Featured Post


Dear Supporters: Husband, father, son, brother. Professional, dedicated, courageous. These are some of the words that come to mind when...

Friday, January 12, 2018


Dear Supporters:

Husband, father, son, brother. Professional, dedicated, courageous. These are some of the words that come to mind when we remember Jack. Others are partner, friend and the unquestioned character traits of Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Jack left behind a loving widow and two young sons who may have only a faint memory of their devoted, caring and brave father.

On January 12, Jack would have reached his 71st  birthday. There is no way of knowing what these last decades of his life may have brought. But those who knew him could easily imagine a life rich in accomplishments and strong family ties. Retired from a long and productive Bureau career and with Jack’s commitment and dedication to law enforcement (former LAPD), he may have pursued another career as a Chief of Police. Or, with his sons and grandchildren continued his great love of the outdoors with deeper adventures exploring remote wilderness areas.

All the potential enjoyment, happiness, successes and challenges of a life that was to be, however, was robbed from Jack, his family, and many friends by the Cowards of Jumping Bull on that agonizing and tragic day in 1975.

With certainty, Jack Coler, looking down, knows that we will continue to honor his memory and sacrifice in the line-of-duty.

That reverence and commitment has no expiration date.

To see Jack as he was then, and to imagine meeting him today, please see the remarkable video produced by the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI available on YouTube. There, you will learn about the incredible Jack Coler and his equally brave and courageous partner, Ron Williams: 
Added recently to this tribute is a heartfelt song written and performed by retired Agent Fernando Candelario:

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

On occasions of recognizing Jack’s and Ron’s birthdays, we don’t mention or comment on Peltier and the International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee propaganda machine. However, the ILPDC’s 12/29/17 Press Release raises issues that beg for a response. https://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/general/end-of-year-ilpdc-letter/

Note to Peltier attorney David Frankel:

You may want to advise your clients that claiming donations to Peltier to “…use it as a tax write off on your 2017 Tax Return,” is in violation of I.R.S. laws. Felonies? Peltier is not a charity case, not a 501(c)3 (and can never be one…nor legally launder money through a shill company as they have done in the past), nor be in a position where the implication is that, as an inmate, he is running a business to raise funds from the unsuspecting, now under the guise of a “Peltier legal trust fund,” (whatever that may be). We will watch closely to see how all this fits together. These are pieces of a puzzle Peltier does not want supporters or the public to see what the final picture really looks like. But most already know.

A new plan? Extradition, parole hearing, Habeas Corpus, investigators on the prowl?

The Canadian government spoke very clearly about Peltier’s legal extradition.

The parole board has spoken; flopped for fifteen years in 2009, for the second time. They obviously acknowledge Peltier’s conviction and otherwise have no tolerance for his shallow and fabricated claims of innocence.

Habeas Corpus generally has to be predicated on newly discovered evidence. Good luck there for the forth or fifth time, along with other failed renewed appeals; rule 35’s and 2255’s. Many, well seasoned and dedicated attorneys have been through every word of the Peltier case and have, unsuccessfully, made no headway. (Except for the October 1984 Evidentiary (ballistics) hearing that was further held against Peltier by the 8th Circuit….Hon. Judge Gerald Heaney: “When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important  facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed: although the defense had its own ballistic expert, it offered no contrary evidence.http://www.noparolepeltier.com/800.html:

Investigators: Please feel free to have any one of them contact me. I would be more than happy to provide them meaningful documentation. Lord knows they could use it. Curious though, according to you, “The committee has retained the services of two investigators...” “Retained” implies, at least, payment for services, yet Peltier still has a pending judgment but at the same time claims indigency. Seems to raise a conflict here, money for questionable pursuits but not legitimate legal debts. But Peltier is entitled to an appeal, again.

You advise Peltierites that, “These efforts will require your financial support.” (There’s the money again.) Peltier, now with his attorney’s urgency, is always on the come as they say. Certainly billable hours do accumulate, and apparently every penny counts.

Monday, January 1, 2018


Dear Supporters:

What follows is a review of the NPPA letter sent to former United States Attorney James Reynolds on 11/6/17 along with a brief telephone call on 11/27/17. To be clear at the outset, Mr. Reynolds is entitled to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech, as are we to challenge his public statements.

The text of the telephone call is set forth below (Footnote #1).

By way of background and as a follow-up to the previous NPPA blog, Mr. Reynolds was sent a letter on November 6th asking specific questions concerning his public statements in an undated letter to President Obama and an interview with the New York Daily News. (Fn. 2).

The NPPA letter offered Mr. Reynolds the opportunity to respond to the following questions: (Fn. 3)

-His justification for believing that justice is served with Peltier only serving 20 ½ years, each, for the brutal murder of two already severely wounded FBI Agents.

-To clarify the critical statement to the New York Daily News that “we may have shaved a few corner(s) here and there” regarding Peltier’s conviction and appeals, and as a result, impugning the reputation of at least former United States Attorney Evan Hultman.

Reynolds should answer these questions for the following reasons:

1) “Reynolds claims to have ‘directed Hultman’s handling of the appeal of Leonard Peltier.’ This claim is a gross misstatement of the record.  The trial record being in Fargo, ND it was only logical that I be given primary responsibility for assigning and coordinating research projects with other members of the trial team and then preparing the first drafts of the Government’s responses to the murderer’s arguments.  In doing so I had numerous conversations with Mr. Hultman and all other members of the trial team, as well as my own United States Attorney.  Other than small stylish changes there were no substantial changes that I can recall being made to the agreed upon drafts which were prepared in this fashion.  I had no conversations of any kind with Mr. Reynolds.  To the best of my knowledge he contributed nothing what-so-ever to what went into the final brief on Direct Appeal or into any of the subsequent government briefs resisting Peltier’s numerous attempts to obtain Post Conviction Relief.”  Lynn E. Crooks, Retired Assistant United States Attorney, North Dakota.

