PELTIER: MATTHIESSEN'S DOUBTS

Dear Supporters:*

 

Peter Matthiessen dispels Peltier’s claims of the facts and innocence

 

For the moment set aside Peltier’s years of a tapestry of lies, falsehoods and fabrications, and focus on one significant primary source in the Peltier saga, Peter Matthiessen. 

 

Matthiessen casts his own serious doubts on Peltier’s feigned innocence and his shifting versions of what happened that June day at Pine Ridge. 

 

The late Peter Matthiessen was arguably the most ardent and influential Peltier supporter since FBI Agents Coler and Williams were brutally murdered. He had unfettered access to Peltier and all the American Indian Movement members as well as his undeniably detailed research along with a multitude of interviews on both sides. Matthiessen knew of a myriad of government details from Peltier’s trial, other AIM trials and Peltier’s many lengthy detailed and conclusively telling appeals.

 

Matthiessen compiled his extensive research into “The story of Leonard Peltier and the FBI’s war on the American Indian Movement” into a 646-page epic, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (ITSOCH). ITSOCH, although densely documented and well-written, is often infused with manipulated and slanted suppositions. For Peltier and his supporters, however, ITSOCH literally remains the bible and chronology of the events surrounding that infamous June day. To this very moment on his website, Peltier proclaims “Much of the information contained on this site is derived from ‘In the Spirit of Crazy Horse’ by the renowned author Peter Matthiessen. The book is the definitive work on the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the Peltier case.” 

 

So, what does this really mean? 

 

Without question, Peltier, his committee and supporters must acknowledge and accept any and all doubts that Matthiessen expressed concerning Peltier’s version of what happened that day and frankly to Peltier’s obvious guilt:

 

White Flag of Surrender (Footnote 1)

 

One need ask why Matthiessen was prompted to include this in ITSOCH:

 

At some point not long after noon, the agent seen crawling through the car had passed out from shock and loss of blood, and his partner, less seriously wounded, had thrown his gun down and stripped off his white shirt. Perhaps he waved it as a white flag in sign of surrender, in any case he apparently attempted to rig it as a tourniquet on the shattered arm of the downed agent. (ITSOCH p.157, emphasis added)

 

From all the AIM members shooting at the agents pinned down in an open field Matthiessen was provided with considerable details, in essence all the dirty little facts and secrets that only those who were there, those who actually witnessed the unfolding tragedy could describe. These telling details were not part of the government’s prosecution of Peltier. Yet, Matthiessen dutifully embraced them.

 

Is it possible that Matthiessen simply made this up? 

 

Hardly, but perhaps Peltier would like to think so, however, doing that would undermine everything else Matthiessen has offered.

 

Someone told Matthiessen about the mortally wounded Agent Coler ‘crawling through the car,’ Agent Williams ‘had thrown down his gun’ and ‘stripped off his white shirt.’ There was absolutely no doubt that the “less wounded” (actually wounded three times), Ron Williams, did use his white shirt as a tourniquet on Jack Coler’s mangled arm. We know this, and other troubling details, from the crime scene photographs. 

(Fn. 2)  

 

How did Matthiessen come up with the premise that Agent Williams waved his shirt as a sign of surrender? Simple logic would indicate that the surviving Williams felt they were both in dire straits and the only option at that moment, to stop the attack and hopefully get medical aid, was to surrender. 

 

There were a number of witnesses that day, Peltier, Robideau, Butler and the others who all saw what remained after the initial shooting at the Agents stopped.

 

Matthiessen surely heard the same account from several, if not many sources from that day.

 

Matthiessen, being as thorough with his reporting as he was credited to be, likely felt a moral obligation, as he did in other instances, to report this very obvious and grave detail.

 

The Agents wanted to surrendered but Peltier and the others would have none of that.

 

I cannot find it

 

Over the years Peltier, aside from changing his version of the events, also offered any number of unprovable details: the Agents came roaring onto the Jumping Bull property shooting away; that this was the beginning of a planned para-military assault on the AIM camp along White Clay Creek; that there were dozens or hundreds of law enforcement surrounding the area, and as documented in writing and on film, the person they knew who was delivering dynamite to the camp that day, the phantom Mr. X, who first wounded and then killed the agents, driving off in the infamous red pickup. All provable lies. Peltier also claimed he didn’t shoot at the Agents, then admitted he fired in their direction, then again in an interview, that he did shoot at the Agents. 

 

Peltier’s lies are just that because there is one irrefutable fact that there was an eyewitness to exactly how the unprovoked attack began. Agent Williams, over the FBI radio, was trying to describe where they were, that they were about to come under fire, the shooing began and they heard him say “I’m hit.” 

 

But after all the research and fact-finding Matthiessen once again had to yield to a sense of conscience. Not only did he not buy the Mr. X fable from the beginning, he also could not contribute to Peltier’s versions of how the shooting began:

 

Matthiessen expressed doubt from the outset when he was first presented with the Mr. X story from Bob Robideau (Fn. 3). Late into ITSOCH Matthiessen provides us with this revelation:

 

…the agents pulled up in that vulnerable place down in the pasture because they heard a warning shot or came under fire; if there is another persuasive explanation of the location and position of their cars, I cannot find it. (p. 544)

 

Matthiessen offers some additional narrative with tedious speculation. He nevertheless, after all he had uncovered and learned could not escape the obvious truth, that Peltier’s versions of the event did not hold sway under honest scrutiny. Matthiessen knew all too well the words from one of the victims overheard by personnel in the Rapid City FBI office and those out on the Reservation. 

 

Almost Certainly

 

Matthiessen makes an appearance in the film Warrior: The Life of Leonard Peltier, and within a mere two minutes and thirty-seven seconds puts to rest any doubt (Fn. 4).

 

…the plight of a young man spending his life in 

prison for something he almost certainly did not do.

 

Almost Certainly? 

 

With the arrival of this film Matthiessen had been deeply involved in the Peltier narrative for fourteen years, promoting Peltier’s cause through his published tome as well as speaking openly in support.

 

Nevertheless, here is the very best he can offer; the strongest statement he could make in a filmed interview was a declaration about a crime that Peltier ‘almost certainly did not do.’

 

What was it that Matthiessen learned during these years that prevented him from proclaiming Peltier’s complete innocence? What collectively did Matthiessen uncover from Peltier and the others involved that prompted him to not firmly commit to Peltier’s innocence? Aside from mere speculations about what ifs, something prevented Matthiessen from standing inflexibly in Peltier’s corner while only offering speculation to the contrary. 

 

Perhaps, or let’s assume for the moment at least, that Matthiessen understood what really happened on June 26, 1975 and had enough conviction and conscience to allow a significant grain of truth to air his unquestioned and reasonable doubts. 

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

 

Footnotes: 

1) White flag of surrender:  http://www.noparolepeltier.com/flag.html

2) Just After Noon, June 26, 1975: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/noon.html This website would not include crime scene photographs; however, this is an artist’s rendition of what responding Agents found when they located the bodies of Special Agents Coler and Williams. Peltier was convicted of their murders by shooting them both in the face with the “Wichita AR-15.” Coler was likely unconscious but Williams was not and faced his killer as Peltier placed the muzzle of the weapon against a defensive hand, pulled the trigger, and blew his fingers through the back of his head. A horrible death and scene to anyone, excluding the cowards of Jumping Bull. Testimony at a later trial quoted Peltier saying that “The M..f.. begged for his life but I shot him anyway.” However, back to Matthiessen’s reporting; Agent Williams, shirtless, did fashion a torniquet on Agent Coler’s arm. Apart from Matthiessen’s brief description there is an obvious question to be answered. Both Agents were shot at point blank range in the face, yet their bodies were found rolled-over laying face-down. Which coward, or cowards among those present furthered the carnage by manhandling the mutilated bodies? Odds are, they all did.

3) ITSOCH p. 547: When Matthiessen was first told of the Mr. X story by Bob Robideau, this was his reaction to Robideau’s “lidded ex-con look that reveals noting.” “He gives the impression of bare honesty even when, to protect others, he is not telling the truth; that you suspect he may be lying does not bother him, since he knows that you know that he has no choice.” This is another instance where Matthiessen knows he is being lied to but continues nevertheless, thus at least, revealing serious doubts of the events and Peltier’s feigned innocence. 

4) Warrior; The Life of Leonard Peltier, 1992; https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/warrior-the-life-of-leonard-peltier-1992/ (last accessed 11/26/21)

 

*This blog was sent as follow-up letters to President Biden and many others. 

PELTIER: Senator Leahy email

Leonard Peltier does not deserve clemency

 

Dear Senator Leahy:

 

This is in response to your support of clemency for convicted multiple murderer Leonard Peltier that appeared in a recent Huffpost article. Regretfully, the Huffpost article simply repeats many of the proven falsehoods surrounding Peltier’s conviction and ironically quotes James Reynolds whose claims regarding the Peltier matter have been completely discredited. 

 

Peltier’s conviction has received numerous judicial reviews addressing all the allegations of an alleged wrongful conviction. 

 

I would urge you to have a staff member carefully review Peltier’s appellate history, a history that would be too lengthy to repeat here, however just a few of many, follow. The court decisions are available at http://www.noparolepeltier.com/court.html:

 

“The direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…” “…Peltier’s contention of manufactured evidence are far from convincing.” 

(Direct Appeal, 8^th Circuit, 9/14/78)

 

“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. That point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.” 

(8^th Circuit, 9/11/86; Peltier’s AR-15 was recovered in Wichita, Kansas)

 

“Previous federal court decisions provided the (parole) Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agents Coler and Williams.” “Neither the conviction nor any of the subsequent court decisions have been overturned.” (10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, 11/4/2003)

 

Senator Leahy, there are indeed many more significant and detailed references and conclusions by the courts – many more. 

 

If there was even one Constitutional violation in the Peltier matter, we would not be discussing it today.

 

Peltier’s crime was a heinous and brutal cold-blooded murder of two already severely wounded FBI Agents. There is absolutely no dispute concerning how the shooting at Pine Ridge started. Agent Williams was on the FBI radio telling those in the FBI Rapid City office and other Agents on the Reservation that they were about to come under fire, the shooting began, and they heard him say “I’m hit.” 

 

Agents’ Coler and Williams were critically wounded by rifle fire at a distance by Peltier and others and then, after being incapacitated, were both shot in the face at point blank range by Peltier with his AR-15. 

 

There are many things the U.S. Government can do to support our Native American population, but releasing Peltier for his despicable crimes will not correct any wrongs of the past, but instead will use the guilt of these wrongs to free a guilty multi-murderer. 

 

Peltier remains an unrepentant murderer and should continue to serve the remainder of his consecutive life sentences and the additional seven consecutive years for an armed escape. 

 

Respectfully,

Ed Woods

PELTIER: HUFFINGTON POST & CLEMENCY, November 12., 2021

Subject: Jennifer Bendery re Leonard Peltier

 

This is to provide a brief response to Jennifer Bendery’s Huffpost article regarding clemency, actually commutation, for convicted murderer Leonard Peltier.

 

If there were any, or even just one, “Constitutional violation” in Peltier’s conviction we would not be having any conversations today. The matter would have been settled long ago. The fact remains that every single allegation Peltier has raised over the years, both legal and frivolous, have been addressed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, which twice denied certiorari. Taking the time to review and understand Peltier’s lengthy appellate history clearly establishes this fact.

 

“The direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…” “…Peltier’s contention of manufactured evidence are far from convincing.” (Direct Appeal, 8^th Circuit, 9/14/78)

 

Stating that the “Prosecutors hid key evidence,” and that “They withheld ballistic evidence that proved it wasn’t Leonard’s weapon…” is simply factually untrue. A three-day evidentiary (ballistics) hearing in 1985 and another appeal to the Eighth Circuit clearly proved otherwise: “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 (Peltier’s weapon). That point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.’’ (8^th Circuit, 9/11/86)

 

The claim that President Clinton did not free Peltier because of some imagined FBI pressure is erroneous and remains imbedded in Peltier’s longstanding folklore. The real reason is much simpler and a few people know why. 

 

Relying on former U.S. Attorney, James Reynolds’s representations concerning Peltier’s conviction are grossly erroneous. Reynolds makes claims to authority and knowledge over the Peltier case that simply collapse under even the slightest scrutiny. It remains bewildering that Reynolds makes these assertions: 

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/01/peltier-reynolds-false-claims.html

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/12/james-reynolds-part-ii-letters-public.html

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/01/peltier-james-reynolds-part-iii-dancing.html

 

Was Peltier’s trial perfect? No, criminal trials rarely are, but the important question is whether he received a fair trial. “I believe he got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.” (8^th Circuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney who ruled against Peltier based on the law but nonetheless later wrote letters of support that Peltier and his committee heavily relied upon for many years.)

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/01/peltier-judge-heaney-redux.html

A true journalist, even one operating as an advocate, would be remise in not asking about his only real alibi. If Peltier is innocent as he claims, why did he assert for nearly two decades that someone else, the phantom Mr. X, killed the Agents? A claim documented in books and by Peltier’s own admission in Redford’s film, Incident at Oglala. Barely looking into the camera, Peltier states “This story is true.” Well, it wasn’t and Peltier had to walk back that lie. One of his own came forward publicly to denounce it, along with one of his own attorneys. Without surprise Peltier never mentioned Mr. X in his own autobiography, Prison Writings. A truly innocent person would not have to fabricate his only alibi. 

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2012/12/peltier-kuzma-closes-circle-much-more.html

 

Any reasonable person with even a cursory understanding of the treatment of Native Americans could not deny history, nevertheless Leonard Peltier is the last person entitled to correct the wrongs of the past. 

 

Peltier is not deserving of commutation, whether he admits to the truth of the events of that June day at Pine Ridge, or not, but must continue to serve his consecutive life sentences and the additional seven consecutive years for an armed prison escape (a fact that Peltier and his supporters want everyone to ignore and forget).

 

Peltier has arguably had more appeals than many death row inmates. Any serious review of his convictions must include a thorough understanding of the lengthy appellate process. Without that it becomes more of the same tired rhetoric and fabrications promoted by decades of folklore and myth. 

 

The above barely scratches the surface of the entire case against Leonard Peltier’s remorseless guilt. In just about every sense one can imagine, Peltier and the truth are strangers to one another.

 

"In the Spirit of Coler and Williams"

Ed Woods

Cincinnati, Ohio

PELTIER: A NEW WEBSITE

Dear Supporters:

 

Peltier remains at USP Coleman serving the remainder of his two consecutive life sentences for the brutal murder of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams, along with the additional seven consecutive years for his armed escape from Lompoc Penitentiary. The International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (ILPDC) has relocated, again, for about the sixth time, from Florida to a desktop in an apartment in Marshall, Wisconsin, along with an updated website.

 

The latest website is well done but still contains the same fabrications, misinformation and some provable lies that have been the bedrock of Peltier’s persona since his arrest in Canada on February 6, 1976. This website mirrors the same myth and folklore that has been promoted by the ever-morphing Peltier committees.

 

In other words, within the Peltier camp, and Peltier himself, nothing has changed;  peddle the same falsehoods repeated ad nauseam, only now in a more presentable format. These falsehoods and erroneous claims have been continually exposed through a lengthy appellate process. 

 

The appellate courts have not shied away from recognizing Peltier’s guilt as just a few examples clearly demonstrate:

 

“The direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…Peltier’s contention of manufactured evidence are far from convincing.”

(Direct Appeal; Eighth Circuit, 9/14/78)

 

“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.” (Eighth Circuit, 9/11/86; referencing Peltier’s AR-15)

 

“Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed.”

(Eighth Circuit, 7/7/93)

 

“The record as a whole leaves no doubt that the jury accepted the government’s theory that Peltier had personally killed the two agents, after they were seriously wounded, by shooting them at point blank range with an AR-15 rifle.”

(Rule 35 Motion, Eighth Circuit, 12/18/02)

 

And, “I believe he got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial” (Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Heaney; 1991, ’60 Minutes’ interview. Judge Heaney played a critical role in Peltier’s appellate history, and later as well. (Footnote 1)

 

* * *

 

Peltier, not likely a fisherman, nonetheless is always trolling for cash; lately through the Peltier Store or with the usual begging to help with his legal woes that all can be found in the same smelly chum bucket.

 

His, Peltier v. Joel Sacks, et. al. case, stemming from the great Tumwater, Washington paintings caper, hit a brick wall recently (Fn. 2)

 

On August 19^th a federal judge dismissed, with prejudice, Peltier’s federal civil suit.

A month later, as is his right to do so, Peltier filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (NCCA). So, what happens next? Another year delay, or longer perhaps (assuming the Ninth Circuit even entertains accepting the case), with two possible outcomes: The NCCA upholds the dismissal which means, literally, case closed, or rejects the lower court’s dismissal which then means probably another year or more as Peltier and Washington State continue their battle.

 

However, there is a much deeper problem. 

 

In dismissing Peltier’s civil suit, with prejudice (unquestionably a significant legal distinction), the District Court apparently accepted the State’s legal arguments, based on a factual finding, that Peltier had ‘no standing’ to bring the civil suit forward in the first place. It was undisputed that the paintings displayed in the government facility in Tumwater, Washington did not belong to Leonard Peltier; a fact that was not initially brought to the court’s attention. Peltier had given the artwork to the ILPDC and it is a hypothetical supposition whether the ILPDC could even bring similar action against Washington State.

 

Yet, Peltier appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the case will likely end there.

 

Peltier tells us he will try again for parole. Let’s hope he finds a better attorney this time because the last one made a public statement that was arguably the dumbest statement in the entire history of the Peltier saga.

 

On July 28, 2009, before a small group gathered outside the concrete walls of Lewisburg Penitentiary, the attorney made this outlandish comment:

 

“…they (the FBI and government) don’t have any creativity, they don’t come up with anything new. They don’t have any greater ability to explain their justification for their position. It’s a very wooden position, kill an FBI agent and live the rest of your life in prison.”

 

A first semester law student could recognize the fallacy of such a baseless argument. The Government, (unlike Peltier over the years changing his version of the events of June 26, 1975), has no need to come up with anything new beyond Peltier’s Fargo trial, conviction and numerous appeals. The ‘government,’ that obviously escaped the attorney’s troubled logic, repeatedly, over the course of many appeals, explained in great detail their justification for Peltier’s conviction and continued incarceration. Throughout that entire process Peltier’s conviction and sentence has never been altered. Nevertheless, the attorney did get one thing right; if someone brutally murders a law enforcement officer then logic dictates that spending one’s life in prison, is justified. 

 

Noted at the bottom of the new homepage is the repeated reminder that:

 

“Much of the information contained on this site is derived from ‘In the Spirit of Crazy Horse’ by renowned author Peter Matthiessen…He is a highly respected author and his works have received wide acclaim.”

 

To reiterate an infamous phrase; depending on what the meaning of the word is, is, perhaps the ILPDC should point out that Mr. Matthiessen passed away seven years ago, April 5, 2014 to be exact. Matthiessen did attend Peltier’s 2009 Lewisburg parole hearing, but nevertheless his seminal work was not without serious criticism. Matthiessen “is utterly unconvincing, indeed embarrassingly sophomoric, when he pleads the legal innocence of individual Indian criminals…and not only fails to convince; he inadvertently makes a strong case for Mr. Peltier’s guilt.” (Legal scholar and Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz, New York Times book review, 1983.)

 

The homepage of the updated website carries forward a more recent fallacy from 2017:

 

“James Reynolds Former US Attorney said (The Guardian 01/04/2017) of Leonard, “You’re not really participating in the crime yourself. Just because you’re there, you’re going to get nailed.” Citing Peltier’s motives, Reynolds added, “He didn’t go out there with the intention to kill anybody. He was trying to protect his people”

 

The Guardian article barely scratches the surface of the facts behind the outrageous public claims made by James H. Reynolds. That could explain why the ILPDC didn’t go further into the alleged authority over the Peltier case that Reynolds’ claimed. Claims, that upon even a casual examination simply evaporated. To state that Reynolds was disingenuous, confused or distracted would be much too mild of a criticism of his public assertions, because they were transparently untrue. Rather than rehashing the Reynolds fiasco here, and to demonstrate that Reynolds, the interloper dancing on the graves of two murdered and mutilated human beings, please take a moment and see the following (Fn. 3).

 

According to the new website, Peltier’s thirty-three week effort to raise cash for his legal fund has reached an astonishing 36% of its goal, which pretty well demonstrates the continued lack of interest within his support structure. Maybe folks like bantering his name about, waving some posters and banners, but when it comes down to it, hands seem to get stuck in pockets and although Peltier has had some very capable attorneys, good pro bono attorneys are hard to find, and keep.

 

At least in the begging arena Peltier has avoided the previously repeated canard that giving money to him was “tax-deductible.” That is gone, finally, or for now at least, by the wayside. Perhaps those prior attempts at tax-deductible donations were finally noted by the I.R.S. 

(Fn. 4)

 

The last thing Peltier may be is a charity case. What he is though is a convicted felon who remains, despite his personal travails and alligator tears of innocence, guilty and an unrepentant convicted murderer. (Fn. 5)

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

 

 

Footnotes:

1)The Heaney factor: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/10/

2) Leonard Peltier, Chauncey Peltier v. Joel Sacks, et. al., #C17-5209-JCC.

Review of early history of the Washington State case:

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/09/

See also ‘Reply in support of State Defendants motion for summary judgment,’ noting date, January 22, 2021, 3:17-cv-05209-JCC, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Tacoma.

3) James H. Reynolds: Part 1

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/01/peltier-reynolds-false-claims.html

Part 2 http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/12/james-reynolds-part-ii-letters-public.html

Part 3 http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/01/peltier-james-reynolds-part-iii-dancing.html

Reynolds follow up: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2021/06/

4) I.R.S. and 501(c)3: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/01/peltier-public-charity-part-2-inurement.html

Tax deductible issues:

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/10/peltier-tax-deductible-legal-issues.html

5) Why Peltier is the worst: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/03/

SA Ronald A. Williams, June 26, 1975, R.I.P.

Dear Supporters:

Today, July 30, Ron would have celebrated his seventy-fourth birthday. 

He would have been long retired from the Bureau and perhaps retired again from a second career like so many of us have. 

 

Ron likely would be enjoying his golden years showering grandchildren with affection and spoiling them as grandparents are expected and prone to do. 

 

Since Ron was a pilot, and loved flying, perhaps he would still be enjoying those short flights for the proverbial twenty-five dollar hamburger, even if they are now closer to two-hundred. 

But none of those wishes and dreams of the future happened but for a chance encounter with the cowards on the Jumping Bull farm at Pine Ridge in the summer of 1975.

 

In the ensuing years many more Agents and law-enforcement men and women have paid the ultimate price and sacrifice in the line of duty. But from what we know of Ron’s pleasant personality, warm demeanor and strong and unwavering character, it’s more likely than not he would be benevolent to those at Jumping Bull. Perhaps that comes with the wisdom of being able to look down upon us all with wisdom and clarity. 

 

Our thoughts and prayers continue for the entire Williams family and all those who knew him as the fine young man he was, and will always be to us. As we remember him today he is still that same wonderful person.

 

Ron’s spirit lives on as those who remain will continue to remember and honor his sacrifice, as well as his partner, Jack.

 

Keep watching over us Ron, now more than ever we need a special guardian angel. 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

PELTIER: "Is a forgotten story" & James Reynolds

Dear Supporters:

 

In a recent post begging, as usual, for more cash and accompanied this time with a video, Peltier is falling way short of his goal to pay his attorneys for work on possible parole, transfer to another facility, clemency and his Washington State case.

 

By Peltier’s account the money-well is all but dried up, but at least he’s not claiming that donations are ‘tax deductible.’ Maybe Peltier finally learned a lesson from the IRS (Footnote 1). However, there is still a lingering allusion from Peltier’s message that the convicted felon appears to be running a business from federal prison and we have to wonder if taxes are being paid on these donations.

 

Peltier has to ask himself what happened to all his prior attorneys. Many in the beginning and during lengthy appeals were paid by the largesse of the American taxpayer. Many provided pro bono support, without success, and with little gratitude from Peltier. The latest ones apparently want their billable hours covered.

 

As for a transfer to a prison closer to the Turtle Mountain Reservation, does Peltier really need an attorney? He can make his request directly to the Bureau of Prisons.

 

Parole? Although entitled to parole review hearings every two years, most of which he declined to pursue, it was evident from his 2009 hearing at Lewisburg that the Parole Commission has little sympathy for a convicted double murderer and flopped him for fifteen years, which brings him at least to July 2024. (Fn. 2)

 

James Reynolds; A closer look

 

Peltier offered that “Even the former US Attorney James Reynolds has called for Leonard’s release.”

 

Reynolds certainly had the right to express his opinion about Peltier and clemency. However, his public statements remain severely inaccurate. Reynolds claimed that he had “directed” the appellate process, though, in reality, while allegedly doing so, in some abnormal and bizarre manner Reynolds crossed both State lines and federal judicial boundaries. 

 

No one is saying that Reynolds lied about his connection to the Peltier case but his actual involvement, according to the record of Peltier’s prosecution, clearly demonstrates that Reynolds either utterly exaggerated his perceived authority, unequivocally misremembered or just did not care about what actually occurred.

 

The facts speak for themselves and support that Reynolds’s claim of “directing” the Peltier prosecution is a “gross misstatement of the record,” and that there was “no conversation of any kind,” and that Reynolds “contributed nothing what-so-ever to what went into the final brief on Direct Appeal or into any of the subsequent government briefs resisting Peltier’s numerous attempts to obtain Post Conviction Relief.” 

 

Peltier and the ILPDC are invited to review the actual events and facts concerning Reynolds public statements. Reynolds, the actual interloper, offered unsupportable public comments that bordered on the extreme. (Fn. 3)

 

* * *

 

In the accompanying video in Peltier’s latest missive, Harry Belafonte said it best, “Leonard Peltier is a forgotten story.” 

 

But the memory of Jack Coler and Ron Williams certainly is not.

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

 

Footnotes:

1) Tax-deductible issues: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/10/peltier-tax-deductible-legal-issues.html

2) Parole hearing; Lewisburg http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#paroledenied

3) Reynolds:

Part 1, Three part series regarding the facts and the alleged authority Reynolds claimed in the Peltier case:  http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/01/peltier-reynolds-false-claims.html

Part II: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/12/james-reynolds-part-ii-letters-public.html

Part III: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/01/peltier-james-reynolds-part-iii-dancing.html