Featured Post

PELTIER: RESMURS; Closed but not forgotten

Dear Supporters: Of all the agents lost in the line of duty as a result of adversarial action, the subjects were either killed during t...

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

PELTIER: THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA

DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA

If I may take the liberty to not only speak for myself (former Green Beret and 30-year FBI Agent), but on behalf of all the men and women, past, present and future, who wear the uniform or carried the badge and willingly placed themselves in harms way to serve and protect the lives and property of everyone in this great nation.

We are collectively grateful, and humbled, that you chose not to grant commutation to Leonard Peltier. His brutal attack and murder of two young FBI Agents and his remorseless public statements support that justice should continue as he serves the remainder of his lawful conviction and sentence.

May your post-Presidency years, shared with your family, be rewarding and productive.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods[i]



[i] To all those who have supported the NPPA and helped champion the cause for justice over the past nearly seventeen years, thank you. Jack Coler and Ron Williams, no doubt, are looking down with gratitude. As the final chapter in the long saga of June 26, 1975 comes to an end, solace can be found in that justice has been served. Little more need be said and the periodic blogs and updates will undoubtedly end, but the No Parole Peltier Association website will remain as an Internet resource for those who are at least concerned about learning the facts and truth.
“In the Spirit…Ed

Sunday, January 15, 2017

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: PELTIER CLEMENCY? NEVER

Dear supporters:

From the Editorial Board:

Chicago Tribune, January 13, 2017: Editorial Board

Leonard Peltier is 72 and in his 40th year of a life sentence for the 1975 murders of two FBI agents on a reservation in South Dakota. He's a cause célèbre in a movement to persuade President Barack Obama to commute that sentence and let Peltier walk free. That movement has a lot of star power: South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Robert Redford, among others.

Peltier is among a batch of potential pardons and clemency requests that Obama could take up in the waning days of his presidency.

There's Chelsea Manning, the former Army private serving 35 years in prison for disclosing reams of classified material about the U.S. handling of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also bids for posthumous pardons for Ethel Rosenberg, executed in 1953 for conspiring with her husband to hand over to the Soviet Union secrets about America's nuclear program, and black heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who was imprisoned in 1913 for transporting his fiancé, a white woman, over state lines for "immoral purposes."

Manning's disclosures of American wartime military decisions and tactics rankled the Obama administration, so commutation in her case is doubtful. Peltier, however, appears to have some momentum.

Besides the celebrities pushing for his release, a former U.S. attorney at the office that prosecuted Peltier is urging Obama to consider "compassionate release" for the jailed American Indian activist. "Forty years is enough," the former prosecutor, James Reynolds, told the New York Daily News.

No it isn't. Peltier should stay in jail for the rest of his life.

Peltier was 30 when FBI agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler arrived at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota on June 26, 1975, to arrest robbery suspect Jimmy Eagle. They were met with a torrent of bullets, from what prosecutors say were at least seven assailants. As the two agents lay in the dirt heavily wounded, three of the attackers walked up to them. One, armed with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, shot both in the head at close range. Brutal, barbaric execution — nothing less.

Peltier was the only assailant wielding an AR-15 that day, according to eyewitness testimony.

In 1977, a federal jury convicted Peltier of the agents' murders. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences.

Peltier has consistently maintained his innocence. He and his backers argue that prosecutors never produced anyone who could identify him as the man who fired the fatal shots. But an appeals court found that it didn't matter whether he was the shooter; it was sufficient that he was proven to be an "aider or abettor" in the murders.

Peltier's lawyers have also claimed that the FBI fabricated and withheld evidence. Appellate courts have agreed that there were flaws in how the FBI — and prosecutors — handled the case. But those flaws, the courts ruled, weren't significant enough to warrant a new trial. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his appeals, and requests for parole have also been rejected.

Peltier's supporters have always framed the plea for his release against the backdrop of long-standing mistreatment of Native Americans by the U.S. government. Pine Ridge is home to Wounded Knee, the site of a massacre of 200 Sioux men, women and children by the Army's 7th Cavalry in 1890.

But Peltier's case is not about the plight of Native Americans. It's about justice for two men who were killed while carrying out their duties as law enforcement officers. Period.