2) On December 7,  2017 former United States Attorney Evan Hultman was contacted and advised of the content of Reynolds’ letter and media interview. Because of a critical family matter Mr. Hultman advised that he would formally respond when able. However, his initial reaction concerning Reynolds was extremely negative.

3) Reynolds’ letter to President Obama appears as a “Press Release” on the Peltier website. (Fn. 4)  (Reynolds provides his authority to speak in favor of clemency as the former U.S. Attorney who allegedly “directed” the handling of Peltier’s appeals).

4) On the Internet, Peltier supporters have quoted Reynolds’ New York Daily News statement that “we may have shaved a few corner(s) here and there. 

5) Reynolds public statements to the media may provide the new Peltier legal team with an avenue to pursue regarding Peltier’s conviction and failed appeals.

* * *

We only have Mr. Reynolds public statements to hint at his motivation to become a shill for the Peltier camp. At what point he decided to support Peltier is unknown. Perhaps he ignored, forgot, or wasn’t knowledgeable of the voluminous legal proceedings and documentation in the Peltier case, but then conceivably became enamored and then sucked into the murk of Peltier myth and folklore.

However, Reynolds did take that step perhaps understanding he was going against his own conscience, best judgment, and fidelity to his former position and colleagues by stating  I know I’m going against company policy, as they say.”

Reynolds public statements called into question Peltier’s conviction and appeals by suggesting, “corners” were “shaved” and by doing so, assailed the integrity and reputation of the federal prosecutors and, by implication, himself as well. Which brings us back to the initial premise: If Reynolds had any information of this sort, where has he been for the past twenty-five or so years and why did it take him this long to crawl out of the woodwork? Peltier had other clemency and parole opportunities, but by all accounts, Reynolds remained mute.

Reynolds public position for Peltier can be viewed in two ways: supporting clemency (commutation of sentence) and the issue of Peltier’s guilt or innocence.

Claiming that it’s a matter of Peltier’s age and time served rings hollow.

Reynolds commented that, “But at this point, we’ve got 40 years on him, 40 pounds of flesh, maybe it’s time to let him go ... I don’t think keeping him in there will make society a better place."

Forty pounds may be a little generous and perhaps it is possible that the bloated figure I sat next to at Lewisburg Penitentiary in 2009 may no longer be a physical threat, but then there’s the matter of justice and society is always better served when justice is the final outcome. (Fn.5)

As for Peltier’s age and health, perhaps Mr. Reynolds should consider the alternatives. Facing, as we all must, the inevitable challenges of aging, with Reynolds now approaching his 79th year, or, at age twenty-eight being critically wounded and then having his face blown off? Doubtful Reynolds would choose the latter.

Calling into question the handling of Peltier’s conviction and appeals, by implication and inference, could suggest that Reynolds may also support Peltier’s spurious claims over the years. A few for instance:

            “I can’t believe that the FBI intended the deaths of their own agents…they didn’t even have a warrant for his arrest—nor does it jibe with the fact that scores, even hundreds, of FBI agents, federal marshals, BIA police, and GOONS were all lying in wait in the immediate vicinity.” A lie! (Fn. 6)

“There were dozens, maybe hundreds, of FBI, local lawmen, GOONs, and white vigilantes out there, suddenly appearing within minutes as if from out of nowhere…” A Lie! (Fn. 7)

            “I fired a few shots above their heads, not trying to hit anything or anyone…” A lie! (Fn. 8)

            “I didn’t see their agents die, had no hand in it, would have done anything to stop it had I only known in time…” A Lie! (Fn. 9)

            “…(Law enforcement) had been gathering in the area for a planned paramilitary assault on the Pine Ridge reservation…This raid had obviously been preplanned. Maybe they figured they could come in and finish us off after the two agents had drawn our fire, giving them the excuse they needed.” A lie! (Fn. 10)

            “This story is true.” (Peltier’s only alibi, that the phantom Mr. X killed the agents and drove off in the infamous red pickup.) A Lie! (Fn.11)

            And there is so much more.

* * *

Mr. Reynolds ended our brief telephone conversation with:

“Well you’re an interloper in this whole thing, dancing on these guy’s graves and I don’t think it’s very appropriate.”

Interloper? Apparently Mr. Reynolds doesn’t understand the meaning of the term.

By definition an interloper is a person who becomes involved in a place or situation where they are not wanted or are considered not to belong.

Reynolds alleged personal involvement in the Peltier case—as questionable as it may be—is at least a quarter century in the past. Where has he been concerning Peltier since the early 1980s and did he harbor any affirmative feelings towards Peltier when he allegedly had the opportunity and authority to say so? Reynolds, an interloper, now materializes at this point in time.

Here’s the difference: this writer was in the FBI for nearly three decades and after meeting Jack Coler’s youngest son and witnessing all the misinformation Peltier had posted on the Internet and in the public domain—that was unchallenged up to that point—something had to be done. Peltier’s denigration of the memory and sacrifice of two young Agents brutally murdered in the line of duty—for which he was convicted—prompted taking up the cause to honor their memory.

As fellow Agents, whom I never met, challenging and exposing Peltier’s years of fabrications and outright lies, Mr. Reynolds, is “appropriate.”

No, Mr. Reynolds, their memory here has been sustained. However, it is more telling that someone in your previous position and who publically supported clemency for a convicted brutal double murderer, makes you the one who is dancing on these guy’s graves.

