Saturday, November 26, 2022


 Dear Supporters: 


Is Leonard Peltier’s latest attorney, Kevin H. Sharp, acting in the best interests of his client?


What follows describes the reasons why the NPPA is convinced he is not.


The answer to this central question, as Sharp continues to promote provable falsehoods, would be based on either of two assumptions:


One is that for some inexplicable reason an attorney and former federal judge has failed to grasp the facts.


The other is that he does understand that he is provably wrong, but that it matters little in his blind pursuit to attempt to secure Peltier’s release.


Sharp, as a Peltier activist, and like Peltier himself, has become a public figure. As such he is held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. Sharp’s many public statements are thus subject to scrutiny to explore why he is incapable of comprehending a fairly simple and straight-forward factual conclusion. 


What follows challenges—once again—the repeated refrain from Kevin Sharp, that the government changed its theory of its prosecution during Peltier’s lengthy appellate process to one of Aiding and Abetting. In other words—after Peltier’s conviction and during his appeals.


Aiding and Abetting is not the only issue Sharp has adulterated.[i]


It is unmistakable that Sharp cannot claim any credit for mouthing what is an obvious fallacy. He is certainly not that creative or possessing extraordinary legal acumen, at least in the Peltier case. Why? Because, this Aiding and Abetting delusion has been around for years—three decades actually—before Sharp crawled into the Peltier teepee. 


Previous Peltier attorneys, seeing what they believed was a legal opportunity and weakness in the government’s case, initially attempted the ‘changed the government theory’ approach for the first time in 1991.[ii] It failed miserably, of course. According to the court it was a “fatally flawed” argument and all Sharp did was purloin their legal failure. The original effort was attempted collectively by five (5) Peltier attorneys.[iii]  Perhaps Sharp, as he has done publicly already—criticizing prior Peltier related judges—believes he is more capable than all these prior attorneys as well.[iv] Actually, and to the contrary, even the Court of Appeals recognized that Peltier “was equally well-represented at trial and on appeal.” (8th Circuit, 9/14/78). 


How can Sharp promote, misinterpret or misunderstand this Aiding and Abetting falsehood when the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993 clearly dismissed this issue.


Supporters, whether attorneys or not, if at least familiar with basic criminal law procedures and the justice system or can understand straight-forward and plain text language, are strongly encouraged to review the entire decision for themselves. [v]


The highlighted words that follow are impossible to misinterpret or fail to understand. Sharp succumbs to the axiom that People are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.


It is impossible to conclude that, in all the circumstances, (AUSA) Crooks…intended…to abandon one of the two theories upon which the government had tried the case and upon which the case was submitted to the jury. (i.e., Alternative theories; murder and aiding and abetting)


“For the second time, the appellant, Leonard Peltier, seeks by a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (1988) to set aside his 1977 conviction for the premeditated 1975 murder of two agents… The district court denied relief, ruling that (1) the record does not support Peltier‘s contention that an alleged concession by government counsel during oral argument before this court in the prior section 2255 appeal resulted in a change in the theory of the government’s case and, therefore, produced a conviction that could not be supported by the evidence introduced at trial and…”. 


(Peltier Trial; Defense opening argument; Tr. at 34)

Finally, if as the government has told you they will prove or expect to prove that one or more people shot and killed these two agents at very close range, it will be important for you to be able to determine whether anybody not actually close in, was around the edges, either knew this was taking place or was supporting or aiding and abetting them in some way, that would make them culpable


(8th Circuit Opinion) 

Defense counsel urged the court to require the government to elect between the two theories. The court responded: ”It seems to me the government’s response was to present all of the available relevant evidence and it‘s up to the jury to make the determination on the basis of that evidence whether one or {F.2d 467} either of these situations [occurred].“ Tr. at 3449.


