Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Peltier: “legally privileged and confidential,” Birthday note & another “reorganization”

Dear Supporters:

First, Peltier writes himself another birthday note to his thinning supporters. As he says, he has “a lot of time to reflect,” and did offer two thoughtful sentiments; being thankful for those who have recognized the injustices that have been perpetrated against indigenous peoples (can’t argue with that), and to acknowledge your own mother on your birthday for giving you life and suggesting that if a woman has four children she should have four Mother’s Days. An inspirational thought…and certainly not an original one with Peltier. 

In his own circumstance he laments that once incarcerated “family, relatives and friends are attentive on some level but as time goes on, it’s almost as if you had died and are only remembered on certain occasions.”  Guess that says a lot.

He talks of “improprieties” in his case but omits that there were really only two; one was unrelated to his conviction (but to his denial of parole), and the other (a ‘footnote’ in the court’s decision), was finally settled by the Canadian Government. Please see Editorial Essay #45

He talks of the “adrenaline flow” of being involved in a movement and “a satisfaction in doing the right thing.” “The right thing,” evidentially, like standing over two dead agent’s mutilated bodies, stealing their weapons and does he remember when Joe “Killsright” Stuntz took Coler’s FBI jacket out of the trunk , put it on and gave him a smile? Probably so, because that’s what Peltier told Matthiessen.

The LPDOC announced yet another reorganization and admitted, “his defense committee has changed many times. People have come for a few months or even a few years and done wonderful work, but in time they are forced by life’s realities to move on.” Life’s realities? It goes a bit deeper than that, and following the “committee” for the past twelve and a half years it’s apparent the reality is that people can tolerate Peltier for just so long; his supporters, his committee and even his lawyers can endure just so much of his incessant, self-absorbed bullying. Let alone the insider comments that he may have gone stir-crazy. The infighting and power struggles were even shared with supporters who no doubt tired of the lack of leadership and focus. It’s all about “me.” Just ask Leonard, he’ll tell you straight out as he cowers behind a proud First American heritage he hijacked, diminished and adulterated. It helps though, as many envious inmates would agree, the attention Peltier gets makes ‘the passage of time’ a little less burdensome.

* * *

NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hearby notified that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the LP-DOC by replying to this message. Immediately thereafter, delete this communication without copying or distributing it.

That was at the end of yet another LPDOC plea for funds for another new campaign, a plea that no longer claims to be “tax-exempt.” (Gee, wonder why? Maybe the IRS’s attention was drawn to certain unlawful fundraising practices?, but it still uses PayPal in violation of PayPal’s own “acceptable use” policy. A plea for money that also provides Dotty Ninham’s (920-713-8114) and Gina Buenrostro’s (920-713-2205) personal cell phone numbers! Shall we call them? Nah.

(See the Addendum for a slip of the tongue by Ms. Ninham.)

But let’s give this bizarre NOTICE a little scrutiny because it raises some serious flags about what’s really happening behind the wizard’s curtain in Fargo.

So where’s the logic and what does “legally privileged and confidential under applicable law” mean anyway? Are they that paranoid in Fargo? Well, maybe; that’s why they won’t let the NPPA on their email list, yet the NPPA, on the home page since day-one, April 30, 2000 provides a link to Peltier’s website (a link that has been updated several times as the “committee” morphed or shapeshifted).

So why can’t they trust their own supporters? Could it possibly be there are Peltier supporters who are on the fence about his claims of innocence? A good bet for sure. And whoa to those who are not the intended recipient, they are “hereby” (sounds awfully legalese) threatened “that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly (yes, strictly) prohibited.”

Well then, here it is—disseminated—that Peltier is once again begging for money…money he has never accounted for in spite of forceful public pleas from his own people that “transparency regarding accounting and decisions will be posted on the web.”  That was in 2003 but it never happened. The LPDC, LPDOC and Peltier have kept this dirty little secret—secret—for a very long time. Weak-kneed supporters are either too blind or intimidated to ask Peltier and the LPDOC the honest and hard questions.

Their message also demands “NOTE: Please delete text from this point down before forwarding our announcements along to friends and family.”

“To friends and family?” What message are they really sending? Which begs an essential question:

What do they have to hide?

