Sunday, October 14, 2018


Dear Supporters:

Peltier must believe his followers are idiots.

Peltierites are either incapable of reading and understanding the history of Peltier’s conviction, dismissive of the truth, or have very short and selective memories.

On February 6,2018 Peltier sent a brief press release on the anniversary of his arrest in Canada. He offered three main points: 

            A fabrication of the government’s arguments for his conviction; the whining of an old man and his ailments and begging for Peltierites to fork over more cash; plus a few other worthless anecdotes. 

Lies are always with us and in certain circumstances acceptable, like little white lies (as when a man is asked, “Does this dress make me look fat?”). But when they are immoral or deceiving without remorse or regret, or worse yet justified with shallow pretense, they become the worst sort.

This is a two-part canard:

Peltier claimed that the Assistant U.S. Attorney stated before the 8thCircuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gerald Heaney:

Your honor, we do not know who killed those agents. Further, we don’t know what participation if any Mr. Peltier had in it.”

--The first part, argued by Peltier in 1993, was thoroughly dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals as being “fatally flawed.” What AUSA Lynn Crooks actually said was:

Well, undoubtedly it wouldn‘t but I have no doubt whatsoever that we still 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.”

Nevertheless, this has not precluded Peltier from repeating the same flawed and discredited premise. (Footnote 1) (Please read the footnotes.)

--Then Peltier comes up with something new, not merely misrepresenting AUSA Crooks’ actual statement, but totally manufactured and without an ounce of truth or credibility he provides the follow-up lie: 

            “Further, we don’t know what participation if any Mr. Peltier had in it.”

This damning statement does not come up in the trial or appellate record. It is false on its face and proof that Peltier will say just about anything to attempt to muddy the record and confuse his gullible supporters. If the Government made such a statement during the appellate process—after it had already convicted Peltier of murder and aiding and abetting—it could have resulted in a reversal of the conviction or possibly a new trial. Peltier’s latest claim has all the permanence of writing on water.

Since Peltier has never answered any of the NPPA letters, editorial essays and Blogs sent to him in the various federal recreational facilities, a polite email was sent to the ILPDC on February 10thasking for a specific date and reference for this defective claim. Of course, there was no response because it was a fabricated lie and they are unable to support it.

Peltier adds, wrongly again, referencing a “…false affidavit the FBI manufactured about Myrtle Poor Bear being at Oglala on the day of the fire-fight. A fabricated document used to extradite me illegally from Canada in 1976.”

Wrong! The Canadian government did consider the Poor Bear affidavits and determined that Peltier was lawfully extradited:  “I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.”“…the circumstantial evidencetaken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges.”(Emphasis added). In other words, notwithstanding Poor Bear he was subject to extradition. Is that too difficult for Peltierites to comprehend?

(Please read the Canadian Minister of Justice’s letter responding to Peltier’s allegations of a wrongful extradition process that clearly refutes his allegations and claims – yet he continues to repeat them believing they make great folklore. Folklore they may be, but they’re simply and indisputably not true. Fn.2)

No small irony, and tucked away in the record was Peltier’s attorney’s opinion of Myrtle Poor Bear when they believed the government would call her as a witness. Peltier’s own attorney characterized her as a “witness whose mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.” (Fn.3)

Nice try! This is just another example of Peltier the warrior/victimtrying to have it both ways; alleging that Poor Bear was the reason he was extradited from Canada, but when it came to her testifying at his trial, threw her under the proverbial bus.

Peltier presents himself as a great native warrior, imprisoned for undertaking a noble cause, becoming sort of a prophet for his people, yet his constant pandering for cash makes him more like a prophet of profits.  And he continues to whine: He wants to spend time with his family, hug his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, wants compassion for his poor health and age, heart issues, prostate issues, ailments causing pain, arthritic hips and knees—he feels isolated from the world and that a day in prison is a lifetime. 

In response to that; Gee that is tough. Peltier should try the alternative—that of the two severely wounded men he then brutally murdered. Odds are he’d take the old man in prison route. Peltier didn’t give Jack Coler and Ron Williams any such option to hold their children or grandchildren and grow old gracefully.

Peltier adds another fairytale:

I have been here too long. The beginning of my 43rdyear plus over 20 years of good time credit, that makes 60+ years behind bars.” 

The convoluted math calculation aside, Peltier conveniently forgot why he’s in USP Coleman in the first place, a prison that’s just about as far away from his home turf as one can get and still remain in the continental United States. We can’t forget the shot—the wire incidentthat landed Peltier in solitary confinement at USP Lewisburg and that may have resulted in his transfer down south. Peltier has told us he’s spent over five years in solitary, which pretty much means he’s been far from a cooperative or ideal inmate. Lets also not forget the armed escape from Lompoc and the addititional seven-year consecutive sentence. (Fn.4)

Peltier also adds, in caps, “But I will say again I DID NOT KILL THOSE AGENTS.” All caps are the equivalent of yelling at someone. As an optional or alternative suggestion he can shout it from the USP Coleman rooftop for as long as he desires.

Perhaps, he can even add a few more barks at the moon in the process:




“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.” (Fn.8)* (Please understand the implication of Peltier admitting “participating in the event.”)

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

*Admittedly this would be a bit of a long shout.
United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit 997 F.2d 461, 1993 U.S. App. Decision July 7, 1993, Filed. Excerpt follows:
 --[Assistant United States Attorney] Crooks: Well, undoubtedly it wouldn‘t but I have no doubt whatsoever that we still 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.
--“First, as the district court recognized in this section §2255 proceeding, it is unclear whether the references to ”those agents“ was to the ”two marshals“ mentioned two sentences earlier who had recently been murdered, or to the two FBI agents killed in this case. 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, or that that was the sole basis upon which the government tried the case. Earlier in the argument, the government had stated several times that its theory was that Peltier was guilty of murdering the FBI agents because he either killed them personally or aided and abetted their killing:”
--“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 their murder as an aider and abettor. (B) The government’s statement at the prior oral argument, upon which Peltier relies, was not a concession that the government had not proved that Peltier had not killed the agents personally, and that Peltier‘s conviction could be sustained only on an aiding and abetting theory. (C) The evidence allegedly supporting Peltier’s self-defense claim, which he claims was improperly excluded, was correctly rejected.” 
Further: The record as a whole leaves no doubtthat the jury accepted the government’s theory that Peltier had personally killedthe two agents, after they were seriously wounded, by shooting them at point blank range with an AR-15 rifle.”(8thCircuit; No. 02-1761, 12/18/02; Judges Hansen, “HEANEY” and Arnold:
2) Canadian extradition letter:
“As I indicated above, I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extraditedto the United States. In my opinion, given the test for committal for extradition referred to above, the circumstantial evidence presented at the extradition hearing, take alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges. My conclusions in this regard are consistent with the arguments made by Department of Justice counsel before both the Federal Court of Appealand the Supreme Court of Canada.
Furthermore, the third Poor Bear affidavit was consideredby the Federal Court of Appeal and the Minister of Justice before Mr. Peltier was extradited to the United States. Subsequently, further submissions respecting the third Poor Bear affidavit were made to the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the appellate courts in the United States. 
The record demonstrates that the case was fully considered by the courts and by the then Minister of Justice. There is no evidence that has come to lightsince then that would justify a conclusion that the decisions of the Canadian courts and Minister of Justice should be interfered with.” (10/12/99, emphasis added)
4) Peltier ‘shot’ and transfer:
6) And really… admission is valid when considered within the context of how the statement was made.
7) Don’t regret… admission is valid when considered within the context of how the statement was made.
8) From participating… this blog for a full explanation.