PELTIER: SHARP’S DISINFORMATION….1

                               Native America Calling Podcast - Kevin H. Sharp 

Dear Supporters:

 

On February 15, 2023, Peltier attorney Kevin H. Sharp, and others, along with Ed Woods, the founder of the No Parole Peltier Association, were on a Native America Calling podcast. The topic was Leonard Peltier and his chances for clemency.

 

Once again, Sharp made it clear that he believes he is the smartest attorney and former judge around, adding yet an even greater insult to others in the legal profession. His hubris goes well beyond simply excessive pride, revealing a disturbing character flaw. 

 

Referring to the many decisions rendered in the Peltier case by federal judges, Sharp stated:

 

“There were evidentiary rulings that appear to be, from someone who made a lot of evidentiary rulings from the federal bench (referring to his own six years as a federal judge), slanted so that the prosecutor got the upper edge.” 

 

This public statement, without ambiguity of his plain language, implies that those Peltier judges were corrupt, which is a very serious and slanderous allegation.

 

Sharp is mimicking what Peltier has been whining about for decades. It is part and parcel of the Peltier myth; some grand conspiracy between the government and judiciary to get Peltier and keep him where he belongs. Sharp’s “slanted”  remark is just another way to describe it. 

 

There have been no fewer than seventeen (17) federal judges, one District and the remainder Court of Appeal judges, and no fewer than (17) seventeen Peltier attorneys who have been through the Peltier case in microscopic detail, analyzing every word from the trial to the final appeal, motions, hearings and oral arguments. Collectively, all those many years of judicial and legal experience, in Sharp’s skewed and troubled reasoning, somehow deliberately tipped the scale in the government’s favor. 

 

As for Peltier’s prior attorneys that Sharp shamelessly disabuses, the Court of Appeals clearly addressed this question: “The allegation of Peltier’s counsel on appeal amounts to no more than hindsight and second-guessing by one lawyer concerning trial tactics used by another lawyer. Peltier was equally well-represented at trial and on appeal.” And, “We have carefully examined the record in the trial court and on appeal, and have concluded that the defendant’s trial counsel were aggressive, capable, and informed, and engaged in sophisticated trial decisions on strategy.” 8^th Circuit, 9/14/78

 

Sharp has been thoroughly blinded by his obvious and vocal contempt for the justice system while being enamored by the likes of Peltier’s feigned innocence and the publicity it draws. 

 

True to form, during the podcast, Sharp repeated his laundry list of Peltier folklore, believing evidentially, that since he’s an attorney and former federal judge, that his claims have more validity today than they did when first offered decades ago by prior Peltier attorneys.

 

Sharp claims he has reviewed the record of Peltier’s conviction and numerous appeals, yet his hubris and fallback claim of Peltier’s alleged innocence, nevertheless, provides a different story. Based on his legal experience, Sharp’s assertions and alleged intimate knowledge of the Peltier matter, makes him accountable for all his public statements. Beyond his opinions, most often stated as facts, this is especially so for his statements that run contrary to the historical record.

 

What follows is the first of several blogs that challenge Sharp’s assumptions and public statements supporting Peltier’s alleged wrongful conviction, with facts, proving those statements amount to nothing more than a pattern of disinformation. Sharp brings nothing new to the debate not already previously created over the years by purveyors of the Peltier myth.

 

1) Regarding certain facts of the Peltier case: “That hasn’t been denied, the courts have said, those things happened, right, what was denied was his appeal to overturn his conviction to get a new trial…”

            

On the surface, this is a naïve comment from a former federal judge. A very simple but clearly obvious question is exactly on what basis did the Court of Appeals deny Peltier’s (many) appeals? Did they not have before them the trial transcript, Peltier’s motions and legal arguments, along with hearings, all for reference in their deliberations; let alone the law and collectively innumerable years of judicial experience?

 

Those decisions were not manufactured out of thin air, but based on the Courts’ addressing Peltier’s motions and claims with a detailed review of the record. 

 

So, following Sharp’s logic, the courts did not take all those facts into consideration? However, clearly they did, and did so repeatedly. They addressed them, explained them, and provided decisions based on the facts, and the law. 

 

2) Sharp mentions “coerced witnesses.”

 

            “All three witnesses (Anderson, Draper, Brown) testified that when they were Interviewed, at early stages of the investigation, their answers to the F.B.I. questions were inconsistent with the truth for one reason or another. However, upon further questioning at the trial by the government attorney, they stated that the testimony they gave at the trial was the truth, as they best remembered it”  8^th Circuit, 9/14/78

 

3) Sharp makes a claim of “manufactured evidence.” 

 

            “We note, furthermore, that Peltier‘s contentions of manufactured evidence are far from convincing. The district court allowed Peltier to present the following evidence relating to his theory of defense:” (The court then goes on to provide examples.) 8^th Circuit, 9/14/78

 

Since judge Sharp knows the Peltier case, with the courts’ decisions to the contrary, then could it be that former judge Sharp is just honestly mistaken? One would trust that he is not knowingly offering a lie to the public, but rather has been swayed by Peltier propaganda that he is desperately trying to memorialize. 

 

In closing, briefly, was Peltier given more consideration than other persons tried for murder? Yes, indeed he was. 