And for the record, so perhaps you will remember, their names are,
Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Mr. Reynolds, take a few moments and meet Jack and Ron:
“Remembering FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams”
Video produced by the Society of Former Agents of the FBI

1) Telephone conversation on November 27, 2017:
James Reynolds (JR):  Hello.
Ed Woods (EW): James?
JR: Yeah.
EW: Hi, this is Ed Woods, I wrote you a letter on November sixth regarding Leonard Peltier and I just wanted to make sure you received it.
JR: I did.
EW: OK, would you care to make any responses to the questions I raised?
JR: No.
EW: Well, you took a pretty strong stance for clemency for Peltier with your letter and your interview with the Daily News, so are you in a position to back up some of the claims that you made?
JR: I’m not going to discuss it with you; I don’t know why I should.
EW: Well, I think you should because as a former U.S. Attorney…
JR: Well you’re an interloper in this whole thing, dancing on these guy’s graves and I don’t think it’s very appropriate.
EW: Hello?
(From notes taken during the conversation and transcribed immediately thereafter.)
2) New York Daily News interview, Tuesday January 3, 2017.
(Press release with Reynolds’ letter; Last accessed 12/4/17: Peltier’s then attorneys Marty Garbus and Cindy Dunne offer the typically skewed version of the Peltier case, but two things stand out; for a not so apparent reason, while quoting James Reynolds, they make no mention of the elephant in the room (shaved a few corners…), and then they dredge up very tired old news about 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Heaney. Judge Heaney did offer his opinion about freeing Peltier, but they would dare not tell the rest of the Heaney story; http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/10/peltier-heaney-factor.html
6) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/timing.html Ron Williams calling for assistance on the FBI radio: Footnotes 6 through 10 quotes taken from Peltier’s Prison Writings.
8) Peltier admits for the first time in a televised 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft that he fired “at” the Agents. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc9ofu (Last accessed 12/3/17)
9) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/judge.pdf Peltier’s conviction and review and details regarding Judge Heaney. http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html (Direct Appeal: note the names of Evan L. Hultman and Lynn E. Crooks)
10) The fallacy of a preplanned raid. The “Sanctioned Memo:”
11) The lie of Mr. X: Quote from Peltier in the film Incident at Oglala.

(Note: To all the loyal NPPA supporters, thank you, and even the Peltier supporters who are on the NPPA emails lists, best to all for a healthy and Happy New Year. )

Saturday, December 9, 2017



In a brief respite from matters Peltier, the following true story is offered.
A follow-up video is available on YouTube:


(2004) Eddie is sitting on a shelf in the basement. His remains actually, and how he came to be there is quite a story.

The first question to ask is whether the world is a better place without him.
You’ll have to be the judge of that.

As difficult as it is to admit, there was a time I really hated Eddie. It would be an understatement that for a long time he made my life miserable, but, over time, I came to care for him like a lost stepbrother in need.

I met Eddie Maloney in the summer of 1982.  He committed suicide in the summer of 2004 and it remains to be seen whether this recap of our times together will be an obituary or eulogy.  The fact that Eddie had been shot a total of ten times at point blank range on two separate occasions mattered little in the end. Eddie Maloney is what was left after life finished screwing him.

Eddie was an unforgettable character, straight off the screen of Pulp Fiction. Not an imposing presence, he was on the short side, but extra-broad shoulders gave the impression of a larger man. There was no mistaking what was on his mind; his thoughts showed clearly in facial expressions that ranged from disgust, to hatred, to intimidation.  Dark drab eyes topped by his most prominent feature, thick reddish eyebrows, accented a ruddy complexion with distinct features and character lines, not from a life of luxury and happiness but from the burden of deep emotional scars and experiences. What can be said of someone who had prison tattoos across the fingers of his right fist that spelled V-I-L-E? There was nothing subtle about him, he moved through life like a bulldozer pushing aside a pile of rubble. Finesse wasn’t his strong suit. In his own world, Eddie was a powerhouse. Problem was though; he generated more heat than light.

It would be impossible to forget our first meeting in July 1982. Eddie had just turned forty. I was a thirty-six year old career FBI agent. The purpose of the mix should be obvious, and hardly a match made in heaven. It was a marriage of necessity, the proverbial shotgun wedding.  At that moment too many people were trying to kill him—and nearly did—and he had information about some crime figures that the Bureau wanted.  More precisely, he wanted to use the government, and I wanted to use his testimony.  I envisioned us both testifying, and we did, but not until 1986. It was a long and difficult four years, even longer after that, for both of us.  During that time I learned all there was to know about Eddie Maloney including all I didn’t want to know or deal with.  I learned to dislike him and then understand him, how fundamentally intelligent he was, and why he pretty much became a social outcast.

(The following eighty pages are omitted…)

Epilogue (2017):

My plan had always been to bring Eddie home to New York City. He grew up on the Lower East Side. His drunkard father abused him and his mother.  His father was out of the picture early, and for some inexplicable reason known only to her, Eddie’s mother put him in a Catholic orphanage at age six. Ironically, Eddie’s mother was employed as a nurse at the time.

History has shown that 1950s Catholic orphanages were horrible and demeaning institutions. I believe that experience created the foundation for Eddie’s developing anti-social behavior and personality. Nuns had little tolerance for a rambunctious or out of control Irish kid.

I have pondered the nurture/nature debate. Eddie was basically smart, probably above average intelligence and often displayed an excellent memory, although sometimes filtered through the prism of his life-challenging experiences, and sometimes just to suit his own view of things. In my opinion, Eddie was a victim of the nurture side. His early years created the twisted path his life followed.

I had a miserable and abusive childhood—nothing like Eddie’s, but severe enough that it still bothers me to this day. I did, though, have the advantage of growing up in a solidly middle class suburb that offered advantages and options. And somehow along the way, I did learn the value of a strong work ethic.

