the proof that he was involved with the Iran-Contra, Wackenhut bio-weapon manufacturing. I mean, it doesn't even seem that those weapons were even manufactured, that it was only in the proposal stage. Where's any solid proof that he was involved with MK Ultra?

What proof did Richard Hamlin have that his father-in-law was part of some disgusting, powerful, satanic pedophile cult? Did he get that idea from Gunderson? Where did Susan Hamlin get the idea? I'm sorry if I'm mixing up Riconsciuto with NMN, I tend to make some mistakes like that, but where's the proof that Siemer was into the Temple of Set? How come if Michael Aquino studied psychological operations in the military while Gunderson was a higher-up in the FBI during the cointelpro era, can't one fairly wonder about the possibility that the whole satanic cult thing IN THIS CASE was established as a limited hangout to throw the scent off of real life conspiracies that are easier to prove? I'm talking Iran-Contra, the Octopus murders, the strange death of Casolaro, Promis, Wackenhut, BCII, etc.. That's where I'm at. There it is. No hidden agenda from me, some anonymous username with 15 posts.

That's my working theory on this whole thing.

Now if people really want to make a difference in exposing the Octopus, they'll try to track down the best possible evidence, use links and short excerpts rather than long cut and pastes, and try to put in words wtf actually happened in Indio. That's what a vulnerable John Powers was looking for when he emailed Virginia McCullough. He wasn't looking to have his personal fears and newbie ignorance exposed to the world. Not everything is a conspiracy. John Powers is the man of the hour. We need to let that whole Riverside Sheriff's Department know that we are behind them and wishing them the very best in doing their jobs. It's time for all of us to watch Rachel's, John's, Nathan's, and everyone else's back who is trying to get to the bottom of this.

I'll take my own advice. I was searching a week or so ago for info on the October Surprise. Apparently there was a meeting between Gates, Casey, and George Bush Sr. in Paris with Iranian representatives. Apparently a deal was made where money was given to Iran in exchange for the hostages being held after the election. I remember that time period and what ensued. How the show Nightline grew out of reporting on the hostage situation each day. I remember Carter and that failed attempt to send the military planes into Iran to rescue the hostages. I remember the US setting up Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. I remember Reagan saying we don't deal with terrorists. I remember the Boland Amendment.

For this to be a part of Mr. Powers' investigation, it seems like he needs to secure all the facts. He needs to find the money trail. If I'm not mistaken, that will lead him to George Bush Sr. and Texas, maybe BCII. He then needs to link that to Cabazon. Damn, it shouldn't be that difficult to put the Octopus together as best we can with the best sources. We need to honor Casolaro, Boger, Alvarez, Castro, and everyone else who lost their lives to the Octopus. This isn't a game. This is real life. Or else we can continue to be led down rabbit holes, and when all is said and done, this topic will end up at bogus websites all across the net and just be another tinfoiltainment mess.

Pardon my indulgence with the length of this post.

audioslave wrote:I'll try one last time to give American Dream a way out of this hole he's in, even though he just implied myself and eyepen are the same person.

I'm not speaking to any one person here, but that kinda stuff is what's going to get threads locked one after the other. I'm not actively moderating this forum at this time, but I will tell you Jeff has no patience for accusations against other forum members. So, to repeat what I said in the locked thread, if you have doubts about someone that go beyond their posts making a nerve in your face twitch, please notify Jeff privately and make your case in clear, concise terms.

This doesn't put Sid on site at Cabazon, but will establish the sort of cult ties that are relative to the questions being asked. Note that Gary Webb was also given an authorization to question Harlan Braun but he was dead before he could complete the task. Note also that Paul Morasca's autopsy reports name Harlan Braun as the attorney who called in the murder, so his foggy memory seems a bit hard to understand considering that most attorneys are not going to be asked to call in homicides as part of their daily routine. Click on the Thompson link and look at the claims made by mainstream news sources about Thompson's cult activities.
http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/cabazon/

et in Arcadia ego wrote:

audioslave wrote:I'll try one last time to give American Dream a way out of this hole he's in, even though he just implied myself and eyepen are the same person.