Both the government and the defense submitted proposed jury instructions on aiding and abettingDefense counsel, however, urged the court not to give the jury any aiding and abetting instruction. In response, the government supported such instruction:


With regard to the area of aiding and abetting, I would state that aiding and abetting is helping. Aiding and abetting is seeing to it or assisting someone in the commission of a crime. Now even if the jury did not believe that the defendant himself walked up to the agents and shot them from close range, from one foot or point blank range, they could nevertheless believe beyond a reasonable doubt under the state of the evidence that the defendant helped the person who did and the government is not required under the law in the eighth circuit to prove that this defendant actually pulled the trigger if the defendant is responsible in aiding and abetting. There is evidence to show circumstantial evidence by his contact both before and after the offense to prove that he aided and abetted those who were involved with him. (Tr. at 4929-30)


The (District) court gave the jury four instructions on aiding and abetting. Instruction Number 38 explained: ”The burden is on the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that the offenses were committed as alleged in the indictment, but that the defendant was the person who committed them, or aided and abetted the person or persons who committed them. (8th Circuit opinion)


On direct appeal this court, in outlining the evidence, stated: ”Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the strongest evidence that Peltier committed or aided and abetted the murders is as follows . . . .“ 585 F.2d at 319 (footnote omitted).

The foregoing discussion establishes beyond question that from the beginning of this case through its submission to the jury (1) the government pursued alternative theories -- that Peltier either himself directly killed the two agents, or aided and abetted others in doing so, (2) the defense was fully aware of these alternative theories and unsuccessfully attempted to compel the government to elect between them, and (3) the district court recognized the alternative theories and charged the jury in accordance with them.


Peltier contends that by stating ”we can‘t prove who shot those agents,“ government counsel conceded that the government had not proved that Peltier personally shot the FBI agents, and that he thereby recognized that the only basis for supporting Peltier’s conviction was that he aided and abetted the murders.


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


It is unmistakable that Aiding and Abetting, from the very beginning, was not only on the table but integral to the prosecution. 


What Sharp is accomplishing by his public campaigning is only harming his client by repeating claims that have been consistently rejected. In other words, he risks becoming just another shill promoting the tired and threadbare Peltier myth and folklore. No mystery, no secrets, no magic, yet the provable falsehood is repeated as if saying it enough times will make it true. 


Sharp is hamstrung because he is unable, and by inference, unwilling, to tell the truth and the whole story. Either way, it would be devastating to Peltier and the alleged ‘political prisoner’ narrative.[vi]


“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods



With cover letter via FedEx



Including, among others: alleged 60 murders of AIM members, killing of Joe Stuntz, Peltier extradition from Canada, the .223 shell casing and FBI Laboratory teletype, referencing the discredited James H. Reynolds, misrepresenting the Myrtle Poor Bear episode and alleged Constitutional violations.


William M. Kunstler, Eric A. Seitz, Lawrence W. Schilling, Ramsey Clark, and Bruce “I’ll take the Fifth” Ellison.

[iv] Kevin Sharp publicly demeans former federal judges who heard and ruled on Peltier’s case:

[v] United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 997 F.2d 461, 1993 U.S. App. Decision July 7, 1993, Filed


Dispelling the spurious claim and myth that Peltier is a political prisoner.

Monday, October 31, 2022


Dear Supporters:


The question to ask is how naive does the International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (ILPDC) believe Peltier supporters really are? Or, to ask another way, to what length will the ILPDC go to perpetuate the false Peltier narrative? [1]


This is only one of many factually inaccurate claims, which is too kind a description, but peddling Peltier lies from the myth playbook is precisely their intention. 


On this page, [2] from the Who is Leonard Peltier websitethere is a statement that reads:


FBI Memorandum

Observation of the Need to “Shoot and/or

Interview” Norman Brown When Located.


That statement, which makes no practical or literary sense, links to a document. Opening the document there is an editorial note which makes even less sense, as it is also misleading.


On April 18, 1977 Leonard Peltier was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. Later, because of FOIA documents that were released the government would attempt to change its theory to “aiding and abetting” in order to maintain Peltier’s conviction. 


(Using the verb “attempt” contradicts Peltier’s attorney Kevin H. Sharp’s repeated public claim that the government, according to Sharp, did change its theory.)


This linked document is actually a transcribed portion of the verdict in Peltier’s trial.


But what happened to “Shoot and/or Interview” Norman Brown? He’s not there! Even if the ILPDC did offer some other document, it is implausible that an FBI document exists promoting to “shoot or interview” anyone. Such a claim is senseless. 


One would think that Peltier, the ILPDC and particularly Kevin H. Sharp would want to offer, at a minimum, more accurate theories to its supporters and the public. 