I have often contemplated the “What If” of Eddie Maloney. What if it was reversed and he grew up in the suburbs and I on the Lower East Side? Would I have fared any better than the other Eddie? My gut tells me no.

Eddie’s basic intelligence never amounted to much. Doing the math, in 1982, having just turned forty, he had been incarcerated nearly twenty years. We actually sat down and added up the months one time. Much of that time was in solitary for violating prison rules and for one prison escape. Out of prison, obviously, Eddie wasn’t a successful criminal. His short times back on the streets took him to Manhattan’s swankiest nightspots where he lived and partied hard before getting pinched again.

Eddie never killed or seriously injured anyone. His specialty was high-end burglaries and thefts and too often double-crossing those who thought he could be trusted. A couple of those escapades put him on a hit list that eventually forced him to come over to the dark side and reluctantly start working with the Feds. Eddie despised everyone in law enforcement, who he un-affectionately referred to as “da bulls.” But at that point his options in the street were severely limited. Cooperate or perish. It was that simple.

His ventures into the Witness Protection Program were problematic, following the program’s rules and attempting an unsuccessful transition to the work-a-day world were insurmountable challenges.

It’s not totally coincidental that Eddie wound up near where I eventually settled as well, finishing one career, then another.

The 1990s for Eddie were generally uneventful but for a couple of minor scrapes with the law that didn’t set him back much. He had actually gotten a real job for a while. Phone sales of some sort. As time passed, it was amusing to hear the change in his telephone demeanor from that of a gravelly New York tough guy to being somewhat polite and civil.

He would call occasionally and give me updates and for the last ten years or so we would get together for lunch on his birthday. We had some good conversations about our days in New York and how he was getting along. Eddie did have a good sense of humor, unless he was drinking. Back in the day, Eddie was a nasty drunk and readily admitted that alcohol and gambling were his uncontrollable weaknesses.

The last couple of years he talked about the chemo and radiation treatments for throat cancer, the result of a lifetime of heavy smoking since he was probably around twelve. As a non-smoker this was always a source of tension between us.
Towards the end he wrestled with the possibilities of a laryngectomy. I didn’t think he would go through with it but apparently he did want to continue the fight.
In the process he had other health complications and I visited him in the hospital several times. 

On one visit, after the laryngectomy, I was surprised that when he tried to talk there was absolutely no sound at all. Not even the sound of passing air. He did, though, write notes. One was for me to go downstairs and get him a pack of cigarettes.

Eddie was released, and I had planned to visit him at his apartment to see what help I could offer. I was away on business, and it was a couple of weeks later I learned from one of his friends that he had apparently collected his prescription medication, overdosed, and had been cremated. His friend eventually gave me the urn with his ashes.

My immediate family is small and a remaining nephew was getting married on Long Island, which offered an opportunity to finally bring Eddie home.

I transferred the sealed bag that held Eddie’s remains from the urn into a suitable metal tin for the trip.

With apparent irony I donated the urn to a local Catholic charity.

I checked the TSA website for the requirements to carry human remains. I was pleased that when I stated I had a container with human remains they followed the TSA protocol, being both thorough and professional.

We had the day of the wedding to find a suitable resting place. As it turned out, that day, April 27, 2017, was the birthday of our first son who we lost when he was three in 1977 due to congenital heart problems. Otherwise, it was an incredibly beautiful day.

I didn’t know what I was going to say. It was a spontaneous farewell, a brief summary from the heart for someone whose life had taken many terrible turns. Although Eddie created most of his own problems in life, it was those early years that robbed him of the opportunity to do otherwise and find a better path.

My daughter captured the moment perfectly.

May God be with you Eddie. Rest in Peace.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

JAMES REYNOLDS, PART II, The Letters & Public Statements

Dear Supporters:

What follows is a No Parole Peltier Association letter sent to Mr. James Reynolds on 11/6/17 asking a few straightforward and critical questions in response to the letter he sent to President Obama and an interview given to the New York Daily News supporting clemency for Leonard Peltier. Mr. Reynolds made a conscious decision and placed his support for Peltier in the public domain. Doing so makes his public statements subject to scrutiny.

No response was received from Mr. Reynolds.

However, on 11/27/17 Mr. Reynolds was reached by telephone, and in a brief, but telling conversation, confirmed that he had received the NPPA letter. A response to Mr. Reynolds and the explanation of the letter below will follow in a subsequent blog: James Reynolds, Part III.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Mr. James H. Reynolds
300 Palm Dr. #4
Naples, Florida 34112

 Re: Leonard Peltier, clemency

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

It matters little if this letter is a bit late; it’s never too late to ask why you supported clemency for the convicted murderer Leonard Peltier with your letter to President Obama—or to ask you to explain the disconcerting public statements you made to the New York Daily News concerning Peltier.*

Your letter stated that preceding you in office was U.S. Attorney Evan Hultman, who had prosecuted Peltier and that you “…directed Hultman’s handling of the appeal of Leonard Peltier after my appoint (sic).” This would apparently indicate that you were intimate, or at the very least familiar, with the details of the unprovoked attack and brutal murders of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams, Peltier’s trial, conviction and subsequent multiple appeals. As you were no doubt aware at the time of their deaths, Agent Williams was single and Agent Coler left behind a widow and two young sons, ages three and one and a half.

Your brief letter (which had been previously questioned**) stated that you “would join in any Request for Clemency of Leonard Peltier by (President Obama) as being in the best interest of justice in considering the totality of all matters involved.”

However, your public statements to the media raised a number of crucial issues and questions that beg for an honest response.

You stated, “Forty years is enough,” which prompts the first question.