Obama has been unusually generous when it comes to clemency, issuing more commutations than the combined total for the last 11 presidents. Those commutations, more than 1,170, focus on inmates serving long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses.


Peltier's case is wholly different. He was convicted of cold-blooded murder, and for that, he should stay behind bars.


"In the Spirit of Coler and Williams"
Ed Woods

Saturday, January 14, 2017

PELTIER: 15 YEARS--NONSENSE & MYTH

Dear Supporters:

As Leonard Peltier whines for more support and money, he repeats, again, that he has allegedly served his two consecutive life sentences:

Over the past 41+ years, with over 20 years of good time (GT) credit, I have now over 60 prison years of time served. Under the Old Law system that applies to my case, this is by far longer than I was supposed to serve. Per the laws I'm under and that apply to my case, 7 years was a life sentence!! It did not mean that was all I was supposed to serve, but that I was eligible to be paroled and unless they had evidence to keep me in prison, I was to be granted parole. In my case, I was to be paroled to the next 7 years, so in all I was to have only served 14 years. Next, there was the 30-year Mandatory Release (MR) law. All federal sentences were to be aggregated, meaning I would have to only serve 30 years. Many people have been released under the 30 MR law. Again, they could only refuse you a release if they "proved," not just made claims, that you continued to violate the law. These same laws still apply to me today or are supposed to. (12/23/16)

Sounds ominous and seemingly legitimate, but let’s do the math and review the law.

Peltier was arrested in Canada on Friday, February 6, 1976, which began his incarceration.

On anther Friday, three years and five months later, on July 20, 1979, Peltier was involved in an armed escape from USP Lompoc, California where weapons were waiting outside the prison walls and guards were fired upon.

Peltier was arrested five days later; tried, convicted and sentenced to an additional consecutive seven-year sentence.

Does Peltier or any of his bewildered supporters or attorneys remember this?

So, that began a pretty black mark on Peltier’s prison record.

By Peltier’s (and his attorneys) own admission, he has served over five years in solitary confinement. Not a reward for being an ideal inmate.

Even giving Peltier the benefit of the doubt, his good time, minus the five years in solitary, shouldn’t begin until July 1979; and that’s a stretch.

Peltier tries to convince us that he has, “Over 20 years of good time.”

A question he hasn’t answered, is that total, or consecutive?

Remember when Peltier was “shot” in Prison? (Getting “shot” is prison jargon for violating prison rules and suffering the consequences.)

(Please review the blog for the details that landed Peltier in solitary for six months [July 27, 2011] and along with other infractions that likewise had him transferred from Leavenworth to Terre Haute, Lewisburg and ultimately USP Coleman.[i] )

To Peltier at least, these “good time” credits have no expiration or controlling date.  Do they just accumulate collectively between “shots” and solitary confinements?  It’s possible that the Bureau of Prisons uses something like a clean slate policy and good time begins at the end of the last disciplinary event.

Peltier claims that under the guidelines when he was sentenced, “7 years was a life sentence!!” No so fast…

In the federal system, for example, as far back as 1913, parole reviews took place after serving 15 years, though remaining incarcerated for the rest of one’s life was still possible. [ii]

Peltier has been afforded a number of parole hearings after being incarcerated for his first fifteen years.[iii]

The simple A,B.C’s of the unrepentant Peltier follows the law that the U.S. Parole Commission may grant parole if (a) the inmate has substantially observed the rules of the institution; (b) release would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for the law; and (c) release would not jeopardize the public welfare.[iv] Although, perhaps not a physical threat, Peltier fails to meet (a) and (b).

A life sentence, without the possibility of parole, has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Schick v. Reed case. Schick, whose death sentence was commuted to life without parole for a crime Schick committed in 1969 would have been eligible for parole in 1954. In other words, eligible for parole in fifteen years.

That Court (and later court decisions) also concluded that a whole-life sentence was constitutional.[v]

Perhaps Peltier and his supporters must be reminded that Peltier has been down this road before; challenging the longer term imposed by the Parole Commission.

In the 10th Circuit Court decision on this very subject, Peltier ignores the essence of the denied appeal but never fails to quote a couple of sentences.[vi] (Peltier’s entire parole hearing history is detailed in this court decision.)