As for the “Aiding and Abetting” issue, the ILPDC and Attorney Sharp are grossly inaccurate by offering factually unsupportable statements claiming that the government changed its theory of Peltier’s prosecution—after—Peltier was convicted.[3] In other words, during Peltier’s lengthy appellate process. Nonetheless, this issue was definitively settled by the courts.


This same page continues with additional distortions. There are ten (10) frames labeled “Other Suspects” with linked documents, each with additional editorial notes. “Other suspects” is pointless with no relevance to Peltier’s eventual conviction. The ILPDC hasn’t figured out that there are always “other suspects” in criminal cases of this magnitude. Jimmy Eagle, for one, received a lot of attention in the Reservation Murders investigation. Any other individuals were eliminated as suspects as Peltier’s guilt became more evident, which ultimately led to an indictment, trial and conviction, with numerous appeals that only reinforced his guilt. As a result, Peltier’s conviction and sentence have never been altered. 


And unless Sharp and the ILPDC needed reminding, on more than one occasion Peltier admitted his involvement. In a sworn affidavit Peltier stated, “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.” (Emphasis added) [4]


Further links indicate: “FBI Teletype Shows the .223 Shell Casing Was Not Compatible With the ‘Wichita AR-15.’ ” This statement is taken completely out of context and skews the actual timeline. This matter was unconditionally resolved with a three-day ballistics hearing in the District Court and before and after with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, all of which were ruled against Peltier’s interests. “When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.” 8th Circuit, September 11, 1986. (Emphasis added) 


Inconsistencies in the FBI’s story are noted.” This entry links to nineteen (19) lines of Peltier trial transcript testimony along with a note, “During Peltier’s trial the prosecution’s witness and AIM member Michael Anderson testified of FBI coercion.” Hardly inconsistencies. Native witnesses Swore on the Pipe and acknowledged that their testimony was truthful. For a detailed and comprehensive review of the Critical Witnesses Against Peltier; Michael Anderson, Wilford Draper, Norman Brown and Angie Long Visitor, see footnote.[5]  


Several additional entries regarding statements from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission may be of interest to Peltierites, but hold no sway in Peltier’s conviction. Peltier’s numerous appeals, and the court decisions on the merits, are controlling. 


All this on just one page of Who is Leonard Peltier, and there is no mystery of exactly who and what Leonard Peltier is, an unrepentant, cold-blooded convicted murderer.


“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

[1] Peltier’s committees have morphed several times over at least the last two decades. Much of the Peltier material pushed by the original Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) was carried forward by later committees and websites without fundamental vetting, review or revision. Thus, the perpetual inaccuracies.

[2] Last accessed 10/28/2022. Duly noted to see if the ILPDC can correct at least this one obvious flaw.

[4] Peltier’s sworn Clemency Application, February 17, 2016. This ends with the following attribution; “I do solemnly swear that the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.”  Obviously, difficult for the ILPDC and Sharp to grasp; 'participating' and 'aiding and abetting' are synonymous.

[5] Critical Witnesses against Peltier.


Friday, October 7, 2022


Dear Supporters:


The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, (WGAD) published a document, June 7, 2022, calling for the release of convicted murderer, Leonard Peltier.[1]


It will become evident that although this U.N. document supports Peltier’s release, a thorough review provides conflicting conclusions. The WGAD quite simply offers an ‘opinion’ and ‘recommendations’ regarding Peltier’s conviction and incarceration while making demands on the United States government. 


The WGAD, with all its many evidentiary and factual flaws, appears to have relied on a singular source. It mentions “the source” sixty (60) times in its seventeen page, 110 paragraph and 49 footnoted attempt to make Peltier into something he certainly is not; an alleged political prisoner who should be released from the U.S. Penitentiary, Coleman, Florida.[2]


The WGAD (and the SHS, further described below) makes a fatal error by providing the very proof that negates their underlying argument; the amount of time Peltier should continue to be incarcerated. More on this follows.


The first question to ask: Who exactly is “The Source” they so heavily relied upon?


Although there is no definitive proof of the WGAD apparent single source, the circumstantial evidence is ‘open and obvious’ about where many of their details originated. 