How many years are enough to serve for two brutal murders? Thus far into Peltier’s consecutive life sentences (not to forget also the seven consecutive years he owes for the armed escape from Lompoc Penitentiary), he has served 20 ½ years each for Jack Coler and Ron Williams. In your judgment is that enough for brutal slayings? Exactly how much is enough for blowing away the faces of two—already severely wounded—human beings? Before you answer, consider if those deaths had involved members of your own family? Would that make any difference since you obviously didn’t know or have a personal relationship with the dead agents?

(Peltier appropriately received consecutive life sentences and in our opinion serving all of that is enough. Then we can give him a pass on the other seven years.)

You added that you weren’t convinced of Peltier’s guilt: “I don’t know. Who knows?” and then stunningly stated regarding Peltier’s case, “we might have shaved a few corner(s) here and there.”

This raises some serious questions. Since you allegedly “directed Evan Hultman (and presumably Assistant U.S. Attorney Lynn Crooks), what did you know regarding Peltier’s case that either they or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (particularly Judge Gerald Heaney***) didn’t know that would have affected Peltier’s conviction, sentencing or appeals?

Are you knowingly and publicly admitting to any wrongdoing that occurred under your direction as the United States Attorney while simultaneously casting serious aspersions on the reputations of former U.S. Attorney Evan Hultman and quintessential career federal prosecutor, Lynn Crooks? Basically, the NPPA is calling you out on this.

In one of the many appeals, the Eighth Circuit stated, “Peltier was equally well-represented at trial and on appeal.”

Over four decades of appeals Peltier had many competent, experienced and aggressive attorneys who collectively examined every aspect of his conviction in excruciating detail—from the serious (October 2,1975 FBI Laboratory Teletype that led to a three-day evidentiary hearing) to the frivolous (“Peltier’s arguments fail because they are fatally flawed”).

Peltier’s case has been under the proverbial microscope since day one.

While you consider a response, we want to bring you up to date on some of Peltier’s public statements and tacit admissions of guilt:

Peltier, not obliquely, since you were part of the government, referred to it as “blind, stupid, or without human feelings.” Was Peltier correct in that assessment as it relates to you? Peltier said, “white racist America is the criminal.” Was Peltier correct? When you served in government, were you, or are you, a white racist? Peltier claimed he was a “scapegoat” and “was the last Indian left to railroad for the deaths of their two agents.” So, Mr. Reynolds, are you culpable in scapegoating Leonard Peltier?

We suspect that you would rightly deny all that, but then there’s your interview with the NY Daily News. Perhaps you misspoke or they misquoted you?

As a further update, since you publically called for Peltier’s clemency, where you aware that he has remorselessly said:

And really, if necessary, I’d do it al over again because it was the right thing to do.” (Leonard Peltier, February 2010)

I don’t regret any of this for a minute.” (Leonard Peltier, August 2014)

Ironically, included in the very clemency petition that you publicly supported, his attorney allowed this: “I did not wake up on that June 26 planning to injure or shoot federal agents, and did not gain anything from participating in the incident.”

No regrets, he’d do it again, it was the right thing to do, wasn’t planning—at any rate—to injure or shoot federal agents and, he acknowledged participating. (And there is much more…)

Mr. Reynolds, would you care to clarify your position that Peltier’s consecutive life sentences should have been commuted? Keep in mind though that the U.S. Pardon Attorney, the U.S. Attorney General and ultimately, President Obama agreed that Peltier should continue to serve his consecutive life sentences for the brutal murders of Jack Coler and Ron Williams.****


“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Edward Woods
  (last accessed 10/30/17)

Monday, November 27, 2017


Dear Supporters:

A November 11th communiqué from Peltier/ILPDC revealed some interesting details and potential conflicts as they have established their new “National Office here in Tampa, FL.”

Apparently, the November 6th Tulsa concert didn’t meet expectations. According to the ILPDC they “didn’t raise as much money as we had hoped.”  (Yet, did anyone catch the November 10th ILPDC press release entitled, “The Concert was a Wonderful Success.” Mixed messaging is a Peltier staple.)

The NPPA has been informed that the concert was poorly attended and probably lost money. There were approximately 1900 seats available and less than half were filled. There was very little fundraising activity at the venue. Aside from the poor timing of the event (months from now no one will even remember) it is just another indication that Peltier’s notoriety continues to slip away.

The concert begs the question; just how much did they raise?  Though the amount raised was not disclosed; where it allegedly went was. According to the ILPDC “The money raised went directly into Leonard Legal Trust account.” (Which is odd that it isn’t the Leonard Peltier account. But perhaps that was just a typo or oversight.) However, this bears the markings of an oxymoron; it is remarkable that a convicted felon/inmate is having money from various sources funneled into a “legal trust.”

Solicitations for donations of checks, money orders, PayPal and purchasing Peltier’s artwork continues in earnest, which raises again some curious questions.

It certainly sounds like there’s a business being run, at Peltier’s direction and on his behalf, from the ILPDC National Office at 116 W. Osborne Ave., Tampa, FL 33603

Nevertheless, the Florida Solicitation of Contributions Act (FSCA) regulates solicitation of public contributions and requires full disclosure of certain information from persons soliciting contributions in Florida.

The FSCA requires anyone who solicits donations from people in the State of Florida to register with the department and renew annually. The department collects registration fees and has authority to impose penalties for non-compliance.

Are Leonard Peltier and his International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee complying with Florida laws as they fund the Leonard Legal Trust account?

The City of Tampa has certain business operating requirements and states that it is unlawful for any person to engage in a regulated business without a current business-operating permit. And, in fact, each day of operation without a permit constitutes a separate offense. The city goes on to require that any person who shall commence operation of a regulated business before obtaining a business operating permit shall pay double the application fee prescribed for that business. The payment of the double fee shall not preclude, nor be deemed a substitute for prosecution, as provided for elsewhere in the city code.