That decision also included:

“Contrary to Mr. Peltier’s assertion that evidence undergirding his conviction has begun to “evaporate,” the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict appears in numerous decisions of the Eighth Circuit decisions. Neither the conviction nor any of the subsequent court decisions have been overturned.”

“The Eighth Circuit recognized the intimidation of AIM activists but noted each witness’s attestation that his trial testimony was truthful.”

            “The Commission’s description of the murders in various Notices of Action as ‘executions’ and ‘cold-blooded’ was warranted.”

            “The Commission’s characterization of these events appears accurate to this court.”

            “Previous federal court decisions provided the Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Mr. Peltier personally shot Agent Coler and Williams”

            “Our only inquiry is whether the Commission was rational in concluding Mr. Peltier participated in the execution of two federal agents. On the record before us, we cannot say this determination was arbitrary and capricious.”

(Reviewing the entire decision provides a far different picture than Peltier would like us to believe.)

Peltier goes on to claim, “All federal sentences were to be aggregated, meaning I would have to only serve 30 years.”

Can Peltier provide any proof of this claim? Don’t think so. Nor is there any reference to an aggregated sentence in Peltier’s legal history.

As for “mandatory release” and Peltier claiming he would only have to serve 30 years. Close, but not there yet, because there’s a pesky definition that Peltier would sooner forget:

Merriam-Webster: Consecutive: following one after the other in a series: following each other without interruption.

And to be clear, Peltier received Consecutive life sentences. That means, 30 plus 30 for 60, plus the consecutive 7 years for Lompoc for a total of 67, minus the 41 already served, leaving 26 years until 2043. However, Peltier’s next full parole hearing is 2024.

One other not too insignificant fact is the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ public records. Inmate records would include a specific release date, if there were one.

A search of BOP records for inmate #89637-132 reveals;

Leonard Peltier, Coleman 1 USP, and under Release Date, “Life.” [vii]

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Thursday, January 12, 2017

PELTIER: JACK COLER, JANUARY 12, 1947

Dear Jack:

Those of us who remain, your family, friends, FBI associates and law-enforcement across the country know that you are looking over us as one more year passes.

Many of us believe that you are still the same strong, dedicated, committed and quintessential police officer, then FBI Agent, that you were in 1975.  It comforts us to keep that memory alive, especially those who knew you personally, that you are ageless and possess an omniscient awareness. As a devoted family man you are no doubt proud to watch over your family and grandchildren.

Today is January 12, 2017, the day you would have turned seventy and within eight days—mere hours, we will know whether justice continues. No matter how it turns out, you know we never stopped trying.

We are grateful to have a guardian angel, a brother in arms, as those in Blue face grave challenges from a growing segment of society that has little respect for those who willingly place themselves in harms way to protect, serve and enforce the laws of this nation.

As you undoubtedly know, you, Ron and all the FBI Service Martyrs are honored every year with a memorial service. And as an ongoing reminder to all FBI employees and visitors, each office displays the names and photos of those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

Your legacy will never be forgotten.

We collectively pray that January 20th will pass and we can close this difficult chapter with the understanding that at least justice has been served.

Jack, please continue to look after us and keep those willing to serve from harms way.

“In the Spirit…

Ed

Friday, January 6, 2017

PELTIER: JUDGE HEANEY; REDUX

Dear Supporters:

What follows is an excerpt from a 2003 (fourteen years ago) NPPA Editorial Essay addressing public statements from Leonard Peltier and the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC). It is reprinted in response to Peltier’s recent comments about Judge Heaney and the letters he has written.

* * *

Honorable Gerald W. Heaney, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Circuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney is 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 probably used his legal talents in a safe stateside assignment. Instead, he sought a U.S. Army commission and became a young infantry officer participating in the D-Day invasion and several significant battles leading to the end of war in Europe. His courage can be neither denied nor ignored.

Judge Heaney is 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.

By way of brief background

Judge Heaney was a member of the court during a 1984 appeal and wrote a subsequent 1986 opinion denying Peltier's appeal based on the application the federal Brady and Bagley legal tests. This decision was the result of Freedom of Information Act material provided to Peltier that became the basis for a three-day evidentiary hearing (on ballistics evidence) in the district court in October 1984.

Throughout this period Judge Heaney obviously held some very strong feelings concerning the historically unfair treatment of Native Americans in general, and the government's handling of the events leading up to the take over of Wounded Knee (February 1973) and the later subsequent killing of the two FBI Agents in June 1975.

