Featured Post

PELTIER: THE HEANEY FACTOR

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 ...

Monday, November 30, 2015

PELTIER: PAINTINGS REMOVED - PART 2

Dear Supporters:

Washington State letter: Received a cordial letter on behalf of the Governor from Joel Sacks, Director, Washington Department of Labor and Industries acknowledging the response that providing a free venue for the display and sale of a convicted felon’s artwork in taxpayer-funded government space was inappropriate and arguably illegal.

Peltier, along with Governor Inslee, Washington Attorney General, Bob Fergusson, and Olympia Editor, Dusti Demarest received a copy of the letter, stating “We are displaying Native American artwork and historical information about Washington Tribes and tribal leaders…”

It may be a little insensitive in this day and age to refer to “Tribes,” as most Native Americans would prefer “Nations,” but to be clear, Leonard Peltier is not a natural member of any Washington Nation, and hopefully, Mr. Sacks does not consider Peltier a tribal leader. That would be an insult to every legitimate Native leader since Peltier’s feigned glory is self-induced and based on fiction; he was nothing more than an AIM bodyguard, an enforcer and a thug.

We are in only partial agreement that “…it is impossible to separate his artwork from the controversy surrounding the 1975 incident in South Dakota.” True, Peltier and his paintings cannot be separated, but referring to the unprovoked attack, critically wounding and then cold-blooded execution of two FBI Agents is hardly likened to a controversy or an incident. It was murder, for which Peltier was convicted, receiving two consecutive life sentences, and through over a dozen appeals, neither has ever been altered.

Mr. Sacks continued with, “After listening carefully to the concerns, it became clear that the display of this specific artwork was overshadowing the…celebration.” Overshadowing, certainly, however, the central question raised was whether it was legal. But the paintings were removed, so there’s that.

Peltier response: On November 14th Peltier announced that his paintings are now proudly displayed at two Olympia Food Co-Op’s. Olympia’s website proclaims that they “…are different from most grocery stores. Everywhere in our organization, from markups to social justice practices, we continue to uphold our mission statement, one that is focused toward placing people over profits.” The mission statement includes, encouraging economic and social justice and fostering a socially and economically egalitarian society. 

That’s a perfect venue for Peltier’s paintings, somewhere between the cabbage and onions. Wonder if a buyer of a painting has any idea where that money actually goes? (No one knows. It’s a Peltier secret.) Or, if anyone at the Co-Op has any real sense of how far Peltier has gone to ensure they buy into (no pun intended) the myth, folklore and the paradox?

Peltier’s response ended with “Two important articles have also been written in response to the actions of Washington State.”

For a response to these, please see the previous NPPA blog.

Thanksgiving message: November 26th Peltier offered another tired message, although, he would get little argument here that his “Day of Mourning Statement” does have validity. He references the National Geographic two-night mini-series, “Saints and Strangers” about the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving. Peltier adds, “Let’s hope this film DOES tell the truth.” Well, not so, it seemed to be pretty much the romanticized version, although between dialogues the progressive deterioration of the Nations spanning between Columbus and the Pilgrims seemed evident. One point was also clear, that prior to the European invasion this continent wasn’t a Valhalla. There appeared to be more than just a sprinkling of Indian on Indian, Tribe against Tribe and Nation against Nation conflict and bloodshed, separate and apart from the conflicts with the settlers (Europeans, immigrants, invaders; whatever).

But that was just the warm up to Peltier’s real intent…support me for clemency… “I believe this President has the courage to do the right thing and let me go home.”

The President has made it clear that murderous felons like Peltier are not part of his clemency plan.

Peltier, (again, this is a classic example of the Peltier Paradox), says that on February 6th he will have been incarcerated for 40 years (and that is a very long time), and “Under the laws I was indicted with, a life term was seven years. I have served over six life sentences!” That’s the Paradox at work; it sounds reasonable. Two consecutive life sentences would then equal fourteen years, and he’s done that almost three times. The math seems right but the premise is fatally flawed.

Leonard: Produce some evidence that a life-sentence in 1977, when you were convicted in Fargo, was seven years. Life sentences were typically, on average--when an inmate would be eligible for parole, twenty-five years. So on that basis, we can look towards February 6, 2026 as a possible release date. No, wait, that’s not right either. You would still owe the “seven consecutive years” for the armed escape from Lompoc. So, make that February 6, 2033. It's doubtful that either of us will be around for that.

Leonard tells us of his many ailments: He cannot even sit for any length of time. When he gets up his “plexis” (Plexus; a network, as of nerves or blood vessels) area hurts so bad. He has to walk slowly while hanging on to someone for support. Those first few steps, Peltier laments, are awfully painful. “Then I have to deal with the other medical problems.” Peltier then obliges us with the predictable spin that this is his “Sundance” and he “…would not hesitate to suffer for any of you again and again.

Suffering with age issues Leonard? Well guess what?

Jack and Ron are dead.

Let’s bring this back to reality. Have you forgotten the images? Have you been able to erase the carnage at Jumping Bull, or Ron Williams asking for mercy before you shot him in the face? Can we quote you? “The M-F was begging for his life but I shot him anyway!” Or maybe you still remember Stuntz smiling at you when he put on Jack Coler’s FBI jacket. They were both at your feet, dead and mutilated. Remember that?

There is one question I have always wanted the answer to: Which of the AIM cowards that day rolled Jack Coler and Ron Williams over to face the ground? You?

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Sunday, November 22, 2015

PELTIER: PAINTINGS REMOVED & PELTIER PARADOX

Dear Supporters:

Referencing the previous NPPA Blog, Peltier’s paintings have been removed from display at the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Tumwater, Washington. (Footnote #1)

Peltier’s response was predictable, the quintessential one-trick-pony, repeating ad nauseam the same worn-out rhetoric of out-of-context quotes without proper attributions, half-truths and outright fabrications that have been the mainstay of the Peltier myth for decades. (Fn. 2)

This is stereotypical Peltier, the Peltier Paradox: A position Peltier takes that, despite the apparently sound or legitimate reasoning from acceptable premises, when examined in its entirety leads to senseless, illogical, and contradictory conclusions. In other words, the paradox sounds good, even logical at times, but the truth destroyed Peltier a long time ago.

For example, in the November 14th “Press Release” Peltier claims (through the ill-informed Peter Clark, ILPDC) are the following inaccuracies and errors:

            --Logic: Peltier became confused over the misplaced logic of his own argument by correctly stating, “former agents of the FBI” (in other words, citizens legally expressing their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression) that somehow morphs into  “government censorship.” When brought to their attention, it was patently obvious to the State of Washington that providing a free venue at taxpayer’s expense and promoting the sale of a felon’s artwork was inappropriate, immoral, and arguably illegal. That’s what led to the state, along with a public apology, to remove those paintings. (Fn. 3)

            --Acquittal: Had Peltier been tried with his co-defendants he would have been acquitted:

Well, close, and we’ll have to concede that possibility. However, the Butler/Robideau trial did not allow the government to properly present a fair case. It was forced to trial early and critical witnesses couldn’t be located in time. The jury deliberated for five days and twice reported it was deadlocked before reaching a verdict, so it wasn’t a foregone conclusion by any means. Also, in an unprecedented and wholly inappropriate move (one which, if the government had such an advantage, would have resulted in a mistrial), the trial judge took a ten-day recess allowing the defense an inordinate amount of time to prepare after the government’s case was presented to the jury. However, we have to live with that verdict…just as Peltier must live with his. (Fn. 4)

Other points raised in the “press release,” made without specific attributions and proper quoting, have long since been discredited:

            ---Ballistics evidence reflecting his innocence:

Innocence? Hardly. This had nothing to do with innocence but the meaning of the October 2, 1975 FBI Laboratory teletype that was examined and clarified during a three-day October 1975 hearing, after which, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, (authored by Judge Gerald Heaney), concluded:

“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.” (Fn. 5)

            ---Extradition from Canada:

In spite of earlier criticism, the final word from the Canadian Government in 1999 was that “…Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.” (Fn. 6)

            ---Witnesses lied at trial:

During the Direct Appeal, the 8th Circuit Court stated:

“However, upon further questioning at the trial by the government attorney, they (the witnesses) stated that the testimony they gave at the trial was the truth, as best they remembered it. Thus, their testimony provided no support for the proposed defense instruction that the government induced them to testify falsely in this trial or in a related trial.” (Fn. 7)

Also, let’s remind Peltier, Clark or any of the others to remember another important aspect of what Norman Brown said regarding the shootings and his recanted testimony at Peltier's trial. During the October 17, 2000, Arts and Entertainment (A&E) documentary entitled "Murder on a Reservation," this is what Brown said about when he was brought into the courtroom to testify against Peltier:

“They marched me in. This whole crowd of native people. As I was walking down the aisle there, I heard words spoken to me. "There's that sell out." "There's that pig, there's that little asshole, " and you know, "That's him." "Hey asshole, like little whisper.”

It is clear from this public admission that Norman Brown, although he blamed his initial change of testimony on his interrogation by the FBI, was clearly in fear for his safety, and perhaps even his life (remember: Anna Mae Aquash, and Perry Ray Robinson if there is any doubt), from his own People, particularly AIM members.

            ---The federal prosecutor has twice (twice?…there was only one court statement) admitted that the government “can’t prove who shot those agents.”

What AUSA Lynn Crooks actually said during an appellate hearing was:

”Well, undoubtedly it wouldn’t, but no doubt whatsoever that we would have convicted him. I think the best precedent that one can point to is the recent murder of our two marshals. We have exactly the same kind of situation. But we can’t prove who shot those agents.”

Based on this ‘inartful’ statement, Peltier tried to claim that the government changed its theory of the prosecution, to which, the 8th Circuit Court replied:

“Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed.” (Fn. 8) (So you see Leonard, when the facts are disclosed, the paradox is self-evident.) 

            ---“there is a possibility that a jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier.”

However, prior to this statement in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Judges, Heaney, Ross and Gibson) stated:

“We affirmed the conviction on September 4, 1978. In Affirming, we too accepted the government’s theory that both agents had been killed with a high-velocity small-caliber weapon fired at point-blank range at a time when the men were seriously wounded and unable to defend themselves. We then held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Peltier responsible for the murders.

And, from the same 8th Circuit decision (again, Judge Gerald Heaney), was:

“The question now before us is whether the newly-discovered evidence (the October 2, 1975 teletype) indicating Hodge (FBI Laboratory examiner) may have not been telling the truth, considered in the light of the evidence the jury had before it, would have caused the jury to reach a different result. While that possibility exists, Bagley requires more.”

“There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been made available to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies casting strong doubts upon 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.” (Fn. 9)

In other words, Leonard, Peter, et. al., No matter what Judge Heaney’s personal feelings may have been, he, and Judges Ross and Gibson, made their decision based on the law.

            ---As late as November 2003, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that “…Much of the government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and its prosecution of Leonard Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.”

(This decision and remark had nothing to do with Peltier’s conviction but a challenge by Peltier to the U.S. parole commission.)

But, isn’t it interesting to note that just prior to, and after this comment, conveniently omitted from the 11/14/15 “Press Release,” the same appellate court said:

"Previous federal court decisions provided the (Parole) Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agent Coler and Williams." And further, "While Mr. Peltier, asserts 'the Commission identified no plausible evidence that [he] shot the agents after they were incapacitated,' this statement is simply not true. The evidence linking Mr. Peltier to these crimes is enumerated above.”

“Because we hold the Commission’s finding that Mr. Peltier shot and killed Agents Coler and Williams was rational, we need not address the Commission’s implication that the same disposition is supportable if Mr. Peltier only aided and abetted at the murder scene. As such, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of relief.”  (Fn. 10)

* * *
In a subsequent November 16th “press release” a desperate Peltier laments that this event was picked up by many news organizations across the nation and ended with:

 “This attack will not be the last. Be on the alert and always respond to negative press. Use the facts presented at www.whoisleonardpeltier.info as your talking points.”

These ILPDC “talking points” is the paradox described above and it’s evident that Peltier felt the sting of an immediate and effective reaction to the Washington State situation.

Peltier press releases always begin with the solicitations to participate in the ongoing dirty little secret, the money; “Leonard counts on supporters like you! Make a donation online/Pledge to Donate Monthly. Mail donations to ILPDC, Hillsboro, Oregon.” It’s bewildering that Peltierites remain blind to the realities of the Peltier scam. (Fn. 11)

Understand this:

First, the President’s guidelines for clemency consideration; long incarcerations for minor drug offenses and excluding crimes of violence, does not include the likes of Leonard Peltier. (Fn. 12)

Secondly, it’s not just the family of Jack Coler and Ron Williams, or their friends and co-workers, nor the hundreds of agents who worked the Reservation Murders (RESMURS) investigation, nor the thousands of former and retired FBI agents, nor the tens of thousands of former and retired federal, state and local law enforcement, or the hundreds of thousands of current law enforcement officers and officials, and not even just the millions of law-abiding citizens, but it is these groups, collectively, who will make their voices heard if there is even a hint of consideration for a cold-blooded, remorseless killer.

Peltier should be shown the same compassion he gave to the wounded and murdered agents, Jack Coler and Ron Williams. And that would be none…

Clemency is as dead as parole. Deal with it.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Footnotes:
1) Darren Smith article, last accessed 11/21/15:
2) Peter Clark, ILPDC, last accessed 11/21/15:
3) King5 coverage, last accessed 11/21/15:
4) Trials and critical witnesses:
5) Ballistics conclusion; page 5, first paragraph. (Also in re Bagley….)
7) Witnesses lied at trial, Direct Appeal, Section IIA http://noparolepeltier.com/585.html
8) Prosecutor admitted & Fatally flawed: http://noparolepeltier.com/997.html
9) 8th Circuit Bagley decision: http://noparolepeltier.com/800.html
10) 10th Circuit decision, See II: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/tenth_circuit.html

Sunday, November 8, 2015

PELTIER: DEAR GOVERNOR INSLEE


8190 Beechmont Avenue #101
Cincinnati, Ohio 45256-6117
November 9, 2015

The Honorable Jay Inslee
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Dear Governor Inslee:

Although not a constituent, I write to you with a very serious question:

Is it morally acceptable, or even legal, for your office and Washington State to promote and endorse a cold-blooded murderer?

This, of course, relates to the display and promotion for sale of Leonard Peltier’s prison artwork by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries in Tumwater, Washington.[i]

Whether Peltier is an artist is arguable, and irrelevant.

Nonetheless, Peltier is a convicted felon for the brutal execution-style murder of two already wounded FBI Agents. (Attacked and mortally wounded by Peltier and other AIM thugs.) Peltier, as well, has clearly demonstrated he remains wholly unrepentant for his heinous crimes.

Any celebration of Peltier is the result of decades-long misinformation and promotion of ongoing myth and folklore.[ii] Native America has long abandoned Peltier’s claims of any rights to represent their collective heritage and interests.

Peltier’s conviction, through over a dozen appeals, has been upheld as he has had more critical reviews of the facts than most inmates. Any reasonable review of the legal history would be clearly evident as all the challenges to his conviction have been repeatedly debunked. Please have someone in your office review that history.[iii]

There has been a long and sordid legacy of Peltier’s abuse of his native heritage but when it comes to proving his own guilt, and that he remains a remorseless murderer, we need only turn to Peltier himself for proof.
How can the Governor of any state allow the promotion of a convicted felon who has said:

 “I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and he gave me a smile.” (Relating to June 26, 1975 while two dead and mutilated FBI agents lay at their feet.)[iv] After thirty-five years in a public statement “And really if necessary I’d do it all over again because it was the right thing to do.” (2010) And, thirty-nine years after the murders, “I don’t regret any of this for a minute.” (2014)

Understanding Peltier’s conviction, the events that took place at Pine Ridge and statements like these, it is unconscionable that your state would recognize Peltier for anything, let alone advertising to the public the sale of his paintings.

And, as an aside, there has been a long-standing challenge for Peltier to prove where any of that money has gone, along with his abject failure to document any of his alleged “tax deductible” charitable activities.[v] That part of his history has been an ongoing scam, and sadly the State of Washington appears to have also bought into it.

With all due respect I would urge you to thoroughly review the Peltier matter and remove his artwork from the Tumwater display.

I remain. “In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Sincerely,




Edward Woods

cc:
1-Hon. Bob Ferguson, AG, 1125 Washington St. SE #7, Olympia, WA 98501
1-Joel Sacks, Director, WSDL&I, P.O. Box 44000, Olympia, WA  98504-4000
1-Mr. Dusti Demarest, Executive Editor, The Olympian, 111 Bethel St. NE, Olympia, WA 98506
1-Leonard Peltier, USP Coleman 1, P.O. Box 1033, Coleman, FL 33521




[ii] The Myth of Leonard Peltier: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/myth.html
[iv] As reported by Peltier biographer, Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, p.552, referring to Joe Stuntz stealing Agent Coler’s FBI jacket from the trunk of his bullet-riddled Bureau vehicle.