I was reading about Bell's theorem on Wikipedia. One thing I found particularly interesting:

In particular number 2. The points he made can be found at http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf . While I did not understand all the steps from Bell's Theorem, I think I did understand the objections this document raised against Bell's Theorem.

I've got two questions:
1. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that paper of E. T. Jaynes and if not, why is Bell's Theorem still being considered to be valid by most?
2. If the paper would be valid and a hidden variable theorem would be constructed, would Bell's Experiments not be pointless, as both the predictions by QM and the classical approach would be identical?

I'd read all sides (of the meaning of Bell's theorem) and make a decision based on the merit of each side. You may find the original source to many of Bell's papers useful:

The Bell theorem is often interpreted that it is not possible to have both reality and locality. But there is a way to save both, provided that you are ready to swallow one philosophically unpopular idea: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1112.2034

I know nothing about Leibniz's monadology, so I couldn't say.
Anyway, in the paper I am not suggesting that this approach is better then the others. All I am saying is that such a possibility cannot be logically excluded. Whether one likes this approach or not, it's up to him/her. But IF you want both reality (in 3-space) and locality, and IF you don't want superdeterminism (fine tuned initial conditions) and backward causation, THEN it seems to be the only option that remains.