I'm not speaking to any one person here, but that kinda stuff is what's going to get threads locked one after the other. I'm not actively moderating this forum at this time, but I will tell you Jeff has no patience for accusations against other forum members. So, to repeat what I said in the locked thread, if you have doubts about someone that go beyond their posts making a nerve in your face twitch, please notify Jeff privately and make your case in clear, concise terms.

Arcadia ego,
I'm not meaning this post in a confrontational sort of way at all, so please don't take it that way.
I'm confused by your statement here about why this kind of stuff would get a thread locked, and why Jeff has no patience with this type of stuff. The reason I'm confused is because of the following:
*I was accused of being an actress
*having bad motives in my own case
*I've been hounded countless times to prove who I am, even after I did countless times and offered to meet a member of the forum to show them my ID. Even after it was established that I'm me in countless media reports.
*It's been stated many times by various members that have have some agenda that isn't good
and I could go on and on.
Jeff knew about this, and even seemed to join in (before the news agencies started reporting on it, other than KESQ).
Why is it, that when someone calls out another member that it can get a thread locked, but when all this happens to me, it's just fine and dandy and nobody says a thing?
Again, I'm not meaning this to sound confrontational at all, I just want clarification. Maybe the wording towards me was in such a way that it's allowed whereas this type of wording isn't?

Oh, to those of you that asked me stuff in here, I am super busy today as my internet was having problems since my last post last night. The techs just got it fixed, so I"m in the middle of playing catch up with everything now, and I still have to get in 8 hours of work somehow lol.. so I'm going to have to get the other questions later.
AD-I do plan on answering your question in greater detail. FYI, if you go back you'll see I've already addressed this multiple times, but for the sake of time, when I get more time later, I'll answer yet again.
Rachel

American Dream wrote:I'm going to post something I wrote a page back, because I'd hate to see it to get lost in the shuffle:

I've been thinking about this and I'm realizing I really don't understand the basis of the original rift between Rachel and Virginia and/or Kate.

I'm puzzled as to when, where and how they all first heard of each other and how the animosity which now exists first began.

This really is not clear to me, and I'm also left wondering how much peripheral people who have some kind of longer history with each other might have been a part of bringing things to the point where they are now.

Anyone who has insight or information that is relevant is welcome to share what they've got.

Rachel explained that very clearly upthread:

dersertfae wrote:Let me tell you a story, it may even come as a shock to VM and KD.
Early on in my investigation (first week), I attempted to find VM to talk with her. Instead of getting this VM, I got another one on the phone. This other VM explained to me how she couldn't stand the VM I was trying to get in touch with. I thanked her and let her go after hearing why she couldn't stand her.
Shortly after this, I started getting emails and phone calls from others explaining to never trust VM or KD. And this may come as another shock to VM and KD, it's not who you think it is that contacted me. I literally had multiple people tell me nearly the same types of things, and most of these people didn't even know each other. Some of the things told to me were how they backstab people, steal documents from people, act as though they are trying to help people and then turn around and help the bad guys, etc. At this point, I started to look into them and what they had done (VM mostly), and made my decision to not contact them or work with them.
Since that time, they have lied about me (even here), tried to discredit me, sent others to try to get info from me (pretend to be my friend and then backstab me), and make people believe I'm something I'm not.
I explained all this to let KD and VM know that if you really do want to help someone that is working for justice, then not backstabbing them, or stealing from them gets you a lot futher with that specific person, or others in the future and trying to discredit them.
One other thing. I will never have a private exchange with either of these women, it will only be public so that anything I say can't be twisted or changed. So I apologize if anyone doesn't want to see this exchange ahead of time.

Some pretty substantive parts of the above has already been verified on this or one of the other two threads on the subject. For instance:

• .* VM did lie about Rachel, and she did do it here.
  
  * She did do it in a way that aimed to get people to believe that Rachel was something she wasn't.
  
  * Both of the ladies of NMN have tried repeatedly to discredit Rachel, usually by mischaracterizing and/or vastly distorting some utterly inoccuous detail extracted from the media coverage of the case -- eg, VM's suggestion that Rachel was somehow irresponsibly tainting the jury pool by complaining about Governor Crist's staff, Ms. Dixon's insistence that Rachel's remark about immunity in an NBC interview raised deeply troubling issues that it self-evidently did not raise. And so forth.