His feelings about these issues and the history of Peltier and related cases moved him to write an impassioned letter in April 1999 to U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye during the term of then President George H.W. Bush - this presumably when Judge Heaney was either retired from the bench or in senior status. This letter, along with a subsequent one to Senator Inouye dated October 24, 2000 (in which he reaffirms his previous letter), during the final weeks of the Clinton administration, were written not as an ordinary citizen, but on United States Court of Appeals stationary, making them at once, personal and official correspondence.

Judge Heaney's first letter listed several mitigating reasons why he believed Peltier should be afforded some consideration of leniency: "At some point, a healing process must begin," he said.

Judge Heaney added, "My thoughts on these other aspects result from a very careful study of the records..." but throughout this letter Judge Heaney never suggested that Peltier was innocent. Quite the contrary, he had this to say on the issue of Peltier's guilt:

"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 is a mitigating circumstance." (Emphasis added)

Judge Heaney himself would be needed to expound on this point, whether he consider(ed) (the Honorable Judge Heaney has since passed away) the initial wounding of the agents as a factor or that three people (Peltier, Robideau and Butler) went down to the wounded agents, and one, or all three, murdered the agents at close range.

No doubt, as Judge Heaney has done throughout his judicial career, he will set aside personal feelings and made his decision based on the proper application of the law as he did in 1984 and 1986.

And apparently he did.

Denial by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

In a unanimous decision, on December 12, 2002, the Court of Appeals, of which Judge Heaney was a member of the panel, denied Peltier's recent motion to reduce his sentence.

Peltier's attorney's arguments, as we have seen, were untimely at best and based on issues that had been previously argued and rejected by the courts, even to the extent that former AUSA Crooks quoted one of Judge Heaney's own decisions during the proceeding.

However, Peltier's attorney Eric Seitz of Honolulu angrily and publicly 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." (But, Mr. Seitz, someone most certainly is.)

Seitz added that he was not "...particularly optimistic that any of the judges now sitting have any compassion or willingness to do the right thing here." "They're inclined to let him rot in prison."

Seitz's last comment was directed at the U.S. Supreme Court, but by implication both comments are leveled squarely at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Heaney.

Seitz would do himself and Peltier a service to remember that Judge Heaney was one jurist - "in a position of responsibility and authority" - who came down squarely on the side of Peltier, the Native American. Judge Heaney, as well as the other judges, saw the frivolousness of Seitz' arguments and ruled against Peltier based on the law.

Seitz can whine and complain and throw around typical Peltier camp rhetoric all he cares to, since he has foolishly ignored one man who has plenty of passion on this subject, Judge Heaney.

But thankfully, although abundantly passionate on the plight of Native Americans, Judge Heaney (was) a jurist of the highest caliber and knows that Seitz's legal arguments were flawed.

Yet Seitz, and those among the reenergized Peltier campaign, would want the Court of Appeals "to do the right thing here" and yield to passion in the face of frivolous legal maneuvers.

                Reenergized or not, the tune and tone of the "Until Justice is Won" campaign is still the same. Make as much noise as possible but stay away from the revealing legal history of the case.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Addendum:

During a later 60-Minutes interview Judge Heaney was asked if Peltier received a fair trial. His response, “He received a fair trial. Not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.”
For a thorough review of Judge Heaney's background, please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Heaney


Thursday, January 5, 2017

PELTIER: REYNOLDS' FALSE CLAIMS?

Dear Supporters:

In a letter to President Obama urging clemency for Leonard Peltier, former United States Attorney, James H. Reynolds made the following claims:

“I was the United States Attorney, whose office handled the criminal case prosecution and appeal of Leonard Peltier.”

“After my appointment by President Jimmy Carter and Senate confirmation I kept on as an Assistant United States Attorney, Evan Hultman, who preceded me as United States Attorney and had handled the prosecution of Leonard Peltier. I directed Hultman’s handling of the appeal of Leonard Peltier after my appoint. (Quoted as written by Mr. Reynolds.)

* * *
However, a review of Mr. Reynolds’ actual position and responsibilities regarding the Peltier case paints an uncomfortably different picture.

In the beginning of the prosecution stages of the case, Evan Hultman was the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.  

