Breaking camp: Once again the LPDOC is facing internal strife and the latest leader to abandon ship, Dorothy Ninham, and Peltier himself provide some telling details. In each statement it is important to focus on those key words and connect the dots to understand what’s really happening and why every two or three years there’s a turnover in the Peltier camp. For a brief review of how ugly it became at times, please see (Footnote #1).
Ninham states “From a business standpoint, it is good policy to replace managers every three years just to keep ideas fresh and so it is that David Hill will guide the new freedom campaign.” This in effect removes the money-laundering scheme perpetuated by Wind Chases the Sun, Inc, in DePere, Wisconsin. We’ll have to see if David Hill, who has a trunk-full of his own AIM history and baggage tries to wrap it in some other way that the IRS will accept. Remembering, after all, Peltier is not a charity case. Never was, never will be.
So there it is; Peltier, Inc.
It’s a business packaged with folklore and falsehoods that the unsuspecting buy into (no pun intended) without shining some direct light on the facts. Has anyone ever seen where all those allegedly tax deductible donations have gone? No, they haven’t and never will. It remains Peltier’s dirty little secret and no amount of dares have forced him to come clean to his dwindling supporters (Fn #2).
Ninham and those before her have had enough of the Coleman inmates’ bullying do-it-my-way-or-else fractured ego. Peltier was an AIM thug before he became an AIM assassin and nothing has changed. She gracefully sugarcoats it with, “This is Leonard’s wish and we respect his right to choose the people who will be surrounding him.” Which is the polite way of saying she’s had enough of Peltier.
Peltier’s explanation revealed more with a predictable understatement “…those of you who are familiar with the organization, there have been changes every two or three years…,” but as he segues back and forth with coAIMintelpro style
(Fn #3) diversions, trying to convince that “This isn’t all about me,” clarifies that it really is; “We don’t have enough money to always fund the most needed lawyers (…who serve pro bono by the way…) and legal workers or secretaries or web managers or whatever.” The word, “whatever,” should raise some eyebrows because that slip of the tongue, (which has happened before and is actual proof—unlike many LPDOC cyberspace launched missives—really did come from Peltier himself), pulls back the curtain just a bit and hints that those “tax-deductible” dollars have some other hidden and probably illicit purpose.
But Peltier finally gets to the point of this latest dustup in Peltierland. “So I would like to sincerely encourage you to try and mend your differences…(followed by yet another diversion). Ninham implied nothing of the sort but now Peltier is admitting that there was trouble in paradise. Why else would he ask for some reconciliation amongst his loyal network leaders?
But then Peltier does come down to the a final admission, “…but the future of my involvement is very important to me and when you get to be 69 years old, one day could be a lifetime.” And, then more diversions to keep the eyes of those watching off the proverbial ball. It’s all about him, pure and simple. The pretense of care for his people is part of the scam, an element of the pretense that all he really needs is for you to write a check.
Nelson Mandela: Peltier rambled about the passing of Nelson Mandela, but in a few recent news clips of interviews a couple of key quotes are worth noting; Mandela said he “reflected on (his) mistakes,” and that he engaged in “authentic acts of humility.” There is one difference with absolute certainty, Peltier is no Mandela and any effort to equate the two is folly.
Proof of lies: Anyone interested in the Peltier experience need not travel far to run headlong into a hedge grove of lies. One can start with the link on the NPPA’s home page that takes them to Peltier’s website, where, among other things are two flagrant examples of Peltier’s penchant to lie and the LPDOC’s inability to recognize that they are helping make the case for Peltier’s guilt even stronger.
Mr. X, anyone? This two decade long lie and one of Peltier’s early and many alibis has been proven to be false in 1995 by one who was at Jumping Bull that fateful day, Dino Butler. And, along with other additional proof, most recently by Peltier’s own attorney just this year. (Fn #4)
Yet here we have the film “Incident at Oglala” played, annoyingly without prompting, and the dated and slanted 1991 Steve Kroft, 60 Minutes interview. In both a masked and graveled voiced Mr. X claims credit for driving the red pickup and first engaging and then killing the agents. This isn’t new news to anyone, either for or against Peltier and common knowledge that Peltierites desperately try to bury.
In “Incident” Robideau goes into great detail about what he saw and Peltier himself follows with, “This story is true.” Well, it wasn’t.
With Kroft, Peltier admits “Yes, I fired at them,” but in his autobiography, Prison Writings (1999) claims “I fired off a few shots above their heads, not trying to hit anything or anyone (p.125)” Ooops…must have forgotten what he told Kroft while he also failed to mention anything about Mr. X or the infamous red pickup in the book. Wonder why that happened?
The reason these two pieces are on the Peltier homepage is obvious, self-perpetuating propaganda because there is criticism of the FBI and Peltier’s conviction. They both, however, in an awkward sort of way, portray and augment the myth and folklore Peltier has succeeded in wrapping himself in as he tries to transform the murderer into a warrior and the Native into a perpetual victim. He plays both cards from the bottom of several marked decks.
Actually, they lay bare the blatant hypocrisy of Peltier’s fabrications (i.e., deliberate lies), but only those looking closely can see the trees and the forest.
There it is, in living color on Peltier’s home page, one of the key people in the entire legal process of his last nearly four decades behind bars, as Kroft asks Federal, Court of Appeals Judge, Heaney, the sixty-four dollar question. (It is my personal opinion that this live interview was not scripted and based on the bias of the entire 60 Minutes program—taken wholly from the then Peltier playbook—that Kroft was taken aback by Judge Heaney’s response, like the lawyer questioning a witness who should never ask a question unless he already knows the answer.)
Kroft: “Do you believe he got a fair trial?”
Judge Heaney: “I believe he got a fair trial.”
Judge Heaney: “I believe he got a fair trial.”
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”