Peltier’s ILPDC is located in a single-family residence in Tampa. There are likely zoning requirements regarding potentially operating a business from a single-family residence.

            Are Leonard Peltier and his International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee conforming to the City of Tampa (and Hillsboro County) business and zoning regulations? That remains to be seen.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

1) In November Peltier sent yet another rambling message filled with characteristically disjoined claptrap and rhetoric.  For the benefit of diehard Peltierites who are unable or incapable of seeing through the fog of Peltier myth, folklore and fabrications and to help connect the—dots—regarding the hypocrisy of the money train, he publicly provides us with this little gem:

The air, the water, the soil, all of nature is screaming against the injustice that is continually perpetrated by those who worship moneyand Peltier continues with…If you have any questions about donations for my new legal team please call our new office in Tampa, FL.” (Leonard Peltier, November 23, 2017)

From Peltier’s lips to God’s ears.

Actually, from a convicted double-murderer’s lips to the Creator’s ears.

A time will be here, one day, when Peltier will face the Creator and mumble his truth about what actually happened at Jumping Bull, and Jack and Ron will be watching.

2) Curiously, on 11/20/17 a Florida corporate filing was rejected. The reason is not clear but the filing was for the International Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee. Oddly though that the Peltier website clearly lists it as the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. Offensive as much of the material on the Peltier website may be, is this just another example of the mixed messaging from the Peltier camp?

Monday, November 13, 2017


Dear Supporters 

Thanks to the talent and creativity of retired FBI Special Agent Fernando Candelario, please visit the link below for a song written and dedicated to the memory and sacrifice of Jack Coler and Ron Williams.

Fernando’s interest in music and playing the guitar began at age thirteen as a U.S. Army dependant in Panama. Fernando started his thirty-year FBI career in 1972 as a support employee and became a Special Agent in May 1978. He was promoted to a Supervisory position and finished his productive career and an Assistant Special Agent in Charge of a field office.  During his career, Fernando served in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Miami, Florida, FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C., the U.S. Embassy in Panama and Dallas, Texas.

Fernando’s heartfelt dedication for Jack and Ron can be heard, along with many other original songs, at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPnGLC4v6A

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

(P.S. If the link doesn’t connect to the video, either cut and paste into a browser or go to Youtube.com and search for the Murder of Coler and Williams)

Monday, October 16, 2017


Dear Supporters:

In the roll top desk in my study is an 8x10 color photograph.

It’s been there a long time.

I don’t need it on display but I do look at it from time to time as I read, research and write.

The photo is graphic and disturbing, a tragic moment frozen in time on June 26, 1975.

Two young men, one shirtless, lying face down in the grass next to a bullet riddled gold Chevrolet. (Footnote 1)

I never knew FBI Special Agents Jack R. Coler or Ronald A. Williams, and it wouldn’t matter if I had.

Reflecting back over the past 17 ½ years and all the countless hours spent on Peltier issues, there seems to be one central point during the lengthy process of his appeals that serves as the lynchpin of Peltier’s “otherwise notoriously convoluted procedural history” through the criminal justice system. (Fn: 2)

Even more than all the government’s evidence against Peltier, the Honorable Gerald Heaney (1918 – 2010) of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (an unquestioned example of America’s Greatest Generation) undeniably played the most critical role in the fact that Peltier remains incarcerated to this day. (Fn: 3)

Judge Heaney was both lauded and reviled by Peltier and Peltierites depending on which position served their purpose at the moment.

The attack

Over the years Peltier has had numerous competent attorneys (many paid for by the largesse of the American taxpayer, others pro bono and an unknown number paid for by funds—the source of which remains under scrutiny) but there are a few exceptions, this being one of them:

In November 2001, Peltier’s then attorney filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (of which Judge Heaney was a member), citing Rule 35, a “renewed motion to remove or reduce his sentence.” The motion, which included several other claims, was denied in 2002 because it was filed “…twenty-two years after the 120-day filing period had expired.” During that 22 years Peltier had already had opportunities under Federal Rules 35 and 2255 that had been previously considered and denied. The unanimous court decision (Judges Magnusson, Arnold and Heaney) reviewed prior appellate history and included this most salient of all facts:

The record as a whole leaves no doubt that the jury accepted the government’s theory that Peltier had personally killed the two agents, after they were seriously wounded, by shooting them at point blank range with an AR-15 rifle.

Peltier's attorney publicly and angrily stated that this ruling was "a disgrace" and further proof that "nobody who seems to care about Leonard is in a position of responsibility or authority," adding, "They're inclined to let him rot in prison." (Fn:  4)  

This attorney wasn’t insightful enough to see the foolishness of his public pronouncement, let alone his own flawed logic. The reality was that all three judges were—in fact—in a position of “responsibility and authority” and that should have been patently evident, the most important and relevant one—to Peltier—being Judge Heaney.

From the outset Peltier has fashioned and promoted himself as a political prisoner.

Peltier claims a vast conspiracy among the government, FBI and the courts “in a corrupted pre-planned trial,” those in government who are “blind, stupid, or without human feelings,” that the “white racist America is the criminal,” accusing the presiding judge as  a high-ranking member of the white racist American establishment.” (Fn: 5)  Peltier claims to have “became a scapegoat” and “was the last Indian left to railroad for the deaths of their two agents.” (Fn: 6) 

It should be unmistakably apparent; there are no grey areas in Peltier’s public statements.

There is no other way to interpret Peltier’s decades-long conspiracy theory, but that by implication, it must also include the Honorable Judge Gerald Heaney.