There is an Internet link to Sanford, Heisler, Sharp LLP, (SHS); none other than Kevin Sharp’s law firm.[3] It includes an article entitled, “Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calls for the immediate release of Leonard Peltier.” Above the title is the SHS logo and immediately below is the notation; “July 26, 2022, 10:33 ET; Source: Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP.” This is the first obvious clue to the WGAD’s source.


Based on the SHS public statement, it becomes logical to assume—and for this purpose—it is the opinion that Kevin Sharp is the WGAD source. 


Within the SHS (Sharp’s) post, there are several provably false assertions. All these spurious claims have been rebutted ad nauseum over the past twenty-two years, by factually challenging Peltier, his various committees and attorneys. 


An obvious example, constantly repeated by Peltier and others, and rebutted with factual proof, is Sharp’s frequent allegation that “…on appeal, prosecutors switched to an ‘aiding and abetting theory…” Repeating this a thousand more times will never make it true, because the Court has spoken very clearly about this canard. Sharp, Peltier and Peltierites can believe that in their minds this is a valid argument to make; but it is not. So, once more, to literally waste the time and ink, we will repeat and counter this yet again, because, in just about every sense one could imagine, Peltier and the truth are strangers to one another. 


In 1993 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals could not have been more transparent; they could not have made this point any more precise than when they concluded:


It is impossible to conclude that, in all the circumstances (AUSA) Crooks…intended…to abandon one of the two theories upon which the government had tried the case and upon which the case was submitted to the jury.[4]


This statement was part of the same “fatally flawed” decision dismantling another one of Peltier’s defective appeals.


So why does it continue to be one of the incessant mantras of Peltier, and now Kevin Sharp? Lord only knows, but perhaps in this instance, advocacy has become so blinded, that to them, facts are meaningless, or at best, irrelevant or an annoyance. 


The SHS/Sharp post includes a statement that conflicts with what Peltier had previously offered as proof to President Obama supporting that he was entitled to clemency:


“Since his (Peltier’s) conviction was upheld on little more than evidence demonstrating that he was present at the reservation on the day of the 



“That he was present?” Really? This claim raises another serious conundrum for Mr. Sharp.


Perhaps Peltier has forgotten, or maybe Sharp ignored, Peltier’s previous February 17, 2016 clemency petition where he then offered a telling and damning admission. In Part 1 of that petition, entitled, of all things, Remorse, he memorialized for both the legal record and President Obama:


“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.” [5]


So, which is it? Sharp’s inaccurate and questionable claim that Peltier was only ‘present,’ or Peltier’s admission, in writing, to the President of the United States, that he participated? Sharp would undoubtedly favor the former, but the latter is forever etched in stone.

No matter to what degree Peltier and Sharp want to argue a negative, is it too difficult to grasp the nexus between admitted participation at Jumping Bull and the elements of Aiding and Abetting?  Do they not comprehend the connection; participation in the events at Jumping Bull equates to nothing less than, Aiding and Abetting; Title 18 USC § 2.[6]


However, do Sharp and Peltier want to be reminded of an even more significant public statement from Peltier? Likely not.


“I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I looked at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile.[7]


“He gave me a smile,” as Joe Stuntz steals Agent Coler’s FBI jacket while two dead and mutilated human beings lay at their feet. This, without question, places at least Peltier and Stuntz participating at the crime scene.  A fact Peltier and Sharp cannot refute, and within this context, it is surely not that complicated.


There are other flaws in the SHS/Sharp public statement, but it’s time to return to the United Nations’ fallacies in the WGAD document, beginning with another glaring issue.


* * *


The WGAD’s references to their principal source came with some qualification and skepticism as they clarify; “The source claims, The source reports, from the source, according to the source, the source notes, The source adds, the source recalls, The source’s allegations, Additional comments from the source, and The source asserts.”


The WGAD contains numerous errors but the first question to ask is why Paragraph #8 contains this statement:


However, his (Peltier’s) case was moved, at the Government’s request, to a judge who had previously presided over a criminal trial that was overturned as a result of his use of anti-indigenous stereotypes in his instruction to the jury.”


This reference—dutifully carried forward from a prior U.N. report—relates to Peltier’s trial judge, who also ruled on subsequent Peltier motions; the Honorable Paul Benson.