If the LPDOC’s rhetoric of a wrongful conviction is valid and Peltier’s laments of innocence have any validity, why not spread the word further? They don’t because Peltier’s claims are not supported by the facts, nor by his own many incriminating public statements. That’s why every argument with Peltier supporters always segues into the ether of fable or strays from the real truth and evidence of his guilt.  All this then just accumulates into the ongoing Myth of Leonard Peltier as some sort of legitimate hero to his people.*

All of Peltier’s arguments and excuses (in one specific appeal and elsewhere) “fail because they are fatally flawed.”**

All that remains is but a reflection, an image of Peltier; that of an incorrigible, unremorseful and unrepentant murderer because as he said, “And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.”***  And, as he already acknowledged in another instance, he’s guilty whether he “pulled the trigger or not.”****

Yes, Peltier and the LPDOC have a lot to hide, embarrassingly manifested with not so veiled threats for anyone to stray from their own version of the facts and the hidden message that no one should challenge this fabricated account lest they find the real truth of Peltier’s guilt.

No is the answer, no clemency for Peltier, he doesn’t deserve it nor has he earned it through his heinous criminal acts and nearly four decades of lies.

However, his day of reckoning will arrive as he faces the Creator, when he will finally be held accountable for his actions.

At that point the folklore will be meaningless.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods


Dorothy Ninham: “He’s guilty of the crimes he’s convicted of.” Yes, she actually said that. Thanks to an astute NPPA board member who picked up on this not so subtle slip of the tongue. During an interview on 7/20/11, Ms. Ninham, at 3:24 into the interview actually said that Leonard is “guilty of the crimes he’s convicted of.” Wonder what was really going on in her mind? Does she have doubts about Leonard’s claims of innocence? Probably not; more likely just a slip of the forked tongues from the LPDOC camp.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

PELTIER...Prove it....Or it's just another lie

Dear Supporters:

On Peltier’s website (under ‘publications’) is a tri-fold brochure that can be downloaded and used as a propaganda tool to convince the uninformed about the plight of Leonard Peltier. The brochure (updated, June 26, 2010…an inauspicious 35th anniversary date) is typical LPDOC boilerplate, but two bullet-points (no pun intended) stand out beyond the rest of the tired rhetoric:

“Years later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, it was documented that:

● the FBI had been closely surveilling AIM activities on & off the reservations & had even been preparing for “paramilitary law enforcement operations” on Pine Ridge one month before the shootout.

● the two agents had possessed a map that highlighted the Jumping bull Ranch & labeled the family’s storage cellars as “bunkers.” (Minor correction; it was a farm, not a ranch.)

The first point was repudiated long ago; please see NPPA Editorial Essay #35,

“Possessed a map?”

PELTIER SUPPORTERS (exclusive, of course, of the incorrigible and rabid followers who refuse to be either civil or confused by the facts*) need take a moment to consider how significant “the two agents had possessed a map” would have been to Peltier’s defense. Try adding just an ounce of common sense with a sprinkling of logic and really examine this (outrageous) claim.

If…and this is an incredibly major IF…this were factual, then all…yes, all, of Peltier’s claims of a wrongful conviction would have been, by default, validated:

I am guilty of only being an Indian. I can’t believe that the FBI intended the deaths of their own agents…nor does it jibe with the fact that scores, even hundreds, of FBI agents, federal marshals, BIA police, and GOONS were all lying in wait in the immediate vicinity. It seems they thought they’d barge in on that phony pretext, draw some show of resistance from our AIM spiritual camp, then pounce on the compound with massive force. I could smell the wonderful smell of those pancakes and…cupfuls of scalding hot black coffee. But suddenly this beautiful morning was cut short by the staccato sound of gunfire. Were we surrounded and about to be slaughtered? I fired off a few shots above their heads, not trying to hit anything or anyone, just to show that we had some kind of defense…unannounced interlopers who had come roaring onto Jumping bull property without warning…we realized that the drivers of the two shiny cars were apparently already dead, slouched besides their vehicles in pools of blood. I didn’t see their agents die, hand no hand in it. (And, certainly, from the film Incident at Oglala), “This story is true” Peltier opines for the camera, confirming Robideau’s story of someone they all knew, Mr. X, who had driven to Jumping Bull that day in the infamous red pickup to deliver dynamite to the camp and who then engaged the agents, shot them both dead and drove off into the distance.** (Of course, Dino Butler called both Robideau and Peltier liars on that story). And there’s certainly a lot more.

If “the two agents had possessed a map,” it would have been jumped on at every opportunity by the defense team to support Peltier’s version of events and his alleged innocence. It would have been the proverbial “smoking gun” countering the government’s case against Peltier. It would have been his ticket to freedom.