That's manifestly plenty enough justification for the rift you realize you don't understand the origins of all by itself. I mean, even if you find Rachel's account of when and how she first became aware of the reasons that led to her steering clear of Ms. McCullough and Ms. Dixon to be unconvincing, she's demonstrably telling the truth about their having been borne out. As testified to by material that you can easily avail yourself of simply by using the search function.

You needn't comply, of course. But given that your questions are only tangentially on-topic and have already been addressed by Rachel on this or other threads and , in the event that neither re-reading them nor the above refreshing of your memory is enough to dispel your confusion regarding the subject, I'd like to invite you to start a new thread dedicated to exploring them, and would very much appreciate the courtesy if you did.

There's been enough digression along similar tangents on this one already that the topic has all but been supplanted by them. And, as I'm sure you'll agree, since you yourself started the thread, it really is a topic that both deserves and demands attention on its own merits.

So. I hope this was helpful to you, and humbly request that you take your quest for a more detailed explanation to a new thread if it wasn't. Is that okay with you? Because please feel free to say if it isn't, which I hope goes without saying, but, you know: Better safe than sorry.

audioslave wrote:

I'll try one last time to give American Dream a way out of this hole he's in, even though he just implied myself and eyepen are the same person.

This is a gross misrepresentation of my position- I did not think this before and I do not think it now. So I would urge people not to rely on audioslave's interpretations of reality but go back instead to the original source.



desertfae wrote:

AD-I do plan on answering your question in greater detail. FYI, if you go back you'll see I've already addressed this multiple times, but for the sake of time, when I get more time later, I'll answer yet again.

I'll look forward to your response. I certainly witnessed what happened here on this board but I'm honestly not clear on the question which I raised today: "I'm puzzled as to when, where and how they all first heard of each other and how the animosity which now exists first began."



Percival wrote:

How can you sit there and play innocent like this AD? You are the one who posted the e-mail from VM when VM told the entire RI board that Rachel was a FAKE, she wasnt Boger's daughter and she was an ARG actress who had nothing to do with this case.

I will ask again, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PUT VM ON THE HOT SEAT AND MAKE HER EXPLAIN TO YOU AND THIS FORUM WHY SHE LIED TO US ABOUT RACHEL. What she herself misinformed, if so why not say that and restore her credibility? Or did she simply just lie and think that she would get away with it because she thinks we are all too fucking retarded to find out the truth?

My questions are genuine. I really don't know the original roots of all this. I do know what I myself witnessed here, but I'm really not clear about what came before that, and outside of it. So I'd welcome clarifying statements from any and all of the key participants. Of course there's no way for me to force anyone to make a statement about this, but I am very much inviting them to comment on this.

I'll repeat a bit of my previous statement, for clarity's sake:

I'm puzzled as to when, where and how they all first heard of each other and how the animosity which now exists first began.

This really is not clear to me, and I'm also left wondering how much peripheral people who have some kind of longer history with each other might have been a part of bringing things to the point where they are now.

Speaking of clarity, since my position has been presented in a distorted manner again and again, I'll give a brief summary of where I really am at with all this:

I think that the Jimmy Hughes case is the tip of an incredibly important iceberg. Although people seem to mean very, very different things when they refer to the Octopus, the core issue- an ongoing criminal/covert ops conspiracy with high level connections is incredibly significant in the struggle for real social justice in this world.

Rachel has her own position in all of this, and that is to be expected. My own operative theory is that the Riconosciuto//Gunderson axis has been, and is, significantly involved somehow and I have major concerns about their agenda. I would be doing a disservice to all of us- Rachel first and foremost, if I were not honest about this.

Do I support Rachel? Of course I do. How could I not support someone seeking justice regarding the cold-blooded slaying of her Father? And she repeatedly declares her intent to expose the Octopus, to boot. I strongly support this as well.

Supporting that could never make me gloss over the fact that I suspect that the involvement of the Riconosciuto/Gunderson posse does not bode well for this case, nor that the Riverside County bureaucracy is unlikely to do more than reach for the minimum, if left to its own devices. Wasn't a previous detective on that case brutally murdered, along with his whole family?

I have read NewsMakingNews reports over the years and I have found them to be quite valuable. I wouldn't claim to know or remember enough about the Hamlin or Thompson cases to even have a informed opinion about them. My sense is that they can function as an indirect way of spinning what is happening with Jimmy Hughes in a certain way, as an alternative to actually dealing with concrete facts in the 1981 triple murder, which is the topic of this thread.

