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
shoot-out.”
“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 firearm, an 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]
cc:
[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.
[9] https://www.jfamr.org/doc/kmtest1.html (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. http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html
[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.