(Of course the FOIA material was after-the-fact, after the trial, so it’s no surprise to anyone that nowhere in the 3,343 pages and over a million words of trial transcript that the word bunker(s) is ever mentioned.)

So where did this incredible “fact” (read, actually ‘fiction’) come from?

For Peltier follower’s sake, let’s dig a little deeper.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (1992): Matthiessen mentions “cellar” twice, “storage” four times but each in the context of what they really are, no references at all to Agents Coler and Williams possessing a map of Jumping Bull. Nope, not there.

Prison Writings, My life is my sun dance (1999): Peltier’s ninth-grade-level reader makes many allegations but never mentions “the two agents had possessed a map.” Nope, not there.

Court decisions and appeals:

Direct appeal, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 9/14/78: Nope, not there, but the Court did state “The direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…”

§ 2255 Motion for a new trial, United States District Court, 12/29/82: Nope, not there, but the Court did state: “It is noted that the defense utilized during the trial the services of nine attorneys, many of which were vastly experienced in criminal defense.”

§ 2255 Motion based on newly discovered evidence (Freedom of Information and Privacy Act), District Court, 12/30/82: Nope, not there, but the Court did state: “Petitioner was tried, however, on the theory that he was guilty of aiding and abetting in the murders of the agents.”

Appeal from the District Court Ruling; Eighth Circuit, 4/4/84: Nope, not there, but the court did state “…we remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing…relevant to the meaning of the October 2, 1975 (FBI) teletype…”

 Evidentiary (Ballistics) hearing October, 1984, District Court decision 5/22/85: Nope, not there, but the Court did state “Because the October 2, 1975, teletype, evaluated in the context of the entire record, would not have affected the outcome of the trial, and does not create a reasonable doubt which did not otherwise exist…” and,  “Defendant had an independent firearms expert present in the courtroom at the hearing, but he was not called to testify.”

Appeal of hearing decision, Eighth Circuit, 9/11/86: Nope, not there. The Court did state, “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…” “Yet we are bound by the Bagley test requiring that we be convinced from a review of he entire record, that had the data and records withheld be made available, the jury probably would have reached a different result. We have not been so convinced.”

§ 2255 Motion, based on “a change in the theory of the government’s case,” Eighth Circuit, 7/7/93: Nope, not there. The court did state, “Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed.”

Rule 35 Motion (second), Eighth Circuit, 12/18/02: Nope, not there. The Court did state, “In this case, a simple comparison of the sentences to the relevant statue reveals that the district court had the discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences, and Mr. Peltier’s sentences are not therefore ‘illegal’ under Rule 35(a).”

Habeas Corpus: Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Leavenworth) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 11/4/03: Nope, not there either. The Court did state, “But whether the Parole Commission gave proper weight to this mitigating evidence is not a question we have the authority to review. 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.”

 And there are others, but by now even Peltier supporters should get the point. Or not.

Peltier supporters should (but are afraid) to ask Leonard where that allegedly damaging piece of information came from.

Peltier should provide some proof, anything of substance to support the claim—that the two agents had possessed a map that highlighted the Jumping bull Ranch & labeled the family’s storage cellars as “bunkers.”

Otherwise it’s just another lie destroying his shallow claims of innocence.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

*Among those are the Cornish’s, Herten’s, Randolph’s, Robideau's, Ninham's, Swearingin’s, Neame’s, MeYFaN’s, Sampson’s, LaBlanc’s, Rawson’s, Liesner’s, Stabile’s, Savoy’s, Kosky, Ellison, Frodsham’s and the Wild Horse’s, the "wannabe's," and others who are exactly the kind of supporters Peltier wants and needs. Mouths open and wide-eyed, digesting all the folklore from the Peltier camp and never understanding the facts. Not bright enough, at times, to see the contradictions in Peltier’s fables and unquestionably not courageous enough to challenge him about them either.

** Please, Peltier supporters, watch the darn film Incident at Oglala will you?  It’s on the website for crying out loud. Just click on it for Pete’s sake, that’s what it’s there for, and watch Bob Robideau (1948-2009) yak on for two minutes and fifty-two seconds describing what is one of the biggest lies in the Peltier folklore. The next scene, (and watch Leonard’s eyes as they flit back and forth), and stumbles with an explanation after he pronounces, “This story is true.” It is as much a lie today as it ever was but Peltier supporters through blind indolence just don’t get it.