This case reference is to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Lavallie, decided December 18, 1981. 


Lavallie was convicted of “carnal knowledge of a female under 16 years of age.” The trial was presided over by USDC Judge Paul Benson. Lavallie appealed his conviction to the 8th Circuit on three grounds, two of which were dismissed. However, regarding jury instruction No. 16 “voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime of carnal knowledge such as charged in the indictment,” the appellate court held that “In the present case we find that the intoxication instruction so prejudiced Lavallie’s case as to deny his right to a fair trial.” The conviction was reversed and remanded back to the district court. 


In order to clarify and repudiate this shallow assault on Judge Benson’s judicial expertise, the 8th Circuit did not ‘dismiss’ Lavallie’s case ‘with prejudice,’ which would have ended the matter entirely, precluding Lavallie from being tried again, and as such, leaving an indelible mark on Judge Benson’s judicial record.  


Instead, Lavallie’s case was ‘reversed,’ meaning the lower court was simply incorrect on this one issue, but that Lavallie could be tried again. Whether he was or not is immaterial and this obviously minor error, in the grand scheme of judicial actions, was not, as is being implied to the contrary, a significant issue. 


To be clear, the inclusion of the Lavallie decision had but one purpose, to demean Judge Paul Benson, and by inference, cast doubt on the validity or fairness of Peltier’s conviction. 


In addition to this claim against Judge Benson, Peltier attorney Kevin Sharp, made public statements denigrating all the judges who rendered decisions during Peltier’s lengthy appellate history, the details of which are reviewed and available here.[8]


Judge Benson was the Chief Judge of the District of North Dakota from 1971 to 1986. Including later senior status, he served honorably for thirty-three years; over five times that of attorney Sharp’s federal judgeship. No other reversals of Judge Benson’s judicial tenure could be located, yet, for the purpose of promoting Peltier, this appears in the U.N. Document.


These comments were also purposely intended to distract from the fact that none of Leonard Peltier’s appeals of judge Benson’s Peltier decisions were reversed on appeal by the Eighth Circuit. One issue was remanded back to Judge Benson’s district court for an evidentiary (ballistics) hearing. A three-day hearing was conducted with Judge Benson rendering an opinion against Peltier’s interests. That opinion was appealed and upheld. 


(Further, with no less irony of Sharp’s personal and public animosity toward Peltier related judges; Eighth Circuit judge, Theodore McMillian, who ruled in the Lavallie case, also concurred in a July 7, 1993, opinion against Peltier.)


* * *

Among the many factually unsupportable and provably false claims within the WGAD report, what follows are just some examples (with paragraph references):


#5        (“From the Source”) “Mr. Peltier suffers…kidney disease, a heart condition, diabetes, high blood pressure, bone spurs, a degenerative joint disease, shortness of breath and dizziness, painful injuries to his jaw and near blindness in one eye due to a stroke. Several of these conditions put Mr. Peltier at high risk of death from coronavirus disease (COVID 19) while detained.” 


On September 12, 2022 Peltier turned 78. By all accounts, he’s elderly, which brings with it the expected challenges of the human condition. The average life expectancy today for non-Hispanic, males is currently 76. According to a recent study by the Center for Disease Control, Native American males die at an earlier age, averaging 71 years. (An assumption here is that perhaps most of these Native Americans live on Reservations which may contribute to the shortened lifespan.) Peltier, on the other hand, has exceeded his native brethren while incarcerated.  He has undergone by-pass surgery, been treated for many ailments and recovered after contracting Covid-19 this past January. In the grand scheme of life, Peltier is paradoxically ahead. 


However, the real point here is that Jack Coler and Ron Williams are DEAD; attacked, mortally wounded, then brutally executed by a remorseless murderer. A killer who described the shooting (in later sworn witness testimony during an unrelated trial describing Agent Williams final moments): “The M….. …..r was begging for his life but I shot him anyway.”  [9]  Jack and Ron would have chosen to live full lives; lives that were ruthlessly stolen, and to deal with the predicable challenges of aging. Peltier, however, is still alive to complain and seek sympathy and freedom he does not deserve.   