I think this is a very polarizing environment, and a very heated one too. Not only do I have other important projects that I must work on, but I also find that there is a strong tendency to get involved with escalating back-and-forth that distracts from the focus of this thread. So I will need to disengage from time to time but I don't want anyone to take that as a personal affront.

I am as capable of being as paranoid as most anyone here- with very good reason, at times. Still, I think for all of us- myself included- it is really important to refrain from agent-baiting. We'll probably never know what motivates most of the posters here, so what good does it do to speculate on their intent? Far, far better to stick with the facts...

So that's my statement for now.

I mean no offense to anyone except those who have consciously aligned themselves with malevolent forces. Those can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned (though I'd urge them not to!).

The rest of you, I wish you the very best in everything.


American Dream




ON EDIT: Thank you, c2w, for repeating Rachel's statement above. I did of course see it before, but to tell you the truth, I wrote it off because it seemed so vague and unsubstantiated. In the U.S. legal system wouldn't they dismiss that as hearsay? Anyway, I know we're not in a courtroom here but Rachel, when you do have time to comment, if you can flesh out those charges you made, it would be very, very helpful.

desertfae wrote:

et in Arcadia ego wrote:

audioslave wrote:I'll try one last time to give American Dream a way out of this hole he's in, even though he just implied myself and eyepen are the same person.

I'm not speaking to any one person here, but that kinda stuff is what's going to get threads locked one after the other. I'm not actively moderating this forum at this time, but I will tell you Jeff has no patience for accusations against other forum members. So, to repeat what I said in the locked thread, if you have doubts about someone that go beyond their posts making a nerve in your face twitch, please notify Jeff privately and make your case in clear, concise terms.

Arcadia ego,
I'm not meaning this post in a confrontational sort of way at all, so please don't take it that way.
I'm confused by your statement here about why this kind of stuff would get a thread locked, and why Jeff has no patience with this type of stuff. The reason I'm confused is because of the following:
*I was accused of being an actress
*having bad motives in my own case
*I've been hounded countless times to prove who I am, even after I did countless times and offered to meet a member of the forum to show them my ID. Even after it was established that I'm me in countless media reports.
*It's been stated many times by various members that have have some agenda that isn't good
and I could go on and on.
Jeff knew about this, and even seemed to join in (before the news agencies started reporting on it, other than KESQ).
Why is it, that when someone calls out another member that it can get a thread locked, but when all this happens to me, it's just fine and dandy and nobody says a thing?
Again, I'm not meaning this to sound confrontational at all, I just want clarification. Maybe the wording towards me was in such a way that it's allowed whereas this type of wording isn't?

Oh, to those of you that asked me stuff in here, I am super busy today as my internet was having problems since my last post last night. The techs just got it fixed, so I"m in the middle of playing catch up with everything now, and I still have to get in 8 hours of work somehow lol.. so I'm going to have to get the other questions later.
AD-I do plan on answering your question in greater detail. FYI, if you go back you'll see I've already addressed this multiple times, but for the sake of time, when I get more time later, I'll answer yet again.
Rachel

You need to understand something, this forum and Jeff in particular went through some SERIOUS and VERY PERSONAL mindfuckery a few years ago in re: the Theresa Duncan Jeremy Blake double suicide/murder(?) case and it hit very close to home for Jeff for reason that I am not going to revisit here on this thread out of respect for Jeff and some other former, past and present members, but it apparently involved an ARG and some serious mind games except real people ended up dying, people that were somewhat indirectly connected to this community. So when Jeff saw your shit tagged as ARG in your videos when you first came here he immediately and rightfully dismissed you and that was no fault of his own he only reacted to what he saw with his own eyes. Then to make matters worse, VM, who we all pretty much respected around these parts, chimed in and told us of your association with Ted Gunderson who is another person that brings up some very bad vibes on this forum and she also further confirmed that you were part of an ARG, so many of us who had went through that whole T Duncan mindfuckery reacted accordingly and that is just how it went down.

Regretfully we were wrong and it appears VM lied to us about you and some of us apologized and re-welcomed you to the forum and now understand you are who you say you are.

