On September 26th, in an impassioned, if somewhat pathetic plea, the LPDOC laid out their dire financial straits. “We need money, envelopes, paper, donations of any size, sponsor a delegate, make a monthly pledge,” they say in effect. In other words, they’re broke. At least, thank goodness they didn’t go down the “tax-deductible donations” road this time…perhaps they have learned a valuable lesson from the IRS…but no one at the LPDOC will admit to that. And it’s no wonder that this “grassroots organization” (and all the while we thought it was an International effort—Elsie are you still out there?), is dying on the vine. Over the past several years at least Native America and intelligent supporters are seeing through the fog of Peltier folklore.
This begging is nothing new and has been addressed by the NPPA too many times already with a major review going back to May, 2004 (please see Editorial Essay #24; Peltier Donations: Scam, Fraud?, in the NPPA Debate Continues Section).
That essay repeated a statement from one of the LPDC’s (predecessor of the LPDOC) leaders, Bob Free that;
“Transparency regarding accounting and donations will be posted on the web.”
Two points; it was obviously a problem within the organization, and of course, that never happened. Too many financial skeletons in the closet perhaps?
But we’ll up the ante from a previous offer (please see NPPA Blog dated September 6, 2010 below). The NPPA will donate $1,000 (up from the prior offer of $500) to Peltier and the LPDOC if they honor a commitment made to their supporters years ago:
Post on whoisleonardpeltier.info the following:
Peltier’s last five years (2006-2010) federal and state tax returns, and the federal and state tax returns for the LPDC (2005-2008) and the LPDOC’s returns for 2009 and 2010.
That’s all they have to do and a check for a grand will be in the mail. Promise.
But we know this is more than just problematic for Leonard and the Committee…what they don’t want supporters (either the die-hards or the well-healed) to know, is how much has been taken in, or more importantly, where has it gone?
As an aside, the September 26th message also stated “Leonard’s recent transfer to USP-Coleman in Florida has created sudden and unexpected increases in the cost of attorney travel.” Which is interesting, and silly, because, as we’ve understood over the years, the attorney’s working on Peltier’s behalf have done so, pro bono. And there is no reason for any attorney to travel to Coleman to speak with Peltier anyway (unless it’s just to meet the legend), because anything they would contrive as an issue is all a matter of record. Even pursing the FOIPA material can be handled from an attorney’s office and not Peltier’s prison cell. Besides, there’s still the U.S. Mail.
But let’s not stray too far from the fundamentals, from Peltier’s actual guilt and total lack of remorse for what happened at Jumping Bull, or even acceptance of any responsibility for that day.
The two most important sentences for Peltier supporters and detractors alike to contemplate over the past thirty-six years still remain;
“I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I looked at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile.”
(Of course that was the dead agent’s jacket Joe Stuntz was wearing when he was shot while shooting at responding agents and officers later that day. Please see Editorial Essay #54) Write Leonard and ask him to explain that one. And,
“I never thought my commitment would mean sacrificing like this, but I was willing to do so nonetheless. And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.”
(Please see Editorial Essay #52) It was “The right thing to do?” Instead of Leonard, write the President to demonstrate Peltier’s attitude towards his crimes and that he is not deserving of the slightest consideration for clemency.
Add to that the decade’s long lie that “Mr. X.” did it; if there’s any doubt about that, just watch the movie (http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html).
And then there’s what the jury had to consider; distilling down all the other evidence to that core testimony each juror needed to weigh truthfulness, and the degree of Peltier’s guilt or innocence. Those “Critical Witnesses,” taken as a whole, left little doubt then, as they do now. (Please see Editorial Essay #55.)
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”