#8        “The source claims…Peltier was convicted…on the basis of evidence that was later discovered to have been manufactured. A ballistics report…”


False. Although Peltier did receive documents pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, there is nothing in the district or appellate record that supports Peltier’s claim and contention that any evidence was “manufactured.” [10]  


#25, 26, 27  “Nevertheless, although Mr. Peltier’s conduct during incarceration has been exemplary for more than four decades…He was the target of an attempted assassination plot in 1979.”

False, as well as misleading.  Although mentioning the July 20, 1979, completely fabricated and alleged government plot to assassinate Peltier, one not so minor point of his armed escape was that guards were shot at with weapons staged outside the prison walls. Further, the deceptive “four decades” “exemplary” claim ignores at least one instance, and there were more periods of solitary confinement (for which Sharp offers shallow excuses), and is quite possibly the reason why Peltier wound up at USP Coleman.[11] [12] In 1979 Peltier was re-captured after five days, tried, convicted and received a consecutive seven-year sentence.


#30      “…Killing of more than 60 indigenous people on the Pine Ridge Reservation between, 1973 and June 1975.”


            False. This decades-old fable, now being nurtured by Kevin Sharp, is just part of the Peltier-AIM folklore. Refuting this fiction dates back to July 2000.[13]


#31      “The source notes that the examiner…intended to punish Mr. Peltier for actions committed by an unknown person because the killer appeared to have been part of his indigenous group.”  


            It is strangely odd, bewildering and bordering on bizarre, that Kevin Sharp would make even a passing reference to Peltier’s second biggest lie. This relates to the nearly two-decade fabrication and Peltier’s only alibi that someone they knew, the phantom Mr. X in the infamous red pickup, killed the Agents. One of Peltier’s AIM cohorts (Dino Butler) and even one of his own attorneys (Michael Kuzma), publicly admitted that Mr. X was a hoax. Much has been written about Mr. X, and early-on, in Robert Redford’s Incident at Oglala film, Peltier stated, “This story is true.”[14] It never was. By Sharp even broaching this demonstrates a serious lack of common sense and flawed judgement emanating from an overly zealous and distorted sense of advocacy. Nevertheless, rather than waste any more time on Mr. X, the details are available here [15]. However, beyond Mr. X, we cannot ignore or forget Peltier’s Big Lie.[16]


 #33     “A Bureau memorandum from April 1975 showed that it was preparing to engage in armed confrontation with the Movement.”


            False and utterly absurd.  This relates to the infamous “Sanctioned Memo” that has been the topic of Peltier fiction for decades. Anyone, with even an ounce of common sense and the ability to read, can understand the purpose of this government Memo that had nothing to do with “preparing to engage,” but was a position paper on the difficulties managing multi-jurisdictional incidents, specifically like Wounded Knee II in 1973.[17]


#35      “On 16 December 2000 (sic), around 500 Federal Bureau of Investigation agents marched near the White House…Bureau agents had never made such a public and virulent display against the potential release of a prisoner. The protesters delivered…signatures of more than 8,000 current and former Bureau agents.”


            As it turned out, on December 15, 2000, this writer was there that day. There were closer to 700 and all took personal time to attend; there were over 10,000 signatures on petitions expressing the reasons why President Clinton should not release Peltier. That day was not “virulent” by any measure. To the contrary, proper permits were obtained and it was a dignified procession around the ellipse to the White House with agents in business attire. The double-line of Agents was preceded with a banner “In Memory, June 26, 1975” and large photos of Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams. It was silent and dignified, and without question nothing like AIM or Peltier supported virulent demonstrations. An Agent representative was allowed into the White House to deliver the large binders of petitions. 


This was an unusual event. Nevertheless, with the dignity they displayed, as American citizens, the Agents had every right to express their First Amendment rights that the unrepentant murderer of two of their own should continue his consecutive life sentences. 


#44      “Such a finding (murder vs. aiding and abetting) would have violated the United States extradition treaty with Canada, which requires that the crime with which a person is charged in the United States be the crime upon which that person was extradited.” 


            False. WGAD and Sharp need to reassess their faulty logic and reexamine this erroneous claim. Murder, by treaty, is an extraditable offense.[18] The Canadian government made it appropriately clear why Peltier was extradited. “In my opinion, given the test for committal for extradition referred to above, the circumstantial evidence presented at the extradition hearing, taken 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 Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.”


Quite simply, Peltier was lawfully extradited for murder.[19]


#52      “Mr. Peltier has accomplished substantial charitable and advocacy work while incarcerated.”


            This is utter nonsense, exaggerated and engrained in the myth and folklore. Peltier has repeatedly made alleged claims of philanthropic activities that do not hold up to even casual scrutiny. Aside from erroneously claiming that donations to an incarcerated felon are “tax-deductible” (a fraudulent claim, that with little doubt the I.R.S. was notified and took action), Peltier’s alleged charitable activates and “fund-raising” have been monitored and largely dispelled for years.[20]


#67      “…the Government does not dispute that Mr. Peltier has engaged in charitable work during his incarceration…”


            Really? WGAD and Sharp would have to provide any proof that the U.S. Government has made such a claim. The probability is that this is not a factual or true statement but more likely that the government was never asked, nor commented, on Peltier’s alleged “charitable work.” Certainly though, others have questioned Peltier’s shallow claims.


69.       “Lastly, one of the prosecutors recently explained that the prosecution theory changed at least three times during Mr. Peltier’s trial and appeals.”


            False. This references a December 20, 2021 opinion piece by Jonathan P. Baird.[21] It should come as no surprise that nowhere in Baird’s pathetically inaccurate drivel is there any mention of “the prosecution theory changed at least three times…” The WGAD penned, albeit apparently deliberately, yet another falsehood to add to the Peltier lexicon of myths. 


            Baird does reference another even faultier source of Peltier noise, former U.S. Attorney, James H. Reynolds. Reynolds has been repeatedly brought to task and challenged to defend any of his alleged involvement in Peltier’s prosecution or the laundry list of alleged claims of a wrongful conviction. Baird and Reynolds are utterly unconvincing—indeed embarrassingly sophomoric when making claims on behalf of Peltier’s innocence or right to a commuted sentence.[22]


Parole Commission


The WGAD, and “the Source,” Kevin Sharp, provide many details regarding Peltier’s history with the U.S. Parole Commission. Assuming that some, most, or all these details are accurate; and based on previous public statements from the Peltier camp, the presumption is that they are not, then the obvious recourse is to litigate these alleged claims of Parole Commission violations. 


* * *


In conclusion, what follows are several of the WGAD’s apparently honest statements regarding Peltier’s legal status and the major fault in the WGAD and Kevin H. Sharp’s argument for Peltier’s commutation:


            The Working Group emphasized its purpose is not to substitute itself for the national authorities. It refrains from examining matters that are for the national authorities to determine. #75. (i.e., the United States and the Department of Justice.)


While the sentence currently being served by Mr. Peltier is extremely long and appears to be significantly longer than those being served in similar cases in which other detainees were granted parole, the Working Group is not convinced that this renders his detention arbitrary and without legal basis. The two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment imposed on Mr. Peltier—whether imposed for an offence categorized as murder or aiding and abetting—relate to the death of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who were shot with a firearman extremely serious offence.” #78. (Emphasis added.)


            “The source has established a credible case that Mr. Peltier is experiencing significant health issues and is at high risk of COVID-19 complications. However, the Working Group is not convinced that his detention lacks legal basis. The legal basis for Mr. Peltier’s detention remains his conviction at trial, confirmed on appeal, that he was responsible for the death of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents.” #83 (Emphasis added.)


            “For these reasons, the Working Group is unable to find that Mr. Peltier’s detention is arbitrary under category 1.” #84  


            The Working Group does not condone the killing of law enforcement officers and this opinion should not be understood as in any way minimizing the gravity of the events that took place in 1975 in South Dakota, which led to Mr. Peltier’s conviction.” #100 (Emphasis added.)


Can these statements by the WGAD be any clearer that they recognize Peltier’s guilt?


* * *


The WGAD concludes in #107 that “the source” and the United States Government meet the requests and respond regarding their June 7, 2022 document. However, the U.S. justice system has spoken repeatedly, clearly and finally on Peltier’s guilt, conviction and sentence.


77.       “According to the source, Mr. Peltier’s detention is arbitrary because it is prolonged. The source compares Mr. Peltier’s sentence with the average time served by individuals sentenced by federal courts to life imprisonment for murder before they were released on parole, which was 8.8 years in 1985 and 27.4 years in 2015.”


(We do not accept the source’s {Kevin Sharp’s} representation of 8.8 years without some basis of proof. To the contrary, during Peltier’s period of incarceration the average time when a convicted murderer was ‘eligible’ for ‘parole’ was roughly 25 years.)


The central point missed or ignored by Kevin Sharp, but obviously not by the WGAD, is the critical issue of “consecutive” life sentences. 


At footnote 29 the WGAD clarifies and points out what Sharp ignores:


It is not clear whether the 27.4 years cited by the source has been doubled to serve as an appropriate point of comparison with Mr. Peltier’s two consecutive life sentences.” (Emphasis added.)


It did not. Accepting the 27.4-year figure and not ignoring that Peltier was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for two murders, that would represent 54.8 years. However, the WGAD and Sharp, and repeatedly Peltier and his ‘committees’ over the years, deliberately forget or ignore, Lompoc. That armed prison escape resulted in an additional seven (7) year consecutive sentence. The total then would be that Peltier owes 61.8 years. 


Sometime in 2024, Peltier will be eligible for his next full parole hearing. We’ll have to see how that one goes.


And then there’s Peltier’s and Sharp’s hope of January 19, 2025. As the clock ticks, time will tell. 


Peltier begs for compassion and freedom but he should be shown as much mercy as he gave to Jack Coler and Ronald Williams; and that would be none.


“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods


June 26, 1975, Pine Ridge, SD [23]


[1] U.N. Working Group re Arbitrary Detention, June 7, 2022:

(Last accessed, 8/13/2022: The document is poorly presented by repeatedly merging and convoluting disparate issues within the same paragraphs. It is overly repetitive and could have been greatly reduced to make the same points.)


[2] An explanation of why Leonard Peltier is not a political prisoner:


[4] Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, 997 F.2d 461, July 7, 1993:


[6] (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

   (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. 

                  The come-back would obviously be what Peltier was convicted of, murder, the retort is then to repeat the above 8th Circuit Court’s definitive decision, that it is “impossible” to conclude otherwise of the two theories of Peltier’s prosecution, murder and aiding and abetting. We cannot ignore either, that the defense and prosecution debated over the language of the jury instruction on Aiding and Abetting. 


[7] Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (New York: Penguin Books, 1992) 552. A direct quote from Peltier to Matthiessen in Peltier’s biography.



[9] (Last accessed 8/28/22) 

Testimony of Darlene Nichols, 2/3/2004, at the trial of Arlo Looking Cloud for the murder of AIM activist Anna Mae Aquash: “…he (Peltier) started talking about June 26, and he put his hand like this (gesturing with a weapon) and started talking about the two FBI agents.” “He said the m----- -----r was begging for his life, but I shot him anyway.” 

(Referring to the final horrifying moments and murder of FBI Agent Ron Williams.)


[10] “We note, furthermore, that Peltier’s contention of manufactured evidence are far from convincing. The district court allowed Peltier to present the following evidence relating to his theory of defense:” USCA, Eighth Circuit, 585 F.2d 314, September 14, 1978.


[11] 2011, Peltier spends six months in solitary:


[12] “Exemplary” inmate Peltier whines about having a cellmate:


[13] See: Issue “Reign of Terror” and Indian murders never investigated section:


[14] Film Incident at Oglala; (Last accessed 9/4/2022)


[17] The alleged Sanctioned Memo:


[18] Treaty on Extradition Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America; E10123-CTS 1996 No. 3 (Peltier was extradited in December 1976): (Last accessed, 9/22/2022)


[19] Canadian Minister of Justice letter to U.S. Attorney General, October 12, 1999.


To even suggest that this ‘opinion’ piece is fatally flawed would be too kind. It is so filled with errors that any further review would be meaningless. (Last accessed 9/21/2022)

[23] During an unprovoked attack, both Agents were mortally wounded and then shot at point-blank range, destroying their faces. Yet, when the bodies were discovered, they had been rolled over to face the ground. After death, the mutilated bodies were manhandled by the AIM cowards at Jumping Bull.