But please understand that non of it was 'fun and games' Jeff and others, including myself, are very wary of ARG type people and mindfuckery because of some things that have happened in the past that turned out not to be a game at all but very much a reality and a rather tragic one at that.

I do agree that AD needs to re-evaluate his understanding of these matters and how he treats you and anyone else who comes in balls out questioning VM because she clearly lied to us about who you were and we trusted her as an honest source and a journalist with integrity. In the end, most of us, including myself learned not to trust anyone anymore because of this and I personally apologize for whatever part I played in making things hard for you here at RI.

I wish AD would do the same and get his friend VM to join in too.

I think this should be the end of this discussion and the focus of this thread should now move beyond this silly cat fight between you AD and VM and instead focus on the case which I am sure you have no problem with since it was your own father who suffered at the hands of these criminals.

I've been thinking about this and I'm realizing I really don't understand the basis of the original rift between Rachel and Virginia and/or Kate.

I'm puzzled as to when, where and how they all first heard of each other and how the animosity which now exists first began.

This really is not clear to me, and I'm also left wondering how much peripheral people who have some kind of longer history with each other might have been a part of bringing things to the point where they are now.

Anyone who has insight or information that is relevant is welcome to share what they've got.

[/quote]

AMERICAN DREAM:
So what's your sense of the anatomy of the network behind all this?

KATE DIXON
I think the Board in general is people who are interested in the topics
there presented led by Jeff Wells and Trident Publishing -- Kris Milligan,
who publishes Wells and some of the people there and they sell
books from there, to wit, Franklin thing. RI is a “thrashing the
wheat and chaff type of thing” for people who are writing so they can get data and ideas for their books, and it is used by people fascinated with the subject matter, which attempts to be on the cutting edge of the news -- hidden agendas and such.

As for the current thread -- the anatomy is very, very unusual for me --
in that I have never seen a major witness, or even a family member
of a victim, such as Desert, get on a board and on a website, twitter, face, etc. and let it all hang out -- and she started this a long time ago. Recently,
since the capitol case is now filed, she is still letting it all hang out.
I really don't feel critical of her because if her father was killed then
she can only be expected to be emotional and to be against anyone who
she thinks is not going along with her agenda of bring his killer to
justice or, in this case, to possible lethal injection. BUT I do question
why the AG and lead detective, are apparently not telling her to stop this,
or she is doing it even though they did tell her to stop. Every thing
she has posted can and probably will be used to impeach her at
the trial or in pre-trial motions. THUS, enter
Anita Langley, who is not a witness as far as I can tell, and she, up
in Canada, is now taking on some of Desert's tasks. I don't know
who the other people are really (they use handles)… though I may have found Dr. Doogie as - a book publisher/investigator regarding a lady whose
daughter was kidnapped in the Bay Area peninsula. The anonymous ones on RI
and Anita Langley are trying to keep up Desert's point of view going and that includes attacking the credibility of me and VM. Some of them may be interested in writing books and may be proxies of Cherie Seymour and John Powers, potential book writers and movie makers.

Recently Audioslave, joining in January, started a "Dixon's disbarrment" thread
which flamed out. He admits on this thread that he is doing all he can for
John Powers and the prosecution, thus are they directing him to attempt to
slam my credibility as he tried to do in that thread?

I note no one has talked about the fingerprint card of Hughes in 1981, probably a booking card, or talked about John Power's statement in his
email that he feared he would be killed for investigating the Hughes case, just as deputy MacGowan and his family were killed.

As for me, recently on RI, after NMN's last post on Monday re:
Powers, MacGowan and the Hughes 1981 fingerprint card, they tried to
get into whether I had money or a job -- actually I am poor, and I guess maybe they figured that out, and then they went into El Dorado matters, but I was never arrested or detained there, although a judge up there was unhappy I was seeking public records and publishing them. So I guess they figured that out.Then they probably had a pow wow and got their rather big group
together, and went into the disbarment thing, which Langley and Desert
have taken the time to link or publish on their websites, and then one of them
went into one of my relatives in Emeryville and her colorful past and extensive
property holdings there over the years. No one other than themselves are willing to join that parade, because it is really old news and the state bar document they have is so bizarre they can't really use it as they want to.

They hope that a bunch of their stuff about me on the RI board
and on their websites will be picked up by major search engines such
as Google, and that they can flood the internet with discrediting me
and with the stuff they are doing to VM. That is the anatomy -- trying
to get stuff picked up on the www that they want picked up. Michael
Riconosciuto and Ted Gunderson are behind them in this to a large degree.
Although in their cases, a little knowledge is truly a dangerous thing.

Enter keywords of the anatomy lesson.

They are frustrated because NMN is now dominating the internent on the
Hughes case, other than of course the AP stories, one LA times story
and Desert Sun stories. You can google or bing Hughe's name and the
word murder or Cabazon and NMN will pop up mightily.

The guys and gals on RI can't dominate the web on Hughes. I know that if
I start posting there with them, I will only help get the stuff picked up by
major search engines. I and my website are a bigger keyword than
they are.

So the anatomy, to me, is the anatomy of keywords. Michael Riconosciuto is a computer type guy and he is a first class intelligence disinformation expert and genius. He wants to dominate the web with the story of how great he is in regarding to this murder case. If you read a recent post on RI by Anita Langley re: Riconosciuto's activities back then, you will see what role MR wants to play in the murder case --- the white knight in armor on the white horse. He will, if Langley's post is correct, be a major witness
against Hughes. He will probably see Fed. Rule 35b benefits for
testifying and seek early release from prison. I can't blame him for
trying. His sentence is way too long and it was Ted Gunderson who is much to blame for that. I haven't posted anything against Michael in this Hughes’ thing ---yet. He is always walking uphill to be an informant in the various
cases into which he has injected himself -- Hamlin, Thompson, indirectly
Polk -- uphill, because he is a convicted felon and felonies can be used
to impeach a witness. Also there is a rumor he is mentally ill, which
I can tell you, by law, has been proven to be false. By federal law he has
been found to be competent. Still, he has to prove he is on a white
horse. So he wants all the internet propaganda to go his way.

So far, no one has promoted anything about Hughes, except that
before this ever happened, there was a website for his ministry and
various comments about that, all favorable that I could see -- his helping prisoners, addicts, orphans, his confession and redemption, which are
on the web. And that poses a big problem for Michael and for Desert --
who are joined at the hip. And for John Powers, who also joined
them at their hips. The problem is that Hughes' publicity out there is
far better than Michael's, especially for those who buy that Christian
angle. Do you think Michael will let that stand?

I don't know of Hughes having any felony convictions and he is a
"reverend".

In the meantime, the material on NMN is factual and it is immediate, ongoing
and has got ahead of the news cycle a little bit here and there. Michael
will not let NMN dominate the news.

These anonymous characters are bearers of keywords to be picked up
by the www, and that's all they are.

Langley, did, however, provide some information in some of her recent
posts about Michael, JPN, Thompson and what happened back then. Ii don't
know where she got her information, but it is certainly worth checking into
it as much as possible, since she has been known to be on the phone
and in the pony mail with Michael and TG. She provided leads. So she is the
first of this group to go after the Octopus a little, since Desert
apparently retired from that pursuit a few weeks ago. If I didn't know
my injection into the board at this time would case a futile flaming war, and
would increase the hits on their keywords (by association), I would pursue
what Langley said. (Gees, a last name like Langley is quite a hint.)
Her leads are certainly more interesting and relevant than the old lawsuit in Emeryville which I pursued back in the 1990s. I was disbarred from California
practice in July 1997, I really have to laugh though in that Michael'
Riconosciuto tried to hire me as his attorney to represent him
when I was a member of the bar -- his case was federal in Washington
state at that time, and I was a member of two federal bars and 9th circuit in
California, and whether I was going to represent him or not was
up in the air -- If I had not been disbarred it could have happened.
His appeal went to 9th Circuit. I did not say I would not represent him.
He did not say he was not interested in having me represent him. The bar intervened.

Get it?

Enough anatomy for the day!

Kate Dixon

The fuck is this bullshit, Jeff Wells and Trident publishing are using us you say?


Is this the real Kate Dixon disbarred attorney?

Can you tell us why VM lied to us Ms Dixon, telling us all that Rachel was a fake and an ARG actress and wasnt who she said she was? Is this the type of behavior that you expect from your NMN representitives? Shall I pull up her e mail where she says this for proof? Where is the journalistic integrity in such a libelous and slanderous statement Ms Dixon?