The praise

Judge Heaney obviously held a deep concern for the treatment and plight of Native Americans and in 1991 wrote an impassioned letter to U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye (another WWII hero), who was then on the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.  Judge Heaney set out some details asking for consideration for clemency by President George H.W. Bush, stating in part, that the U.S. government must share the responsibility for the agents’ deaths and that “At some point , a healing process must begin. We as a nation must treat Native Americans more fairly.” (See below for details.)  (Fn: 7)

Peltier, Peltierites and the various “defense committees” over the years have vigorously promoted this letter to support bids for parole, clemency, commutation, and Peltier’s claimed innocence.

The reality

 (Brief background: Peltier was convicted and sentenced in U.S. District Court, Fargo, North Dakota in 1977. Under the Freedom of Information Act Peltier subsequently received, among other documents, an October 2, 1975 FBI Teletype concerning ballistic testing related to a .223 shell casing (located in the trunk of Agent Coler’s vehicle) and the Wichita AR-15 related to Peltier. In 1982, under Rule 2255, Peltier moved for a new trial claiming that this new evidence was deliberately withheld and violated his constitutional right to due process based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brady v. Maryland.  The Government’s position was that the Teletype was not in violation of Brady. The District Court agreed and denied the motion for a new trial. Peltier appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and that court [Judge Heaney] remanded the matter back to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing [ballistics hearing] on the meaning of the October 2, 1975 Teletype. In October 1984 a three-day hearing was held and the District Court affirmed that the Teletype was considered preliminary information, which the prosecution had no obligation to disclose, thus denying Peltier’s Rule 2255 motion. Peltier appealed this denial again to the Eighth Circuit. That court [Judge Heaney] ruled against Peltier based on Brady and U.S. v. Bagley. See details below.)

In 1991 Judge Heaney appeared on a pitifully unbalanced 60 Minutes segment hosted by Steve Kroft where Judge Heaney, Peltier and others were interviewed. The program was nothing more than a Peltier folklore propaganda piece taken straight from the Peltier playbook. The errors in this program would take many pages to explain. (Fn: 8) 

Kroft asked Judge Heaney the proverbial $64 question:

“Do you believe he got a fair trial? 

Judge Heaney’s unscripted reply, seemingly to Kroft’s surprise (as if he was expecting a blockbuster moment):

“I believe he got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.”

(Anyone in law enforcement and the criminal justice system knows that perfect trials are as rare as unicorns.)

The Heaney letter:

Although Judge Heaney did make his personal feelings known supporting Peltier’s bid for clemency it must be made very clear that he never implied in any way that Peltier was innocent. Quite the contrary, Judge Heaney’s letter included:

            --“No new evidence has been called to my attention which would cause me to change the conclusion reached in that case.” (Clearly implying that Peltier was, and remains, guilty.)

            --“Third, the record persuades me that more than one person was involved in the shooting of the FBI agents. Again, this fact is not a legal justification for Peltier’s actions, but it is a mitigating circumstance.”  (In other words, sharing the blame does not lessen Peltier’s guilt.)

The Heaney decisions:

In the appellate decision of the evidentiary (ballistics) hearing, authored by Judge Heaney, we find the following: (Fn: 9)

            --We then held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Peltier responsible for the murders.

            --Constitutional error occurs, and the conviction must be reversed, only if the evidence is material in the sense that its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.

            --When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.

            This comment is so crucial it bears repeating:

--When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.

--There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been available to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies casting strong doubts on the government’s case. Yet, we are bound by the Bagley test requiring that we be convinced, from a review of the entire record, that had the data and records withheld been made available, the jury probably would have reached a different result. We have not been so convinced. 

(In other words, contrary to Peltier’s persistent claims over the years that he lost this decision on a technicality, it is clear that the decision was made based on a finding of fact, the entire court record, and the law. It appears that it may have been a tough decision but nonetheless Judges Heaney, Ross and Gibson agreed. It was unanimous with no dissenting opinion.)


With all due respect to the late Judge Heaney, much of his passion was misplaced.

Heaney claimed that the government over-reacted during the American Indian Movement (AIM) takeover of the hamlet of Wounded Knee in 1973. Instead of carefully considering the legitimate grievances of the Native Americans, the response was essentially a military one which culminated in the deadly firefight on June 26, 1975. While the government’s role in escalating the conflict into a firefight cannot serve as a legal justification for the killing of the FBI agents at short range, it can properly be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Leonard Peltier was tried, found guilty, and sentenced. He has now served more than fourteen years in the federal penitentiary.

Really?  Mitigating circumstance? Does this imply that killing the Agents at long-range, would have made a difference, or that serving only seven years for each brutal murder is a sufficient sentence? The personal opinion and passion in the language seems to imply as much.

Referring to the brutal murder of Special Agents Coler and Williams as a “firefight” denigrates the memory and sacrifice of two young men who were performing their lawful duties. We know there was no “firefight” because an eyewitness (Agent Williams) described over the radio that those they followed into a field off Highway 18 were about to take them under fire. This was an unprovoked attack, joined in by a number of other AIM cowards unloading a barrage of rifle fire in a deadly crossfire on the Agents trapped in an open field.  There was no escalation, as Heaney asserts, by the government on June 26th but an onslaught of murderous and cowardly AIM assailants.  

Heaney erred by compressing the timeline between AIM’s utter destruction of personal property and artifacts and the terrorizing of residents at Wounded Knee in 1973 and the Agents’ murders at Jumping Bull over two years later.

