Featured Post

FBI Director makes historic visit to Navajo Nation

Dear Supporters: On March 2 nd Director Wray arrived in the tribal capital in Window Rock, Ariz., on Friday, March 2 and spoke with Na...

Monday, March 5, 2018

FBI Director makes historic visit to Navajo Nation

Dear Supporters:

On March 2nd Director Wray arrived in the tribal capital in Window Rock, Ariz., on Friday, March 2 and spoke with Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye and other tribal and federal law enforcement officials, including FBI agents from New Mexico. FBI spokesman Frank Fisher says Wray's visit to the Navajo Nation was the first by a director.

FBI Director Christopher Wray met with tribal officials of the largest
Indian reservation in the U.S. this week, becoming the first head of the
federal law enforcement agency to visit the Navajo Nation.

His visit to the Navajo Nation was the first by a director and was intended
to allow Wray to introduce himself to tribal leaders during a visit to FBI
field offices, FBI spokesman Frank Fisher said.

Wray visited the tribal capital in Window Rock, Arizona, on Friday and
spoke with Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye and other tribal and
federal law enforcement officials, including FBI agents stationed in New
Mexico, the Gallup Independent reported.

The FBI investigates major crimes on tribal reservations and Wray said his
visit, which included a stop at a crime scene, helped give him a look at
law enforcement "on the front lines."

After the meeting, Wray said he was "very impressed by the partnership"
between Navajo and FBI officials.

The Navajo Nation reservation covers 27,000 square miles in northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico and southeastern Utah, making it larger than West Virginia.

The visit to where a homicide occurred was intended to show Wray "the
remoteness of the Navajo Nation," said Nation Police Chief Phillip

Large areas of the reservation have little or no cell phone coverage and
have roads that are impassable in bad weather.

President Begaye said he was honored to have Wray in his office and glad to
hear him acknowledge the tribe's sovereignty. He asked Wray for his
agency's support and possible training to handle cybercrime, human and drug
trafficking, meth labs, and shooting threats against schools.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods


Dear Supporters:

There has been a slight delay in reporting on Peltier’s latest public statements; this is due in large part to several other NPPA projects that needed attention.

In the meantime it is important to remind Peltier supporters and detractors of just a few, but very crucial events, in the legal history of the Peltier saga:

The trial witnesses unanimously testified that there was only one AR-15 in the compound prior to the murders, that this weapon was used exclusively by Peltier and carried out by Peltier after the murders.” (Emphasis added) (Footnote.1)

Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed. (A) The government tried the case on alternative theories; it asserted that Peltier personally killed the agents at point blank range, but that if he had not done so, then he was equally guilty of the murder as an aider and abettor.”

The Government’s statement at a prior oral argument, upon which Peltier relies, was not a concession.” “In any event, this eight-word comment in response to Judge Heaney‘s statements, is a totally inadequate basis for asserting that the government conceded that it had not proved that Peltier personally shot the agents at close range…” (Emphasis added) (Fn.2)

“The direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…” “…Peltier’s contention of manufactured evidence are far from convincing.”
[Direct Appeal; 8th Circuit, 9/14/78]

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.” [Rule 35 Motion, 8th Circuit, 12/18/02]

“I believe he got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.” [8th Circuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney]. Fn.3

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

1) Eighth Circuit decision: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/800.html
After the three-day ‘ballistics’ hearing: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/609.html

Tuesday, February 6, 2018


Dear Supporters:

Today marks Peltier's arrest by the RCMP at Smalulboy's camp in Alberts, Canada, although Peltier's incarceration has not been continuous.

More to follow.

"In the Spirit of Coler and Williams"
Ed Woods

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)