Home > Humboldt County, Judi Bari, Lawsuits, Redwood Summer > MOVIE TRAILER: Who Bombed Judi Bari

MOVIE TRAILER: Who Bombed Judi Bari

A release date for the film has yet to be announced.  More info at whobombedjudibari.com.

  1. Bolithio
    August 21, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    One of the craziest stories Ive ever heard. I hope this movie is well done. I also hope they acknowledge the difference between logging on the 1980/90s compared to practices now. She certainly deserves credit for the way the ‘environment’ changed within the agencies regulating timber harvesting, which has resulted in very significant changes.

  2. forestdefender
    August 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    I am surprised to see Bolithio giving Judi Bari credit for seeing that forests are better protected. I am wondering what he means by saying it is one of the craziest stories he has ever heard. Does he mean it is crazy that someone would bomb her, and that the FBI would accuse her of bombing herself. I sure think that is pretty crazy.

  3. Black Flag
    August 22, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Everyone knows they are guilty just because a bunch of cry baby neo hippies with trustfunds make a movie and infiltrate the legal system doesn’t make terrorism right.
    They should have been sentenced to work in saw mills and drive logging trucks for life under threat of hanging.
    Neo hippies are filth and useless

  4. What Now
    August 22, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Black Flag, it’s obvious that your parents didn;t have any children that survived birth.

  5. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Everyone knows they are guilty.

    Yeah, so what if there’s not even a shred of evidence to suggest that Bari and/or Cherney had anything to do with the bomb that was planted in Bari’s car? So what if a jury found that the FBI and Oakland police had violated their civil rights by framing them for their own attempted murder and failing to pursue the real bomber?

    Nah, there’s no need for evidence, no need for a judge and jury — since Black Flag says that “everyone knows” they’re guilty, it must be so.

  6. August 22, 2011 at 10:59 am

    I have seen the pre release screening of “The Deposition of Judi Bari” if this is the same film it was extremely well done, a professional documentary, it did a fantastic job of taking me back in time and invoking emotion . At the end there was a clip of Judi giving an inspirational speech at an action, she said something like:

    “This lawsuit is not about me, it’s not about Darryl and it’s not about Earth First! It’s about the rights of all activists to engage in social change without fear of repression by the government’s secret police.”

    Since then…what has changed?
    Owl

  7. August 22, 2011 at 11:01 am

    This looks like the same film, IT IS FABULOUS!

  8. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 11:48 am

    I hope that someday the actual bombers will be caught and brought to justice. In the meantime, I hope they are haunted by the knowledge that even though they have “got away with it” so far, they still might be caught and prosecuted and end up spending a good deal of their old-age in court and then in prison.

    In the meantime, Judi and Darryl’s story serves as an important cautionary tale about the perils of politicized policing, and at the same time as an inspirational story of courage — of dissidents refusing to be silenced even in the face of violence and injustice, and showing great determination and perseverance in fighting to overcome the state-sponsored repression and clear their names while continuing to fight for their cause. I hope that this film will be seen by millions of Americans and others around the world.

  9. Black Flag
    August 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    It is so.
    Neo Hippies driving an old subaru with blown out suspension should have known better than to assemble their weapons before taking to the pot hole ridden streets. Streets are pot hole ridden from government paying for Neo Hippie food stamps and welfare instead of repairing roads. One can only laugh at the irony of the neo hippies and their folly with the pot hole.
    These Neo Hippies were sponsered by the off shore bankers who have taken the forest as collateral on “national debt” to be paid to Tel Aviv, Wall Street, and London.
    The trial should have covered her Mossad/ Israeli connection and deportations should have occured, instead they become heros of communist Arcata and their clutch of birds from HSU who are also funded by trust funds and work to undermine business in Northern California. I believe the motive behind their operation was to false flag an attack on Julia Butterfly while she was on Good Morning America creating an army of naive youth to start riots and wreck the economy in the name of Wall Street. Pawns….
    Today instead of logging we sit and watch our forests burn with flame retardants poisoning wells, streams, and groundwater in the name of Julia Butterfly and her banker’s dislike for rural folk who makie a living in the forest. Logging today means having a shaman come out for an inspection among other government nonsense and has turned trees and land into a liability. That sure is progress.

  10. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Poor Black Flag. Living in a world of dark fantasy, hemmed in on all sides by his paranoid, prejudicial beliefs, and apparently entirely devoid of the basic critical thinking skills that would be required to free himself of his delusions. Very sad.

  11. Sunny
    August 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Well, Black Flag, that makes a lot of sense. I sure wish you could have brought all this to light a little earlier so we could have taken corrective before she bombed herself and then purposefully killed herself with breast cancer.

    /sarcasm

  12. Blackcoffee
    August 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    It always seemed to me that the last thing anyone would do

    with a bomb would be to stick it under your own seat.

    It would be human nature to at least put it in the trunk.

    Ergo, somebody else planted the bomb.

  13. arcatawitch
    August 22, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Black Flag: Communist Arcata? Seriously? And what are Neo hippies? You seem to be living in your own cartoon. Please wake up and see the world around you.

    Heraldo: Thanks for posting the video clip. It is nice to hear Judi’s passionate voice once again.

  14. scooter
    August 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    The New Settler “settled” this question years ago. The story about the old couple who lived in Piercy and the guys from Eel River Sawmills who wanted through their land to get to thousands of acres of landlocked timber. Dig up the articles. Its all there.

  15. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    True, Black Flag sounds a little paranoid, but sometimes the paranoid person is the one closest to the truth. At least he is thinking. On the other hand, there’s no place for thinking or debate in Tra’s closed mind because it’s already made up. Other than a glib promo for the movie all he can do is make insensitive personal attacks on someone who merely disagrees with his opinions

  16. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    True, Black Flag sounds a little paranoid, but sometimes the paranoid person is the one closest to the truth.

    Sometimes, Suzy…but not in this case.

    At least he is thinking.

    Actually it looks more like he’s regurgitating wingnut conspiracy theories, neither contributing anything original, nor offering any evidence to back up the outlandish beliefs that he has chosen to embrace, and that he has chosen to offer up as if they were facts.

    On the other hand, there’s no place for thinking or debate in Tra’s closed mind because it’s already made up.

    Oh, I’m open to debate about who bombed Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney. Heck, I’m even open to debate over whether they bombed themselves — if anyone can point to any credible evidence whatsoever to support that claim. But no such evidence has been offered, either by the Oakland Police or the FBI (as shown by in the trial in Oakland a few years back) or from anyone else. And no, the voices in Black Flag’s head who assure him, sans evidence, that “it is so” don’t count as credible evidence.

    Other than a glib promo for the movie all he can do is make insensitive personal attacks on someone who merely disagrees with his opinions

    No he doesn’t “merely disagree,” he’s actually accusing a dead woman (Judi Bari) and a Southern Humboldt resident (Darryl Cherney) of being terrorist bombers responsible for their own attempted murder, an accusation he offers as fact, but for which he provides zero evidence, and ignores all the evidence — actual evidence, presented in court and tested by a judge and jury — to the contrary. Continuing to make that kind of unsupported accusation of such serious wrongdoing, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and in the absence of any new evidence to suggest there is any truth at all to the claim — well, that’s just despicable.

    And I’m the one you’re upset at for being “insensitive?” Yeah, that makes sense.

  17. grackle
    August 22, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Blag Flag said: “I believe the motive behind their operation was to false flag an attack on Julia Butterfly while she was on Good Morning America creating an army of naive youth to start riots and wreck the economy in the name of Wall Street.”

    Date of Bari/ Cherney bombing? 1991
    date of Julia Hill tree-sit? 1998-1999

    A prescient operation to say the least.

  18. larry evans
    August 22, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Black Flag has a big mouth for someone with no balls.

    Maybe there is no room for any balls in the package because his head is so far inserted in the adjacent orifice such that the tiny stones had no room to dwell.

    pathetic worm!

  19. Rhett Torigle
    August 22, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    I have a relative who used to be in the SF District Attorneys office and shortly after the bombing he was visiting that office and he remarked to me about how smugly confident his old chums were about Judi and Darryl bombing themselves. I said to him, these were friends of mine, activists to be sure, but songwriters not violent people. He didn’t budge from that smug suit mentality.
    How I love to bring up the fact of their largest damages award from the FBI ever granted.

    Why do you people waste your time with the various turdpiles on the blog sidewalk? The smell of their comments marginalizes them enough. What is there about the emotional makeup of the humonkeys that requires constant competition and rightness wars? Humans examining their unconscious motivations and behaviors… forgot, doesn’t happen.

  20. Bolithio
    August 22, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    forestdefender says:
    August 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    I am surprised to see Bolithio giving Judi Bari credit for seeing that forests are better protected.

    Why? Had you not heard of her?

  21. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    No he doesn’t “merely disagree,” he’s actually accusing a dead woman (Judi Bari) and a Southern Humboldt resident (Darryl Cherney) of being terrorist bombers responsible for their own attempted murder,

    Yes, he’s saying they’re guilty and you’re saying they’re innocent (and I don’t mean “legally” innocent), that’s a disagreement, and an opening for debate and discussion —not an excuse for your multiple cruel personal attacks. You have prematurely determined him to be without credible evidence when all he’s said so far is his general opinion. Please, don’t be so trigger happy and closed minded, give someone a chance to present their side of an issue before entirely dismissing their viewpoint and attacking their character, sheesh.

  22. grackle
    August 22, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    “Yes, he’s saying they’re guilty and you’re saying they’re innocent (and I don’t mean “legally” innocent), that’s a disagreement, and an opening for debate and discussion —not an excuse for your multiple cruel personal attacks. ”

    Well, right, he’s saying they’re guilty of being Jews? In what sense should one entertain these anti-Semitic comments as serious? As worthy of response?

    Don’t you think out and out bigotry is kinda like telegraphing their viewpoint and, as you say, character? I’m with Rhett Torigle on this one.

  23. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Multiple cruel personal attacks

    Do you seriously think my little jabs at Black Flag come anywhere close to the level of cruelty of Black Flag’s unsubstantiated claims about Bari, in which he attacks a dead woman who isn’t here to defend herself, accusing her of being a terrorist, an agent of foreign powers and an attempted murderer, as well as being so stupid as to put a bomb under her own car seat? Seems your outrage about “personal attacks” is quite one-sided, Suzy.

    At any rate, no one is preventing Black Flag from presenting “evidence” to back up his claims. To the contrary, I have challenged him to do so. He’s already posted twice, once after my initial comment noting the lack of evidence — and yet his follow-up comment provided no evidence, all he’s offered other than “everyone knows” and “it is so” is just some really wacky conspiracy theories.

    Meanwhile, the evidence that Bari and Cherney were NOT involved in making the bomb or placing it under Bari’s seat is what led a federal jury to conclude that they were not the perpetrators.

    So, given that one “opinion” (as expressed by me) is backed up by well-documented evidence, tested in court and a matter of public record, and the opposite “opinion,” as expressed by Black Flag is — so far — only based on “everyone knows” and “it is so” and bizarre unsupported claims of involvement by the Mossad and international bankers, forgive me if I’m a bit dismissive of that countervailing “opinion.”

    Look, someone may believe that the earth is flat and they of course have a right to hold that opinion, and to share that “opinion” too, but given the amount of evidence for the contrary opinion, that the earth is roughly spherical, I wouldn’t hesitate to call bullshit on the flat-earth claim, too, at least until such point as someone presents some evidence that the spherical-earth theory is wrong.

    If that hurts the flat-earther’s feelings….oh well…they shouldn’t be surprised when their unsupported claims are dismissed and even ridiculed. That’s what happens when you make extraordinary claims without providing a shred of evidence to back those claims up.

  24. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    I have challenged him to do so. He’s already posted twice, once after my initial comment noting the lack of evidence — and yet his follow-up comment provided no evidence, all he’s offered other than “everyone knows” and “it is so”

    Yes, I realize that you may think you are in the lead, but I’m afraid that the punches below the belt may disqualify most of your argument. At any rate, not enough has been presented to try and determine who is ahead at this early juncture.

  25. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Yes, I realize that you may think you are in the lead, but I’m afraid that the punches below the belt may disqualify most of your argument

    Whether I’m “in the lead” in your mind is really of little concern to me, so you’re welcome to pretend that certain facts don’t count and you can do so under whatever mental Marqis of Queensbury rules you want to adopt.

    Meanwhile, here in the real world, facts are not “disqualified” because you don’t like the way they are presented. You may choose to ignore facts on that basis, but that doesn’t make the facts any less factual — it just makes you willfully ignorant.

    I do find it fascinating how you view my dismissive remarks towards Black Flag’s cruel and unsupported claims against Bari as being “punches below the belt,” but you’ve expressed no qualms about Black Flag’s own “punches below the belt” at a dead woman and at a man who lived through being bombed and then (falsely) accused of his own bombing.

    In my view, Black Flag making such outrageous accusations against Bari and Cherney, without offering any evidence at all, represents the most repugnant kind of “punching below the belt.” The rest of his anti-hippy nonsense is ridiculous, too, but nowhere near as offensive as the unsupported (and thoroughly-disproved-in-court) accusations of terrorism, bomb-making, etc.

  26. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Tra, I’m not arguing whether Blackflag’s claims about Judy and Darryl is true, I’m just trying to make you aware of the detrimental effect that your mean spirited attacks on his character have on the credibility of the rest of your claims.

  27. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    Telling a flat-earther that they are being foolish by holding and sharing that opinion in the absence of any evidence to support it and in the presence of lots of well-documented evidence to the contrary might also be called mean-spirited, but that doesn’t change the roundness of the earth one bit.

    I’m not ashamed to admit that I have little patience or respect for someone like Black Flag who, from behind a cloak of anonymity, makes very serious allegations, without presenting any evidence, against named individuals for “crimes” in which those people have already been thoroughly exonerated by our legal system.

    The bottom line is that Black Flag’s claims are ridiculous, and thus invite ridicule. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, so be it.

    Meanwhile, your hypocrisy is on full display, as you whine about the “mean-spiritedness” of my comments, yet have said not a word about the vitriolic nature of Black Flag’s slanderous rants.

  28. Anonymous
    August 22, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Black Flag has made a number of extraordinary claims, but not only has he failed to provide extraordinary evidence, he’s actually provided NO evidence. He deserves all the credibility he has earned: None.

  29. 69er
    August 22, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Character? Blackflag has no character other than being cruel and rediculous at the same time. Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely not a fan of either Bari or Cherney.

  30. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Sorry Tra but two wrongs don’t make a right.

  31. Phineas Homestone
    August 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    The elephant in the room here is the most likely perpetrator of this crime is Judi Bari’s ex-husband (Mike Sweeney). He has a history of terrorist activities in the 60’s and 70’s, in particular the firebombing of the Santa Rosa Air Center, using similar bomb making/incendiary materials. He bragged about that and other events to anyone that would listen in his radical days. He and Judi had a long history of aggressive and sometimes violent acts against each other.

    The theory goes like this: they hated each other and were a party to, or aware of, each other’s radical past. Can’t implicate the other without implicating themselves.

    The tragedy here is she knew he was dangerous, and told her friends she feared for her life. Toward the end of her life, dying from terminal cancer, she denied this, along with her environmental supporters in lockstep, in favor of making a martyr of herself in service to the environmental causes she cared so deeply for.

    It was a calculated choice to cover up a horrible case of domestic violence in favor of advancing her life’s work.

    I don’t agree with her choice, but must grant her respect for being willing to take this truth to her grave. Her cultish supporters have continued this effort attacking any dissenters with a fervor wholly out of proportion.

    In my view her life’s work can stand on its own without her martyring herself, and her disciples allowing the sham to continue due to ego and hate.

    Over a ten+ year period The Anderson Valley Advertiser has collected an impressive dossier of events and interviews clearly implicating her ex-husband in this crime:

    http://theava.com/bari.html

    I applauded her side winning the case against the FBI, et all. The FBI acted despicably, and shamefully. No question.

    The most interesting recent revalation was the reason they were 2 minutes away when the bombing occurred was because their informant (Mike Sweeney) told them the car had a bomb in it—because he put it there!

    In the end both sides manipulated the truth to advance their own political/social aims, obscuring the ugly truth that a dedicated activist was brutally killed by her violent and unbalanced ex-husband.

  32. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    Suzy,

    If you really can’t see the difference between the wrongness of, on the one hand, unjustly and without basis accusing named individuals of committing serious crimes, compared to, on the other hand, the “wrongness” of ridiculing the anonymous commenter who is making those unsupported claims, then I feel sorry for you.

  33. Anonymous
    August 22, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Bolithio, the clear-cut logging that is happening now is practically the same as the clear-cut logging in the 90’s. Don’t pretend everything is all right.

  34. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    Phineas, was she brutally killed? She died of cancer.

  35. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Tra, you keep trying to be the winner in a contest, but it’s not a matter of scale.

  36. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    In the end both sides manipulated the truth to advance their own political/social aims, obscuring the ugly truth that a dedicated activist was brutally killed by her violent and unbalanced ex-husband.

    Well the proposition that the FBI and the Oakland police “manipulated the truth” to frame Bari and Cherney has been tested in court, the evidence has been weighed by a jury and that proposition has been found to be true, costing the government several million dollars.

    The theory that her ex-husband was the bomber, and the additional claim that Bari intentionally hid that fact to “advance her political/social aims” is a theory promoted by a newspaper publisher, and has not been tested in court through the adversarial system of examination and cross-examination, nor have the facts as a whole been weighed by a jury under the supervision of a judge.

    So Anderson’s theory may or may not be correct, but it is obvioulsy fallacious to ascribe the same level of certainty to FBI/OPD’s proven misbehavior, and the allleged guilt of her ex-husband and the alleged cover-up of his guilt by Bari as theorized by Anderson (and re-stated here by you as if it were fact). It’s a great example of false equivalency .

  37. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Tra, you keep trying to be the winner in a contest, but it’s not a matter of scale.

    Oh I agree with you that “it’s not a matter of scale.”

    Falsely accusing someone of terrorism and/or attempted murder is wrong. Very wrong.

    Ridiculing the person who makes the false accusation is not on the same scale at all.

    Meanwhile, obsessing about the manners of the person who called the false accuser on their bullshit, while failing to object to the false accusation itself seems like a sign of either extreme bias, a fuzzy moral compass, or some kind of intellectual malfunction. Just my opinion of course.

    ;)

  38. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    I also agree that there is no “contest” here, just a discussion.

    But if there was a contest for best comment on this thread, I would vote for “grackle’s” comment at 5:32:

    Blag Flag said: “I believe the motive behind their operation was to false flag an attack on Julia Butterfly while she was on Good Morning America creating an army of naive youth to start riots and wreck the economy in the name of Wall Street.”

    Date of Bari/ Cherney bombing? 1991
    date of Julia Hill tree-sit? 1998-1999

    A prescient operation to say the least.

    Now was it “mean-spirited” of him to use sarcasm as he demolished Black Flag’s ignorant theorizing with some simple facts? I guess that’s a matter of opinion. Either way it doesn’t change the facts one bit — Black Flag’s theory is shown to be absolutely ridiculous,

  39. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Tra, you keep repeating the same obsessive thought over and over. A different scale the same scale, what you are trying to say is that a drop of water in a plastic cup and a gallon of water in a different vessel are not both water.

  40. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    what you are trying to say is that a drop of water in a plastic cup and a gallon of water in a different vessel are not both water

    No, what I am saying is that throwing a molotov cocktail at innocent people is a much more serious matter than squirting the firebomber with a supersoaker.

    What you are so desperately trying to avoid acknowledging (perhaps because it reveals your hypocrisy for calling out the much lesser “offense” and ignoring the muich greater one) is that making a false accusation against innocent bombing victims is a whole lot worse than ridiculing an anonymous commenter for making the false accusations.

    ….you keep repeating the same obsessive thought over and over.

    Check the mirror. You keep repeating the same nonsensical false equivalency over and over.

  41. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 10:45 pm

    More serious less serious, LOL. You just don’t get it. I’m not making a false equivalency, that’s your straw man. To the dead man it doesn’t matter if he has drowned in the ocean or in a less equivalent sized body of water like the bathtub.

  42. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    Whether you realize it or not, you just demonstrated that either you don’t understand what a false equivalency is, or you don’t understand what a straw man argument is, or both.

  43. suzy blah blah
    August 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    I’m tired of your unfounded attacks Tra. All you do is sidestep the issues and insult people.

  44. Anonymous
    August 22, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    wow you two, nice thread.

  45. tra
    August 22, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    I’d be tired, too, if I were you, Suzy — defending the indefensible is hard work ain’t it?

    At any rate, despite your voluminous efforts at obfuscation and desperate attempts at peddling a false equivalency, the indisputable fact remains: Black Flag falsely accused Cherney and Bari of some very serious crimes, without providing even a shred of evidence to back up his claims.

    Called on his lack of evidence he doubled-down on his claims, BF added a bunch of whacko conspiracy nonsense (also without offereing any evidence) and then as a bonus offered his own cockamamie “theory” about the crime — and in the process he made a complete fool of himself by showing how utterly ignorant he is about even the most basic facts of the case (as “grackle” so skillfully demonstrated at 5:32).

    If people like Black Flag find the truth “insulting,” they should stop insulting the truth.

  46. suzy blah blah
    August 23, 2011 at 12:23 am

    Sigh, I didn’t defend anyone or peddle false equivalency or desperately do anything. That’s just my role in your fantasy in which play the hero attacker of strawmen. Talk about ridiculous LOL! It’s all about you casting yourself as being triumphant, no matter what the reality is.

  47. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 12:55 am

    The truth, available to any person who reads this thread, is that at 2:40 you did defend the despicable anonymous slanderer Black Flag in your very first comment.

    Then at 6:39 you tried to promote Black Flag’s totally unproven, hate-based whacko conspiracy theories as being on the same level as an opinion based on the documented facts of this case as determined by a judge and jury.

    And then you spent most of your subsequent comments obsessively pushing an absurd false equivalency between Black Flag’s false accusations and my criticism of him for making the false accusations.

    No amount of incorrect usages of the term “strawman” and no amount of tossing around your insults (while of course complaining that others are being insulting) will get you out of the hole you’ve dug yourself. But by all means, keep on digging.

  48. suzy blah blah
    August 23, 2011 at 1:35 am

    You are totally hung up on who, in your mind, is the winner and who is the loser, never-mind the facts, it’s all about your twisted opinions. Slowly it’s become clear to me that its futile to consider discussing any of your narcissistic comments in a logical manner. It’s either all about you being right or its not worth considering.

  49. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 2:05 am

    No, it’s not about me winning, it’s about the facts winning.

    Fact: Black Flag made false accusations and wild conspiratorial claims, unsupported by any evidence.

    Fact: You defended and praised him for doing so, then spent the rest of the thread attacking me for the manner in which I criticized Black Flag’s false and nonsensical claims.

    So the basic problem you’re having is that you sided with fact-denying, dark-fantasy-spewing Black Flag, and then once you had decided to try to defend his noxious point of view, it was all downhill from there, with your attempts to change the subject, your false equivalencies, bogus analogies, pathetic LOLs and now, having reached the very bottom of your self-dug intellectual gutter, your pathetic attempts to project your own psychological insecurities onto me. How very sad.

  50. skippy
    August 23, 2011 at 2:29 am

    This has been a good thread, alright. It took off like a lazy rocket lit on the late fuse of a humid Southern summer evening. Settle down kids or it’ll be an early bedtime and no grits for the both of you. Both of you have good points; how in Heaven’s name did Black Flag get you two cackling like a murder of crows and croaking like a knot of toads??

    I always enjoy Tra’s cogently logical (Occam’s)razor reasoning, his mawkish justice dealt, and the end game approach of check and mate thoughtfully played. Suzy, rest assured, you’re always a precious gem of delightful reasonability and karma crackin’ consciousness in the face of the concrete dogma jungle. But wait! There’s more to this story than the skulk of thieves, the scold of jays, and a wake of buzzards about.

    The most interesting post of contrarian thought here comes from Phineas Homestone @9:26 with his conspicuously conspiritorial Anderson Valley Advertiser pearl of a find rarely seen. Hearsay? Unproven fallaciousness? Or, egads! False equivalency? Perhaps and probably so.

    But then again, Mr. Anderson and the AV Advertiser have been quite the consistently reasoned and righteously muckraking powerhouse in their own right for decades now– and shouldn’t be so easily dismissed. The articles the AVA penned on this subject are fascinating, thought-provoking, illuminating, and, unfortunately… written 6 years ago. Yours truly would like to think this story isn’t over until the Fat Man sings again– but the AVA’s trail and it’s voice seems to have grown cold, old, and stale after so many years of being off the record– it’s vigilance and vigor now befitting both an unction of undertakers with the pallor of daysleepers lately.

  51. Ponder z
    August 23, 2011 at 6:06 am

    I think suzy got the last word in, tra. She made the best arguments. You are selfsupporting in your argument. It makes you look like a raving neo-hippie.

  52. Bolithio
    August 23, 2011 at 6:51 am

    Anonymous says:
    August 22, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Bolithio, the clear-cut logging that is happening now is practically the same as the clear-cut logging in the 90′s. Don’t pretend everything is all right.

    Anonymous; I disagree. Beri’s fight was against MAXXAM/Hurwitz, who where liquidating the old growth redwood from PL. While it is true that they got most of it, the entire PL ownership is now managed with selection systems by HRC. (thats almost 1/3rd of the timbered area of the county)This is a huge change.

    The on-the-ground methods for logging, particularly tractor logging have changed in the last 20 years too. For example the machinery that was used to log OG redwood has been retired. These enormous tractors were 2-3 times the weight of tractors used today, and they certainly caused at least that degree of soil disturbance compared to today’s largest tractor used. Layouts were built for OG trees (where soils and debris are piled in the woods to soften the falling tree) that caused huge disturbances. I haven’t seen a layout constructed in over 15 years.

    The rules have changed significantly in 20 years, from standards on the ground to the way agencies enforce them. CDF adopted threatened and impaired watershed rules in 2001. This was eventually replaced by the more restrictive anadromous fisheries rule package in 2009-10. Water Quality now has the authority to enforce the Basin Plan using their waste discharge permits. Ultimately, the whole climate of forest regulation has changed dramatically since redwood summer.

  53. suzy blah blah
    August 23, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Gosh Tra, try rereading the thread. I didn’t defend or praise Blackflag at all –and your claiming that I did is nonsense. But it does serve as a handy strawman to aim an unending stream of trumped up vitriol at. What I actually said was that a paranoid person is thinking, ie, has an opinion. And yes I defend his right to have that opinion, but that isn’t to say that I agree with or defend what his opinion is. Important distinction there, but it’s the kind of distinction that you gleefully and blindly trample over to make your absurd illogical conclusions. Like the concept that I’m “promoting” Blackflag’s theories as having “equivalence” to other contrary evidence, when I simply claim that they have an equal right to be heard, not that their arguments hold equal weight to the judge and jury’s decision. That’s another of your lies or misunderstandings.

    As far as our little dispute goes, Blackflag could be anyone making any opinion –I’m not defending the opinion, I’m defending the right to state it. And I’m certainly not “praising” a person for having an opinion –yet another of your warped and misconstrued ideas. I’m saying that at least they have an opinion. That is not at all the same thing as making a judgment upon what the opinion is. Nor did I “side” with Blackflag or “defend” his standpoint. Yet you easily change the facts around in order to make me into another strawman, or boogyman, (with a “rusty moral compass” and an “extreme bias or intellectual dysfunction”), for you to call names and moralize about and feel superior to. And attack. It’s the same greedy self-centered biased strategy that has been used to dominate the planet for centuries. By men with your frame of thinking. Often under the banner of bringing peace.

    Time to wake up Tra. And quit redefining reality to fit your own private ego drama. Of course if you want to stay asleep for a while it’s cool, I’m defending your right to do that, and to call Blackflag’s viewpoint ridiculous too. And to call him prejudiced, paranoid, despicable, repugnant, cruel, bizarre, a wacko, devoid of thinking skills, delusional, full of dark fantasies, etc etc. And me a “hypocrite” because I criticized your manner, even though I didn’t give an opinion on the content of Blackflag’s comments. If that’s the sort of misrepresentation that you enjoy throwing around in your public daydreams, go ahead, I defend your right to do so. I even defend your right to find a nifty moral reason to use as a platform do some condescending and fake sympathizing about poor this person, and how you feel sorry for that one, and oh how sad it is about the other one, and on and on, drip drip drip.

    I don’t defend him, but I do defend his right to be heard.

  54. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 10:01 am

    I don’t defend him, but I do defend his right to be heard.

    Nice try, Suzy, but nobody said that Black Flag doesn’t have the “right to be heard.” Nobody censored or silenced him, his paranoid, hate-filled screed and his evidence-free accusations against Bari and Cherney are right there for all to see.

    So you can try to position yourself as some kind of champion of free speech, but since nobody’s arguing against free speech, you’re just jousting with a straw man of your own creation.

    But, by all means, carry on.

  55. Farmer
    August 23, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Bolithio, you did a splendid job of dodging my point. Clear-cutting is clear-cutting, layouts be damned, The Earths climate is changing faster than logging restrictions.

  56. Farmer
    August 23, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Ever wonder what the effect of climate change will be on growth a and yield? Do you think it’s worthwhile to explore the possibility that clear-cutting will result in stunted trees and dense brush in the more marginal Redwood habitat? Redwood growth may slow down a lot, whether from lack of moisture, levels of Co2 in the atmosphere that are high enough to slow plant growth, or some other factor that is yet unforeseen.

  57. skippy
    August 23, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Bruce Anderson’s informed and illuminating series Valley Advertiser articles of The Judi Bari Bombing have been consistently provoking and unrepentant in their striking conclusions. His 2005 article, “Coleman’s Book Stirs the Pot,” contains these surprising revelations which the reader may want to read in their entirety:

    PERSONS tracking the case should also be aware that the Bari-ites, although they seem to number in the thousands, in fact consist of about a dozen persons, most of them either living off the case via fraudulant non-profit fundraising or frantically trying to keep themselves out of jail because they know the mystery of Who Bombed Judi Bari is not all that mysterious. If the case is solved — and it can be solved through DNA — several residents of the Northcoast will be packed off to prison, a few famous lawyers disbarred, and a whole lot of fancy but wholly undeserved reputations on the national left will be punctured…

    Mike Sweeney, once belonged to the Stanford-based, pseudo-Maoist group that became the SLA in the late 1960s. Both groups murdered people and placed bombs throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Bari knew all this about Sweeney, and Sweeney knew all about the crimes he and Bari had committed together when they were married. Thus the two relics of the 60s lunatic fringe came to have their desperate hands around each other’s throats in a can’t-bust-em death grip when, in May of 1990, Mike Sweeney’s pipe bomb exploded in his ex-wife’s Subaru, nearly killing her. In fact the bomb did kill her, albeit seven years later…

    I think the FBI’s peculiar reluctance to find the bomber is probably due to Sweeney’s being an FBI snitch all the way back to his Stanford Maoist days. I also think it is highly likely that the Mendocino Environment Center in Ukiah functioned as an FBI listening post during the Redwood Summer period. The FBI, it seems, prefers to let a car-bomb killer get away with his spectacular crime than reveal their little helpers in Mendocino County…

    DARRYL CHERNEY, it almost goes without saying, is an utter fraud. He and a crepuscular Humboldt County character called Mark Drake put up a $50,000 reward for Charles Hurwitz but they haven’t put up a dime for the bomber. Why? They’re afraid they’ll find him.

    “It’s clear that Sweeney — the only person among the Bari-ites with any real brain power — also has the goods on people like Cherney, Pam Davis, Meredyth Rinehard, Tanya Brannan, and Karen Pickett. They know if Sweeney goes down he’ll take them with him…

    “There are quite a few people out there who know the truth about aspects of the Bari saga. Some of them know the whole truth, but it will take subpoenas to get it.

    Mr. Anderson has meticulously followed this case throughout and still remains steadfast in his thoughts and convictions after a 6 year hiatus– without mincing words or responsibility as to Who Bombed Judi Bari.

  58. skippy
    August 23, 2011 at 11:18 am

    After reading his Judi Bari articles penned nearly 5 years before, yours truly asked independent journalist Mr. Bruce Anderson of Mendocino’s Anderson Valley Advertiser for his recent opinion and informed judgement on this subject and thread weighing in as an expert who capably tracked the Bari bombing case. Any changes, differences of opinion, or the shedding of new information being brought to light– after nearly half a decade– to illuminate this column for us?

    No. Not exactly. But Mr. Anderson still remains steadfastly consistent, nonetheless, in his original premise and conclusions brought forth in 2005.

    Rising before 7am to reply, Mr. Anderson kindly responded to Herald Readers– and yours truly– with his brief dispatch this morning:

    “Thank you for the invitation. Dissenting views have always been unwelcome in this area on this case which, as I’ve often said, can be solved via known and published dna evidence obtained from the confession letter by the Lord’s Avenger. I am hoping the “mystery” will be re-visited by a DA with Judi Bari’s ex-husband as the primary suspect. I regard Cherney and Company as a bunch of frauds and scammers who have not only blocked honest inquiries but have made literal millions for themselves off it.”

    Onward!
    Bruce Anderson, AVA, Boonville”

  59. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Like Black Flag, Anderson is long on accusations and wild-haired conspiracy theories, but embarassingly short on proof.

    His whole thesis — that Bari, Cherney, and many of their close supporters knew who the real bomber is and didn’t want the real bomber’s identity to be known — is nonsensical in light of the recent case in which Cherney fought, successfully, to preserve the evidence in the case, which the FBI had been planning to destroy.

    If, as Anderson claimed, Cherney wanted to prevent the identity of the real bomber from being discovered, he wouldn’t have fought tooth and nail to make sure the evidence was preserved, which keeps alive the chance that the real bomber may someday be identified and prosecuted.

    The (unproven) theory that Bari’s ex-husband might have been the culprit was not an uncommon one at the time of the bombing and in the ensuing years — but Anderson goes much farther than that, making a whole slew of other wild accusations based on rumor and hearsay, including his (evidence-free) claim that Bari had tried to hire someone to murder her ex-husband.

    His conspriatorial ravings and his willingness to present rumor and hearsay as if they were established facts reminds me of the hard-core Birthers, who are so rabid in their hatred of Obama that they’re willing to believe almost any scenario — matter how outlandish, unsupported, or discredited — so long as it paints their chosen target of hatred in a sufficiently negative light.

  60. suzy blah blah
    August 23, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Tra, how many times are you going to miss the point? I don’t like to have to yell but some people have the comprehension skills of a brick wall. Hello, can you hear? I DIDN’T DEFEND HIM! as you have falsely accused me over and over again. You are simply ignoring 99% of what I explain to you in order to quickly pounce on a nonessential which is –Yes my position is one of defending free speech in general, but I wasn’t making any specific argument to anything said on this thread about it. I’m simply being open with you as to my stance. But I can see that there’s really no use to doing that as far as you are concerned because rather than being straight forward with me, you are filtering everything that I say and sifting it to try and find some phrase or out of context fragment that you can use to argue with from the the pre-written script in your head of ego fueling rhetorical fantasies.

  61. Anonymous
    August 23, 2011 at 11:53 am

    To accept Anderson’s scenario of the Bari / Cherney bombing, you have to accept that the FBI knowingly covered up for Sweeney which makes them at least accessories after the fact to attempted murder. So although it would have been real justice for those responsible to face criminal charges, at least one involved party is paying monetary penalties.

  62. skippy
    August 23, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Outstanding point and relevant addition, Tra. This does not go unnoticed. Thank you.

  63. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Skippy,

    I’m really quite surprised that you could read that AVA article and then refer to Anderson as

    an expert who capably tracked the Bari bombing case.

    Were you being sarcastic?

    Expert?

    Only in the sense that Orly Taitz is an “expert” who “capably tracked” the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate.

    Read through that last article again, the one from 2005. Count the number of unproven assertions and rumors that are presented as if they were facts. I counted several dozen before I got so disgusted and gave up counting.

    http://theava.com/05/0209-otr-bari.html

    As you’re counting up those unproven assertions and rumors, note the way that one unproven assertion or rumor is stacked atop another, achieving something resembling the form of an argument, but in which the unproven assertions and rumors act as a kind of filler, occupying the spaces that would be occupied by facts in an actual argument.

    His whole gossipy narrative is nothing but an intellectual house of cards, painstakingly constructed yet flimsy and insubstantial.

  64. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Suzy,

    If you’re having a hard time understanding why I am interpreting your comments in a negative light, re-read your first comment on this thread. Then try to engage in a little bit of self-reflection. I think the answer will come to you in time.

  65. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Skippy,

    Thanks for your 11:53 response.

    As I alluded to at 12:07, it seems to me that Anderson’s whole “argument” is constructed mostly from various false assumptons, unproven assertions, rumors and gossip, and facts taken out of their context and twisted to serve the pre-existing thesis, all held together (barely) with a watery paste of raw speculation.

  66. suzy blah blah
    August 23, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Tra, looking back at my comment I should have just said, “some people’s closed minds”, instead of making it personal. It fits many people (some of them people who Blackflag would likely label neo-hippys). Of course nobody, not even you, could be completely closed minded, and so I should have took more time and realized it as a stereo-type caricature image and kept it impersonal and general. I apologize for that one.

  67. Anonymous
    August 23, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    why does everyone think that tra is a man?

  68. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Of course nobody, not even you, could be completely closed minded…

    Well that’s a relief, because the concept of a completely closed mind is a terrible thing to contemplate!

    So I will pledge to you today, as Blog is my witness, I will strive to meet this lowered bar — I will try to at least not become the first person in history to have a completely closed mind.

    It still seems to me like Black Flag is living in a world of dark fantasy, hemmed in on all sides by his paranoid, prejudicial beliefs, and apparently entirely devoid of the basic critical thinking skills that would be required to free himself of his delusions.

    But I’ll allow that there’s at least a .00000000000000001% chance that his theories about the Bari bombing aren’t complete bullcrap. So I’m only 99.99999999999999999% closed-minded on that question.

  69. suzy blah blah
    August 23, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    why does everyone think that tra is a man?

    That’s an interesting question because I am guessing that a majority of readers here do. But why? In a way he/she seems kinda detached and aloof and non-sexual. Like an old pear shaped hippy Buddhist with one eye on the navel and the other on the computer. My guess is that to him/her that his/her karma is a rational thing. Strictly the Newtonian model. I’d like to see more real passion and emotional power come into his/her posts. But there I go again sticking Suzy’s foot in my mouth. I apologize ahead of time if that offends you Tra. Actually I tend to think it’s pretty sexy to be non-sexual.

  70. Black Flag
    August 23, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Paul Gallegos should hunt these terrorists and bandits down and serve up their just rewards. Never trust a neo hippie and know that the bomb was carried under the seat so they could martyr themselves if they were pulled over, no different than some jihadi with a suicide belt. These traitors have brought the economy of N.Cal to it’s knees and now our forests burn, it’s streams perk with flame retardant, and these neo hippies take tax free donations and plan more operations against the Citizens of The United States.
    tra is the only one who sides with these bandits and therefore must be on their payroll in some fashion. No other reason can explain the reaction when it’s masters face criticism and light being brought to their evil doings.
    tra most likely should be deported to Israel for treason against The American People.

  71. skippy
    August 23, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Yes, Tra, Mr. Anderson does have unproven allegations and assertions that border on hearsay that only he can answer, as you’ve pointed out. But Mr. Anderson also has some very interesting and revelant information of the past behavior and relationship with Judi Bari with her ex, Mr. Sweeney, specifically about bomb building and alleged criminal acts regarding the same by him.

    If true, past behavior is a good indication of future behavior. Granted, there’s a large divide between the two, filled with both insinuation and reasonable doubt that is flimsy at best.

    Mr. Anderson, in his recent letter this morning, asks for the DNA evidence (contained in the stamp and envelope seal) obtained from the confession letter written by the so-called Lord’s Avenger that may reveal more details of the case– and wishing consequently “the issue will be revisited by the DA.” Will this DNA evidence put the issue to rest?

    I wouild assert that the potential DNA evidence in this case– and the preservation thereof– is of the utmost importance at this juncture. Yet the FBI wished to destroy it. You undoubtably know more. Any thoughts? Would you agree?

  72. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Black Flag’s back, still with zero facts, but now with a fresh round of delusional dark fantasies and groundless accusations.

    But of course no response to “grackle’s” simple, factual and devastatingly effective demolition of Black Flag’s theory of the crime:

    Blag Flag said: “I believe the motive behind their operation was to false flag an attack on Julia Butterfly while she was on Good Morning America creating an army of naive youth to start riots and wreck the economy in the name of Wall Street.”

    Date of Bari/ Cherney bombing? 1991
    date of Julia Hill tree-sit? 1998-1999

    A prescient operation to say the least.

    So, Black Flag, care to explain how the 1991 bomb was supposed to be part of a false flag attack on an activist giving an interview on Good Morning America during her 1998-1999 treesit?

    Perhaps the impression that more than 7 years passed between those two events was really just a jedi mind trick perpetrated by the Mossad in the service of Israeli bankers (as foretold in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, blah, blah, blah….)?

  73. Navel gazer
    August 23, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    And I thought I had too much time on my hands! sheesh

  74. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Skippy,

    It was just recently, in March of this year, that a federal judge sided with Cherney and ordered that the remains of the bomb, and other evidence in the case (as well as the remains of the Cloverdale bomb which was described in the “Lord’s Avenger letter”) be turned over to an independent fingerprint and DNA expert approved by the court, someone who will handle and store the evidence correctly and maintaining a proper chain of custody for the evidence so that it could still be used in court at a later date.

    The articles I could find did not specify whether the “Lord’s Avenger letter” itself, and/or any DNA evidence found on it was among the items that the FBI had been planning to destroy, but if so, I would assume that these items would have been among those that the judge recently ordered should be preserved.

    At any rate, this recent development certainly doesn’t fit Mr. Anderson’s claim that Cherney wants to prevent the truth about the real bomber’s identity from coming out.

    Of course I don’t doubt that Mr. Anderson, with his considerable expertise in the areas of groundless speculation, motive-assuming, and character assasination, could fabricate some complicated new Rube Goldberg-esque explanation for why Cherney would want to keep the evidence from being destroyed (even though that would risk the very thing Anderson claims Cherney wants to avoid). But of course the simplest and by far likliest explanation is that Cherney wants (probably more than anyone else) for whoever attempted to murder Judi Bari and him to finally be identified, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their crime.

  75. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    It seems like Anderson wants the case to be re-investigated — as long as it focuses on affixing blame to one of the people that he most suspects of being the bomber, according to his gossip-informed pseudoanalysis of the crime.

    Not surprisingly, Anderson’s list of “likely suspects” in the Bari bombing include (in addition to Bari’s ex-husband), Bari herself, a bunch of Bari’s close friends and associates, and even Bari’s two daughters (!)

    Anderson appears to be so enamored of his “inside job” theory, wherein someone from inside of what he calls “the Bari Cult” created and planted the bomb, that he simply assumes that if the authorities just looked closer at his collection of gossip, rumor, and innuendo, they would suddenly agree with him about who the likely suspects are. (By the way, he continues the “cult” line of character assasination by then comparing Judi Bari to Charles Manson and Jim Jones, which should give you some idea of just how distorted this guy’s perceptions really are).

  76. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    Oh, and about that Coleman book that Anderson refers to in his final 2005 column about the case…

    In early 2005, a critical biography of Bari titled The Secret Wars of Judi Bari, by Kate Coleman, drew fierce condemnation from Cherney, Bari’s estate, and their friends and supporters, who claimed hundreds of factual errors and a bias against Bari and Earth First! They also pointed out that the book was published by Encounter Books, a non-profit publishing house founded by neoconservative Peter Collier and funded primarily by arch-conservative foundations not sympathetic to Bari’s causes.

    In other words, a right-wing-funded hatchet job.

    Coleman presented speculation that Bari’s ex-husband had planted the bomb in hopes of killing her and Cherney.[8] A review of the book in the LA Times titled, Too many rumors, too few facts to examine eco-activism case, said, “the reporting is thin and sloppy, and the humdrum prose is marred by dubious speculation.”[9]

    That last line would also make for a perfect description of Anderson’s so-called reporting of the bombing and its aftermath: “Too many rumors, too few facts…reporting is thin and sloppy, and the humdrum prose is marred by dubious speculation.”

  77. tra
    August 23, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    References to go along with those two footnotes can be found at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judi_Bari

  78. suzy blah blah
    August 23, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Has anybody here seen my old friend Judi
    Can you tell me where she’s gone?
    She freed lotta people
    But it seems the good they die young
    I just look around and she’s gone . . .

    (haunting fiddle solo)

  79. skippy
    August 23, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Tra, yours truly has reasonably, unbiasedly, empirically, and carefully read your last 4 posts, your footnoted references above (one should always be skeptical of Wikipedia entries; especially those flagging, “This article needs additional citations for verification” or having biased ‘external links’ as this had) and having gone to the primary sources of those footnotes for review.

    Skippy’s conclusion?

    You are correct. The information you provided appears true, reasonable, convincing, and valid. Your comments should stand as they are, representing an important contributory addition to the subject. Thank you.

  80. Bolithio
    August 23, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    And I thought I had too much time on my hands! sheesh

    LOL After reading this Im starting to think that skippy, tra, and suzzy are married?

  81. Bolithio
    August 23, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    The Earths climate is changing faster than logging restrictions.

    Farmer, show me one study that links adverse climate change with logging in California and Ill eat my hat.

  82. Anonymous
    August 23, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    your pseudonym should be “tra blah blah”, take a break already.

  83. William Verick
    August 24, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Let’s keep in mind that what exploded in Judi’s car wasn’t a bomb; it was a booby trap. The FBI gave up trying to frame Judi and Darryl when it managed to piece together what the “bomb” was. What was it? It was a pipe bomb wired to a track upon which sat a ball bearing. It was planted under Judi’s seat. The operative notion of the device was that as the car took off the ball bearing would sit there. As soon as the driver hit the brakes, the ball bearing would roll forward and complete the circuit triggering the pipe bomb.

    It was too much even for the FBI to believe (as much as it wanted to) that Judi would build a booby trap, put it under her seat, knowing it would blow up as soon as she hit the brakes.

    This was an attempted murder and it is significant that the FBI stopped looking for the culprit as soon as they realized the culprit couldn’t be Judi or Darryl. The criminal who did this is still at large. Why the FBI became singularly uninterested in tracking down this domestic terrorist is the most interesting aspect of the case.

    My guess — an that’s all it is — is that the FBI has a suspect, but that the person they suspect had been working as an informant for the FBI. Charging such a person would just be too embarrassing and would lead to too much disclosure of domestic surveillance of political dissidents.

  84. Bolithio
    August 24, 2011 at 9:59 am

    I have always thought that Hurwitz himself paid for the hitman and the bribes to make sure nothing came of it. He is a billionaire, isnt that how it works?

  85. August 24, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    You have been watching too much bad TV Bolithio.

  86. William Verick
    August 25, 2011 at 7:17 am

    Bolitiho:

    Hard as it is to believe sitting here in Humboldt County today, it was Louisiana Pacific logging in Mendocino County that was the larger focus of Redwood Summer and Darryl and Judi’s activism in the day around the bombing. It was LP CEO Harry Merlo who was a bigger villain than Hurwitz in those days.

    The bomber could’ve been someone who had a personal grudge against Darryl or Judi, it could’ve been rogue local law enforcement, it could’ve been an unstable person recruited by the FBI as an informant or agent provocateur, it could’ve been a pissed off local mill worker striking back for tree spiking, or it could’ve been a hate-spewing proto-tea bagger like Black Flag.

    It was not long before Redwood Summer that the FBI had used an agent provocateur to entrap Earth First founder Dave Foreman and a few fellow organizers in Arizona. The FBI’s informant kept trying to get everyone to go out and take down an electricity pylon. After being pestered many times Foreman and others said, in effect, “why not” and they were instantly arrested, eventually serving time in prison.

    During the late sixties and early seventies this was common practice among the FBI and local police forces such as those in Chicago and New York. There are plenty of books you can read about it.

    The unstable and unsavory people the FBI (and heaven help us, local law enforcement) have to rely on for this kind of work are by definition untrustworthy. They themselves are walking disasters. Little Lee Harvey Oswalds, if you will. The FBI has been burned this way in the past and the FBI has a past history of destroying documents that implicate its embarrassing (and sometimes illegal) involvement with people like this. That is precisely what the FBI did to the record of its contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald, for example (this isn’t to say that Oswald was an FBI agent or that the FBI put Oswald up to killing Kennedy).

    So I really doubt that Harry Merlo or Charles Hurwitz had any direct involvement in (or even any knowledge of) the bombing of Judi Bari. The style of people like Merlo or Hurwitz is and always was to use money to buy the government. To use the power of money to force staff at CDF, Fish & Game, Mines and Geology, FWS and NMFS to accept lies as truth. Neither Merlo or Hurwitz gave any order to bomb Judi. But the person who planted the booby trap was still, in the words of Bob Dylan, only a pawn in their game.

  87. Bolithio
    August 25, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Thanks WIll, insightful.

  88. Farmer
    August 25, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    Thanks William. Seems like folks up here need a reminder that the timber wars didn’t start with Maxxam/PL, and contrary to popular belief, didn’t end with the bankruptcy. Short term memory loss seems to be a prevalent disfunction here.

  89. Farmer
    August 25, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Bolithio,

    I like the idea of you eating your hat, but wouldn’t want you to injure yourself.

    You realize that you didn’t specify global climate change right?

  90. Farmer
    August 25, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Here ya go.

    Simulations of carbon storage suggest that conversion of old-growth forests to young fast-growing forests will not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in general, as has been suggested recently. During simulated timber harvest, on-site carbon storage is reduced considerably and does not approach old-growth storage capacity for at least 200 years. Even when sequestration of carbon in wooden buildings is included in the models, timber harvest results in a net flux of CO2 to the atmosphere.

    – Mark E. Harmon, William K. Ferrell and Jerry F. Franklin, 1990

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/247/4943/699.abstract

  91. Bolithio
    August 25, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Farmer, nothing could be worse than the deep fried bacon I ate last week at the fair….

    So the study you reference suggests the authors have found that old growth forests store more carbon than young ones. I don’t think that’s exactly what we are looking for. When you said: “The Earths climate is changing faster than logging restrictions.” I took that as you inferring that logging is causing the climate change? Is that true? If it is, I again challenge you find any study that links current modern logging in CA with climate change.

    Obviously converting old growth stands to non-timber or even plantations is not a good idea. We agree on this.

    What we seem to disagree on is allowing areas to be designated as industrial forestland. I believe that responsible resource management is what the 1st worlds need to curb 3rd world exploitation. As im sure your aware, logging and conversion in other parts of the world are actually causing climate change! The drive to demolish these forests is fueled by 1st world consumerism. Im not fooled into believing logging here is our only solution – but the way we extract and use our resources is the cornerstone of consumption. Sustainability starts at home no? You don’t have to be all smiles with the timber industry here. And I respect your vision of the perfect world. Can you at least acknowledge the HUGE strides that have been made in the past 20-30 years? Thanks to people like you, me, and juddy berri.

  92. Ed
    August 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Thank you Farmer. That’s a good example of the truth behind the manipulation of data as taught in “forestry” programs. Of course they also claim production increases due to even age management, without explaining that it’s only true because they begin the statistical count at zero. A great excuse for allowing a boom and bust economy, but not as productive for timber.

  93. Bolithio
    August 25, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    That’s a good example of the truth behind the manipulation of data as taught in “forestry” programs.

    Huh? How? And what forestry program teaches manipulation of data?

    To me its a good example of the scientific process. People thought younger forests may sequester more due to their more rapid growth, but it turns out (presumably in the study) that the volume in “old growth” forests is higher. (the scientific method) Not a big surprise really. Still you would need to read the study to know: what forest type did they study? What species? What region? And how did they define “old growth”?

    In CA we are no longer converting Old Growth forests to plantations. So it doesn’t really appear relevant to our area anyway.

    Perhaps jumping to conclusions after reading an abstract – and not even the actual conclusions of the study – is an example of an environmentalists narrow view that doesnt really want to their perspective to change. How is that different than what you accuse academic forestry of doing? (besides having no basis for it)

  94. tra
    August 25, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    In CA we are no longer converting Old Growth forests to plantations. So it doesn’t really appear relevant to our area anyway.

    I think the question being raised is: Is the problem of too much CO2 in the atmoshphere increased by the fact that the current industry practice still involves harvesting our second-growth forests long before they can revert back to the old-growth-like conditions where they are most effective as a carbon sink?

    In other words, the initial destruction of the old-growth forests is just one part of the equation — the other part being whether we let a significant portion of those forests grow back into old-growth-like conditions, or whether we continue harvesting them on a schedule that may maximize short-term profit, but apparently doesn’t maximize the absorbtion of carbon from the atmosphere.

  95. Bolithio
    August 26, 2011 at 7:26 am

    See TRA:

    “the other part being whether we let a significant portion of those forests grow back into old-growth-like conditions, or whether we continue harvesting them on a schedule that may maximize short-term profit, but apparently doesn’t maximize the absorbtion of carbon from the atmosphere.”

    The first part of your question is good. Then you throw in the second part which is embedded with fallacy. The implication is that harvesting trees on a schedule only maximizes short term goals. Obviously its true that certain corporations are interested in profit, short and long term. But theres more to it. The product lasts for much longer. Even if a profit is made in the short term, a house last for 50 years or more. Ask your self this, what sequesters more, a north west timber stand, or a Amazonian rain forest? Or a boral forest in Canada? Is maintaining a industrial forest land to supply wood for society something we want to rely on Canada for? If we are talking atmosphere, the impact of of our consumption isn’t limited to what we do here. So between the threat of stand replacing fires, excessive mortality from insects and disease in forest (a function of lack of regular fire), and the offset of the demand of wood to places where forest practices are still in the dark ages – a logical conclusion may be that logging in CA remains the best option for many many reasons.

    A significant portion of forests have been set aside for the propose you describe. The North West Forest Plan created LSRs (late succesional reserves) to do exactly that; protect existing OG and to mature other stands into late succession. Many criticize this effort and there are problems. The most cynical of environmental groups will claim that only 40% of these areas are actually treated as such. This is a shame and hopefully things improve, but its worth noting that the set asides totaled 7.4 million acres. 40% of that is close to 3 million acres! That is certainly significant, and I believe these numbers will gradually increase. Beyond a changing public attitude, many areas of the forests, especially remote public lands will never be feasibly harvested again due to the fact no mills are within reasonable distances.

  96. Insider
    August 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Despite his angry rhetoric, Black Flag has a point. Both Bari and Cherney posed with machine guns (a “joke,” they later claimed!) and spoke often of destroying the government. The bomb fit perfectly with their MO and if it weren’t for the bleeding heart Oakland jury, they would both have gone to jail.

  97. Farmer
    August 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    tra, that’s exactly what I got from the paper- the carbon storage potential of mature Redwood forests is huge, but that potential isn’t being realized due to rapid (45-50 year) even-aged rotations (aka clearcutting).

    Bolithio, do you really think that rapid rotation clear-cutting and processing this low density third-growth Redwood into boards is a surer form of long-term carbon storage than maintaining high-volume un-even aged stands across the the landcape?

    You can probably give a better percentage, but isn’t it true that aprox. 50% of the tree can’t be used for lumber and is often burned to produce electricity?

  98. tra
    August 30, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Bolithio, do you really think that rapid rotation clear-cutting and processing this low density third-growth Redwood into boards is a surer form of long-term carbon storage than maintaining high-volume un-even aged stands across the the landcape?

    Well I don’t know the answer to that, but it does occur to me that in order for any sort of “carbon credits” type scheme involving our local forests to be meaningful, that question would have to be resolved, and greater credit would have to be given for forestry practices that would maximize carbon storage.

  99. tra
    August 30, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    Despite his angry rhetoric, Black Flag has a point. Both Bari and Cherney posed with machine guns (a “joke,” they later claimed!) and spoke often of destroying the government. The bomb fit perfectly with their MO and if it weren’t for the bleeding heart Oakland jury, they would both have gone to jail.

    So according to you, their “MO” was to make a motion-triggered bomb and place it under the seat of a car, then get in the car and start driving? Please, do tell us more about your briliant criminalogical theories.

  100. Bolithio
    August 30, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    …but that potential isn’t being realized due to rapid (45-50 year) even-aged rotations (aka clearcutting).

    You can make that case for Green Diamonds land. They are the only company who has a sustained yield plan allowing them to CC less than 60 year old stands. What about the other, vast majority of redwood forests?

    Farmer, I understand your question, and my opinion is no. But Green Diamond is in the fiber business, not carbon.

    The fact is that studies have been finding that carbon in forests, in terms of quantifying it for an economic commodity, may never come to pass. Beyond a complicated equation (like milled timber may not release their carbon for 10-200 years in its product form) the type of offsets needed by fossil fuel burners doesn’t touch what commercial north west forests actually sequester. Old growth reserves may, but there not for sale. Its public! All this carbon talk just makes my finger even more stiff at the fossil fuel industry who is truly leading us to the brink. Green Diamond doesn’t even scratch the global climate. And really, do we want to “offset” fossil fuels with forests?

    Another thing: the so-called “second/third growth” is a BS term. A redwood is a redwood. The OG redwood on the AVE is “1,000th growth”. These trees have lived and died for eons. Im not shilling for 50 year rotations, its just that the fact that a stand is on its so-called third rotation is meaningless. If I was master and commander, I would be on 80-200 year rotations (site dependent) and market “old growth” quality wood from my timberlands/mills.

  101. Bolithio
    August 30, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    TRA – I think you misinterpreted ‘Insiders’ post. The fact that they had a record of radical environmentalism, they where marked. Posing with guns was stupid of them. Im sure the fed spies found a copy of “the monkey wrench gang” at their hangout, where the main plot is to destroy things to save nature. Many radical environmental publications talk about disrupting commerce – sometimes worse. I think what Insider was saying is that it was the fed MO to use guilt by association and find the “bad guys”(as opposed to arguing that they might have built a bomb). This isnt siding with the feds in this case!!

  102. Insider
    August 31, 2011 at 9:32 am

    You are defending people who posed with a machine gun and a smirk.

    Bombers generally drive bombs to a target.

  103. August 31, 2011 at 9:38 am

    But they don’t carry motion-triggered anti-personnel bombs under their car seats.

  104. Insider
    August 31, 2011 at 9:56 am

    One would hope so, Heraldo. Apparently, some bombers don’t have much common sense.

    Speaking of bombs, Borders at the Bayshore Mall is on the block:

    http://www.djmrealty.com/Listings/listingDetail.asp?id=21839

  105. Plain Jane
    August 31, 2011 at 10:11 am

    That isn’t what Insider said or implied at ALL, Bolithio.

    “The bomb fit perfectly with their MO and if it weren’t for the bleeding heart Oakland jury, they would both have gone to jail.”

    He calls himself an “insider” but apparently doesn’t care about evidence or common sense and isn’t very well informed since he doesn’t know that they weren’t prosecuted for a crime and “the bleeding heart Oakland jury” responsible for them not going to jail wasn’t hearing a criminal prosecution but a civil trial for the damages they suffered due to the FBI’s incompetence.

  106. Insider
    August 31, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Party line, P.J.

    The Oakland jury saw a chance to “stick it to the man” and quite predictably, took it.

  107. Plain Jane
    August 31, 2011 at 10:30 am

    Calling facts “party line” just shows not only are you a know-nothing, but a dishonest one as well. You claimed they didn’t go to jail because of a “bleeding heart Oakland jury” and no amount of spin after the fact is going to change it.

  108. Insider
    August 31, 2011 at 10:39 am

    The smirking machine gun poster is one fact that you conveniently chose to ignore, as did the jury.

    I’m sympathetic to the environmental cause, but not to people with machine guns and bombs.

  109. Plain Jane
    August 31, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Smirking in a photo with a gun still isn’t a crime in this country and doesn’t negate their civil rights. Your conviction that they were carrying a motion-activated bomb under the front seat of their car has nothing to support it. Your blaming the Oakland jury for them not going to jail shows you not only lack common sense, but even the slightest knowledge of the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial. Give it up.

  110. Insider
    August 31, 2011 at 11:15 am

    I can’t take credit for the motion-activated bomb; that was Heraldo’s idea (see above). But nice try.

    Right, it’s not a crime to pose with a machine gun & a big smirk. If only they had left it at that.

  111. Farmer
    August 31, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Bolithio,

    Point taken about the second/third growth terminology. I was using it as a layman’s term to indicate the young age as well as poor quality. I actually cringe when people use those terms to indicate age, so my bad.

    80-200 year rotations under your dictate? I’m glad you feel that way. Don’t the Ca. forest practice rules allowed clear-cutting of 45 year old stands?

    On Wikipedia, they claim that the original area of Old-growth Redwood was 2,000,000 acres. I take this to mean that the area of un-logged Redwood at the beginning of European incursion was 2,000,000 acres.

    Green Diamond has about 400,000 acres. Using these numbers, GD sits on nearly a quarter of the Redwood range.

    Add to that the other companies doing even-aged management, like Gualala Redwood and Coastal Ridges LLC and the percent of clear-cutter dominated landscape goes up.

  112. Plain Jane
    August 31, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Your opinion that they didn’t “leave it at that” isn’t supported by any evidence. That it was a motion-activated bomb is not disputed by anyone. You double down on dumb.

  113. Insider
    August 31, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    A bombed car containing two individuals who glorified bombs, guns and violence repeatedly is considered evidence by all but the most gullible.

    But sneer away. It might help conceal your blindness.

  114. Bolithio
    August 31, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Farmer, the forest practice rules require stands to be at least 60 years old for even-aged treatments. A landowner can also develop a sustained yield plan for their ownership which can reduce the age to 50 when you can demonstrate sustainable growth/harvest over a 100 year period. GD has a SYP, not sure about the other companies. An SYP is complex and very expensive to develop.

    Remember that all of GD’s land isnt redwood. At least 1/3 of their CA base is outside the redwood region.

  115. Bolithio
    August 31, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    I stand corrected regarding Insider, lol

  116. Plain Jane
    August 31, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    It was an honest mistake, Bolithio. It’s hard to understand how someone could be as clueless as he is.

  117. Insider
    September 1, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Maoist conformity on full display here. PJ becomes abusive at the least hint of criticism while blindly refusing to connect the most obvious dots. We’re asked to pretend that Bari who posed with machine guns while openly–and frequently–threatening to bomb, burn out and otherwise destroy “by any means necessary” those who opposed her agenda would never go near an actual bomb.

    Happily, today’s environmental leaders have dropped the parasitic Maoist model we see on display here.

  118. Anne on a Mouse
    September 1, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    I always thought the image a satire, a parody of people like Insider’s hysterical projections.

  119. tra
    September 1, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    I appreciate the informative discussion between Bolithio and Farmer. Thanks!

  120. tra
    September 1, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    A bombed car containing two individuals who glorified bombs, guns and violence repeatedly…

    That’s just completely false.

    It appears that “Insider” is just as ignorant of the facts and/or delusional as “Black Flag.”

  121. Plain Jane
    September 1, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Yep, and just as big a waste of time trying to have a rational discussion with him.

  122. tra
    September 1, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    P.J.,

    Yeah, I hear ya.

    I think the only reason to bother responding to delusional wingnuts like Black Flag and Insider is for the benefit of some other reader — some other reader who is not delusional, but who, because they are not well-informed, might possibly fall prey to some of the counterfactual claims that the delusional wingnuts are throwing around.

  123. tra
    September 1, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Of course at this point this post is at the very bottom of the Herald’s front page, soon to get bumped to the second page. So the number of people actually still reading these comments is probably only a handful — which lends some more weight to the “it’s a waste of time” side of the ledger.

  124. Insider
    September 1, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Why don’t we wrap this up by admitting that you’ve been defending a couple of greedy slime bags. Today’s environmentalists care about saving nature, a novel concept to the filthy rich hustlers you’ve been defending.

  125. Farmer
    September 3, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Insider is a disruptor!

  126. March 3, 2012 at 8:01 am

    It’s good to see so many thoughtful opinions on this most intriguing case. I knew Judi Bari quite well. Her book, Timber Wars, is assembled from stories she wrote for the FBI. We’re assembled the pivotal case documents at the AVA website. I think the ex-husband was, at a minimum, deeply involved. If I were the only person thinking that I’d doubt my own conclusions. But Steve Talbot of the Frontline Series on PBS also shares my opinions. Talbot made the first Who Bombed Judi Bari movie. When Bari died, Talbot went on Belva Davis’s KQED television show called This Week In California where he said that Bari had told him that she was convinced her ex had bombed her. I’m hoping the Mendocino County DA will subpoena the dna of a dozen or so persons to match against the known dna and we can find out who did it. DNA, in 1990 at the time of the bombing, was not the investigative tool it has since become. This case can be solved. There’s no statute of limitations on murder or attempted murder. Cherney’s new movie, also called Who Bombed Judi Bari is a hagiographic tribute to himself and the late Bari. She deserves it, he doesn’t.

  127. March 3, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Sorry, that should have been:

    “Her book, Timber Wars, is assembled from stories she wrote for the AVA.”

  128. September 21, 2014 at 12:07 am

    Hi everyone, it’s my first pay a visit at this website, and paragraph
    is actually fruitful in support of me, keep up posting these articles or reviews.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s