In referencing “legitimate grievances” of Native Americans, Judge Heaney picked the wrong gang to endorse. AIM wreaked havoc across the country. The self-serving leadership of the likes of Russell Means, Dennis Banks and the Bellecourts proved, over time, that AIM contributed nothing of value to Native America.  AIM’s history is anathema to Native American concerns. It may have brought Native issues to the forefront, but did so along a destructive path. If there is any doubt, ask the family of Perry Ray Robinson, murdered by AIM during the Wounded Knee takeover (along with the many rumors that there are more AIM victims buried in unmarked graves), or the daughters of Anna Mae Aquash, the Native activist who had the misfortune to be interrogated at gunpoint by Leonard Peltier. Anna Mae, on orders from AIM hierarchy was kidnapped, raped, shot in the head and dumped in a ravine. Ask Anna Mae’s daughters what they think about Leonard Peltier and AIM. (Fn: 10)

Judge Heaney’s letter, dated April 18, 1991 claimed that the FBI used improper tactics in securing Peltier’s extradition from Canada.

This was a hotly debated issue publicly, and in the courts (particularly over the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits). However, the Canadian government fully reviewed the proceedings and in 1999 stated as a matter of public record that Peltier was lawfully extradited and that the circumstantial evidence…taken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges. (Fn: 11) Judge Heaney was in senior status at the time and still hearing cases when the Canadian government published its conclusion in a detailed letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. However, there is no indication that Judge Heaney attempted to correct his erroneous conclusion on Peltier’s extradition.

Heaney’s letter and private opinions, as a sitting senior federal judge, were intended to influence consideration for clemency by the President. It offered a personal bias that perhaps was clouded by strong feelings about the historical mistreatment of First Americans. He spoke of “legitimate” Native American grievances while ignoring the turmoil and destruction caused by AIM. Judge Heaney did not recognize that any “healing” could not begin with the likes of the murderous Leonard Peltier and that Peltier should only be treated as “fairly” as he treated Jack Coler and Ron Williams.

Nonetheless, Gerald Heaney set aside those personal beliefs when it came to fulfilling his obligation as a judge. He then acted as the outstanding and dedicated jurist he was and ruled against Peltier based on the law. The result of which is the sole reason why Peltier remains where he belongs.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

1) It is undisputed that Agents’ Coler and Williams (Ron with a defensive wound) were both shot in the face at point-blank range, killing them instantly. Yet, when responding FBI Agents and law enforcement discovered them, their lifeless bodies were obviously rolled over to face the ground. It is not known who among the AIM cowards moved the mutilated agents’ bodies, one, or maybe all. In Indian folklore counting coup was when a vanquished enemy was touched. Being rolled over to face Mother Earth also ensured that the dead would not meet the Creator in the afterlife. After an unprovoked attack and brutal murders the spineless AIM antagonists could hardly—as Peltier has claimed of those who were there that day—call themselves warriors.
2) U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota; Memorandum and Order, U.S. v. Peltier, C77-3003, filed February 25, 2002.
3) Gerald Heaney was truly a member of America's Greatest Generation. At the outbreak of World War II, as a young lawyer, he could have avoided the heat of battle and used his legal talents in a safe stateside, or behind the front lines, assignment. Instead, he enlisted as a private and then sought a U.S. Army commission and became a young infantry officer and Ranger, participating in the D-Day invasion (earning a Silver Star) along with several significant battles through the end of war in Europe. His courage can be neither denied nor ignored. (This writer proudly shares a small part of Judge Heaney's background, having also graduated from the United States Army, Infantry Officer’s Candidate School, Ft. Benning, Georgia, although twenty-four years and several conflicts later.) Judge Heaney was a jurist of impeccable reputation and experience. His character is irreproachable and unquestioned, and we know this because of a very specific example from the Peltier case.

Gerald Heaney was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson to fill a new seat on the Eighth District Court of Appeals in 1966, went into senior status in 1988 and then served part-time until 2006. Along with two other appointments, President Johnson effectively altered the balance of the court. Judge Heaney was more likely to support claims for civil liberties and engage in an activist judiciary. He was more likely to write dissenting opinions and authored many of the court’s decisions, as he did in the Peltier case.
5) Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (New York: Penguin Books, 1991 361-365.
6) Leonard Peltier, Prison Writings (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999) 140, 162 and Part IV.
7) Judge Heaney letter to Senator Inouye: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/heaney.html. https://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info, In Peltier’s website, under “resources” and “legal” there is a reference to Judge Heaney’s letter, however, this letter, along with references from other claimed resources, cannot be accessed to read.
8) 60 Minutes, hosted by Steve Kroft: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc9ofu
There are so many factual errors that today this broadcast would be considered fake news. Skewed details and factual inaccuracies are prevalent throughout the program. Just one of many glaring errors is Kroft referring to Peltier’s AR-15 while showing a photo of a hunting rifle. Critically, in this segment Peltier makes his first public admission that he fired at the agents, “Yes, I fired at them.” This was in 1991, yet in Peltier’s 1999 (Yes, eight years later) autobiography, Prison Writings, he said “I fired off a few shots above their heads, not trying to hit anything or anyone, just to show that we had some kind of defense so they didn’t just roll in and slaughter us.”
(p. 125) It’s always easy to keep the facts straight when telling the truth but Peltier has changed his version of what happened that day so many times that it’s tough to keep the lies straight, causing an everlasting stink. Apparently Peltier forgot what he told Kroft. The segment includes a cameo of the fictional Mr. X with Peltier offering another explanation about why he couldn’t talk about that person or what he allegedly did. Yet, in Prison Writings Peltier makes no mention of Mr. X or the infamous red pickup. Wonder why? There is a pattern here.
9) 1986 Eighth Circuit Hearing decision:
Joseph & John Trimbach, American Indian Mafia (Denver: Outskirts Press, Inc. 2008)
11) Canadian letter re Peltier extradition: