A Reply to Roy Littlesun's
Contemptuous Email
by Thomas Francis
July 20, 2000
Thank you for your e-mail response dated 7-12-2000 confirming your receipt of my letter dated 7-6-2000.
The content of that response reveals your possible misunderstanding of the process that confronts you at this point. For example, you refer to my letter as my "threat." The only threat you face is the threat of exposure. You have enough real truth to enable your message to stand on its own, without trying to dress it in fraud. I notify you of the impending collapse you have engineered for yourself and directly advise you to keep the truth and abandon the fraud. Yes, that threat is real, you created it, and I call your attention to it. At this point, you may wish to reconsider whether your "Squicking Loin" reply is what you want to present as your statement to the world. Do you think the wisest minds of the present day will not find fault with such a response to such an issue? Is your message not intended to include the wisest minds?
You need to realize that the process of Self Evident Law that now surrounds you is a very traditional human phenomenon. A Cause of Action has opened your door to me. Other Parties in Interest will judge whether I clearly state my Cause for my respectful Demand for your Response. The elements of the game are such that your Response is to be expected by those you have defrauded, or might defraud, by things that you say. Such people will indeed evaluate your Response.
In our new world, there are no "dumb Indians" and no "dumb White Men." Both got wise! There now exists an intense rejection of the commonplace fraud from both sides. What is the masquerade for? Is it some kind of hocus-pocus that is supposed to make our problem go away? The problem is the inability of the industrial world to accept that "all men are created equal" and that peaceful aboriginal sovereignty therefore holds the lawful supremacy of a host to a guest.
It is that lawful supremacy that Titus commissioned all willing helpers to protect. You pretended to be an ally of the legal process of protection of aboriginal title, but switched your allegiance. The original process is undefeatable. Your alternative strategy only produces predictable defeat with you in the starring role. You tell me to grow corn, but your strategy of defeat has made that much more difficult. Perhaps you will go around with that letter bearing Hopi signatures to get support for your self-sabotaged "defense" that is in fact a betrayal. (Of course, to be true to your statement that you never represent Hopis, you would have to find a way to do that without representing Hopis, specifically those who signed the letter.)
You know that if you were to stand your ground on Hopi Tutskwa you would be defeated by the armed forces of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and you would have nothing prepared to trap them in their lawlessness. That would be the honest path for you, but you are a pretender who does not do the work necessary to complete what you start. I would be delighted to see you change that. Failing that, your confession by silence will be compared with the Cause of Action that exists within all who would do right by our aboriginal hosts and all who wish to practice their Way of Peace beyond the hatching of the Mystery Egg. You be the judge whether your words on the Mystery Egg will displace the questions raised by your silence.
You are in default with regard to pertinent questions for which honest people deserve answers, which I brought to your notice and which you acknowledge in the manner I described above. I will wait ten more days anticipating that you may decide to revise the way you present yourself before your public. If you have presented no disproof of my statements, or lawful reason why I should not so proceed, this letter, and the documents referred to in it, shall stand as your chosen statement before all Parties in Interest.
Regarding your response to, or disregard for, my necessary inquiry, I summarize the issue as follows: If your initial e-mail response is correctly interpreted as to imply that my inquiry is unjustified or based on any false presumption, I respectfully demand that you prove what you mean to say in that regard with evidence. If you leave your response as it is, vague but contemptuous in tone, yet you present no proof based on mutually observable evidence, then I respectfully demand that you explain for what act you demonstrate contempt. Your tracks are on the cement that hardens on July 30, 2000, at which point, hearing no lawful justification to the contrary from you, I deed this exchange and related documentation to the public domain.
I close with the observation that the whole miracle of spirit-based peace is in the unseen energy involved in taking care of all one's debts to others first and foremost. There is your miracle, just waiting to happen.
Thomas Francis
Note: Roy never responded to this letter, so Tom sent the final message in this series about two weeks later. Click here to read it.