The first trial of Robert Robideau and Dino Butler for the murders of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams, was transferred to the Northern District of Iowa and then was held in Cedar Rapids.

Evan Hultman was in charge of the prosecution at that time.

Peltier was not tried in Iowa because he had fled to Canada and was fighting extradition.  After the acquittal of Butler and Robideau in Iowa, and prior to the Peltier trial, venue was changed again, this time to North Dakota.  

Evan Hultman remained the lead prosecutor even though the venue had changed.

Around this time, the administration also changed, and Mr. Reynolds was appointed by President Carter as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.  

Eugene K. Anthony was the interim U.S. Attorney in North Dakota followed by President Carter's appointment of James Britton.  

Evan Hultman took on a role as "Special Prosecutor" for the Peltier case and continued as the lead prosecutor.   

Since the case's venue was then in North Dakota, Hultman would have reported to the U.S. Attorney in North Dakota, not the U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Iowa. However, by most accounts, Evan Hultman was in charge and actually reported to neither one.  Correspondence from that period went out in the name of the North Dakota, U.S. Attorney (Eugene K. Anthony or James Britton) with Evan Hultman's signature as a Special Assistant.     

Once venue for the Peltier case was designated to North Dakota (prior to Peltier's trial), management of the case was the responsibility of the North Dakota U. S. Attorney's office, where it remains to this day.  

It would appear that Mr. Reynolds, from his position as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, is attempting to assume supervising authority for
Mr. Hultman, who prosecuted Peltier in Fargo, within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney for North Dakota.

There is a matter of credibility as Mr. Reynolds ends his letter to the President with:

“I would join in any request for Clemency of Leonard Peltier by you as being in the best interest of justice in considering the totality of all the matters involved.

Thank you for our (sic) attention in this matter, I am”

“Considering the totality of all the matters involved” is a curious way to express
justification for clemency.

However, a very simple and straightforward question for Mr. Reynolds would be:

As the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, how did your authority stretch across state lines and judicial boundaries to the District of North Dakota where Peltier was prosecuted?

Also, what would the opinion of the former U.S. Attorney for North Dakota be of Mr. Reynolds’ claim that “(He) directed Hultman’s handling of the appeal of Leonard Peltier…” A claim that reaches well beyond his jurisdiction.

We suspect, and suggest, that there is not a logical explanation, notwithstanding whether or not Evan Hultman remained an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and especially for Mr. Reynolds’ claim of “totality” of knowledge of the Peltier case.

Perhaps, in some unexplainable and confused manner, Mr. Reynolds has been taken in by the Peltier myth.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Sunday, January 1, 2017

PELTIER: ANOTHER ADMISSION

Dear Supporters:

If Leonard Peltier is paying for legal representation from the likes of Martin Garbus, Cynthia Dunne and Carl Nadler, he should demand a refund.

Why would attorneys allow a client to make a formal petition for clemency to the U.S. Department of Justice Pardon Attorney, the Attorney General and the President of the United States that included an admission of guilt?

Why would these attorneys make that petition public so all the flaws could be exposed and scrutinized? [i]

In Part 1 of the petition, entitled Remorse, Peltier states (and his attorneys publicize):

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. I was on the Jumping Bull property to protect its residents, not to cause harm. At the end of the day, three young men lost their lives, many others were injured, families were traumatized, and lives were destroyed. (Emphasis added; see below for the additional comments [ii])

We absolutely cannot ignore the timing of this admission, coming on the heels of Peltier’s only opportunity to leave USP Coleman as a free man. The petition and Peltier’s statement is dated February 17, 2016. 2016! That’s forty-one years after the brutal murders of Special Agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams. Forty-one years later Peltier can make yet another admission of guilt that’s endorsed and publicized by attorneys who are certainly not looking out for his best interests, nor his legal protection under the law. That is, under the First Amendment against self-incrimination. Yet, here Peltier is penning the words, ‘planning’ and ‘participating.’


PLANNING: No, Peltier wasn’t planning that morning to “injure or shoot federal agents.” There was no grand conspiracy (although Peltier claimed there were several on the government’s side[iii]) for an AIM ambush. Peltier and other AIM cowards weren’t lying in wait for federal agents to approach the Jumping Bull property or enter their camp along White Clay Creek.

The fact remains that neither the FBI nor Jack Coler or Ron Williams knew of the existence of the AIM camp or that Peltier had returned to Pine Ridge.

Although, what Peltier did know was that he was then a fugitive for the attempted murder of a Milwaukee police officer. [iv]

Some have suggested that it was an ambush, but we disagree. It was a spontaneous, cowardly reaction when Peltier mistakenly believed that the two late model sedans that followed him from Highway 18 were the FBI coming for him. Peltier panicked and the rest of the AIM cowards, with rifles, pinned down Coler and Williams in an open field and fired the first shots. How do we know this? Ron Williams told us. On the radio he described exactly what was about to happen before the first shot was fired, at them. Those listening on the radio even heard Ron get hit.

PARTICIPATING: Exactly what part of “participating” is difficult to understand? Peltier, pathetically supported by his own attorneys, admits to taking part in the “incident.”

In 1977 Peltier was convicted of murder and aiding and abetting, the elements of which are:[v]

1. That the accused had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another: Peltier and other AIM cowards took two federal agents under rifle fire and gunned them down in an open field.

2. That the accused had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense: Shooting at federal agents shows intent to harm. One hundred and fourteen (114) shell casings were matched to Peltier’s “Wichita AR-15.”[vi]

3. That the accused assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense: Over 125 bullet holes were found in Coler and Williams’ vehicles.[vii]

4. That someone committed the underlying offense: Peltier was charged, indicted tried and convicted of murder and aiding and abetting. That charge was even listed on Peltier’s 1975 FBI wanted poster.[viii] Two critically wounded agents were brutally murdered. The government argued at trial that Peltier personally shot Agents Coler and Williams, and if he did not, then he was equally guilty as an aider and abettor in their deaths. Five people know who fired the final three killing shots. Three are dead, Jack, Ron and Bob Robideau.[ix] Dino Butler has remained relatively silent.[x] Peltier has been lurking behind a falsity that in some insubstantial way he was a warrior that day. Peltier cowers behind that façade and denigrates an otherwise proud Native heritage.

Peltier has created a spectacular fiction concocted with a gullible audience in mind, as we watch it unravel like a cheap blanket.

Peltier wasn’t planning to injure or shoot federal agents that day, but he did, and with the blessing of his legal team admits to participating, and that’s enough, even now in 2016, to sustain aiding and abetting.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods




[ii] There is only a grain of truth in Peltier’s perpetual folklore. AIM was allegedly at Pine Ridge to “protect” its residents but in the process was escalating the tension and violence. Three young men lost their lives. Two where attacked (and there was an eyewitness), severely or mortally wounded and then brutally murdered. Joe Stuntz participated in the initial shooting, stole Jack Coler’s FBI raid jacket from the trunk of his vehicle—gave Peltier a smile—and then proceeded to shoot at responding agents and officers until his deadly force was met in turn. Many others were injured? This is a new addition to Peltier fabrications/folklore. There were no other reports of anyone else being injured that day, unless Peltier wants to provide a name or make one up. Families were traumatized? That’s arguably true since Angie Long Visitor and her family fled away from the Jumping Bull area towards Highway 18. Certainly they were fearful over an action precipitated by AIM. Lives were destroyed? Peltier’s, yes, self-induced; Stuntz, yes, because he followed Peltier to his own death: Others? Peltier will have to come up with some specifics and more fabrications for that one.
[iv] Yes, Peltier was acquitted, but there is more to that story as well; better saved for another day.
“Later examinations of the remaining  .223 bullet casings submitted in connection with {F. Supp. 1150} the RESMURS case resulted in approximately 114 positive identifications with the Wichita AR-15. Thirty-nine of these were introduced into evidence at Peltier‘s trial as part of the exhibit 34 series. One of these was the bullet casing found in the trunk of Agent Coler’s car (Q# 2628; Trial Ex. 34B).”
       "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."
U.S. v. Peltier, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 800 F.2d 772, 21 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1017, 1986; U.S. App. Decision, September 11, 1986: Sections: “The .223 Casing,” and “The AR-15.”
[x] http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html Butler came out publicly stating that Peltier’s only alibi—that the infamous Mr. X. killed the agents and drove off in a pickup, was a lie.