 

Normally, a federal criminal defendant is entitled to a single court-appointed attorney chosen by rotation. Peltier received five (5) lawyers—two as trial attorneys and three as investigators. All were chosen by Peltier, rather than the normal rotation process, and, of course, all were paid for by taxpayers. The defense received almost double the normal number of preemptory challenges during jury selection. Pelter’s lawyers were allowed to personally question the jury, which is highly unusual in federal criminal cases. The trial court provided daily transcripts of testimony to the defense, a very expensive measure which is rarely done. After conviction, Peltier was allowed to dismiss four of his five attorneys, and hire at government expense, his selection of new appellate attorneys.

 

There is considerably more to follow.

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

PELTIER: JUDGE KEVIN H. SHARP, PART 3

Dear Supporters:

The following email was sent to Peltier's attorney, Kevin Sharp, responding to a March 10th radio interview.

Dear Judge Sharp:

 

I listened to your March 10^th interview on K103.7, KAHNAWAKE Radio and found it compelling. Of the many topics you discussed, there are several that beg for a response:

 

1) 60 Murders of AIM members and supporters “that were not investigated by the FBI.”

 

Actually, they were, and they were not all AIM members or supporters. 

 

In July 2000 the FBI responded to allegations from the original Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) claiming, at that time, 64 ‘murders’ on Pine Ridge were never investigated, although then, 10 were not even named by Peltier or the LPDC. (The Peltier ‘committees’ number of ‘murders’ has varied over the years.)

 

In any event, of the 57 named victims provided to the FBI, the deaths included: Child abuse 3, domestic violence 4, alcohol related 5, robbery 2, fights/personal disputes 14, vehicular homicide 4, accidental shooting 2, health reasons 2, suicide 1, accidental 2, and no record, 1. 

 

Of those named; 21 resulted in federal convictions and/or trials, 1 in a local conviction, 22 were investigated but did not result in convictions for a number of valid reasons and 11 were not within FBI jurisdiction. One very important name, Anna Mae Aquash, who was murdered in December 1975 (the same Anna Mae who Leonard stuck a gun in her mouth accusing her of being an informant—she wasn’t—but AIM ordered her execution anyway). Decades later, AIM members, Arlo Looking Cloud (2004) and John Graham (2014) were convicted of her murder. 

 

During the interview you claimed that these “murders” were of “AIM members or supporters.” 

 

Clearly, these should not include; Michelle Linda Tobacco, age nine months, Floyd Sherman Binals, age sixteen months and Yvette Loraine Lone Hill, age seven; especially considering how they died. 

 

However, what this comes down to is that the Peltier “murders never investigated” claim, is fiction. 

 

Mr. Sharp, as a former federal judge, and now Peltier attorney, who undoubtedly desires to preserve your reputation, have you verified whether Peltier’s claims are true? If you haven’t been able to, then this is promoting a false narrative and supporting more Peltier myth and folklore. 

 

Please take a moment and review the names and circumstances of their deaths that—were investigated; http://www.noparolepeltier.com/response.html#7

Attached for further reference is the May 2000 FBI booklet; Accounting for Native American Deaths, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota.

 

Now that you have the opportunity to research and determine the truth, I would hope that this Peltier fable can be put to rest. 

 

Please feel free to challenge—or debate, any of the findings. As we both know and understand, in some investigations, especially involving situations where tensions are high, that securing cooperation and corroborating and supporting evidence, is very challenging. No excuse, just a realistic fact.

 

2) “Why did he shoot him?” Well, Joe (Killsright) Stuntz (who was still wearing the FBI jacket he stole from the trunk of Agent Coler’s vehicle—as he gave Leonard a smile), was shooting at responding Agents and law enforcement. 

 

Peter Matthiessen can help you understand this unfolding event. 

 

After the Agents were murdered and Peltier and the others were making their getaway “…Peltier, Robideau, and Butler returned to the camp to load Sam Loud Hawks’ red and white van for an escape: they left Joe Killsright and Norman Charles as a rear guard in the compound to delay anyone who tried to approach.” “…Wish Draper went back up the hill to tell Joe to hurry up. He returned with Norman Charles, followed by Anderson and Brown: Charles told the older men that Joe was dead.” (Crazy Horse, p. 159-160)

 

“Delay anyone” didn’t mean that Stuntz and Charles would greet responding Agents and Police with casual conversation. They were armed and the “delay” meant using their rifles.

 

“Why did he shoot him?” It's a fairly simple premise that if you shoot at law enforcement, chances are pretty strong they will shoot back. Hence, the defensive shooting of Joe Stuntz.

 

3) “Not extradited because there was no evidence.” This was your discussion concerning the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits. 

 

Actually, the Canadian Government was pretty clear about Peltier’s extradition. I would offer for you to read what the Canadian Department of Justice stated about this matter, in case the Peltier committee didn’t share it with you, (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, A. Anne McLellan, 10/12/99): 

 

“As I indicated above, I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States. In my opinion, given the test for committal for extradition referred to above, the circumstantial evidence, taken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges.” “Further, the third Poor Bear affidavit was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal and the Minister of Justice before Mr. Peltier was extradited to the United States. Subsequently, further submissions respecting the third Poor Bear affidavit were made to the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the appellate courts in the United States.” http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html

 

During your interview, the sole inferred conclusion that Poor Bear was “…how they got extradition,” is incorrect. 

 

Exactly what part of ‘taken alone’ and ‘further submissions’ is so difficult for Peltier and his supporters to understand?

 

Further, regarding Myrtle Poor Bear, Peltier’s own attorney, John Lowe, believing the Government may have planned calling her as a witness at Peltier’s trial, said “…a witness whose mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.” In other words, the affidavits notwithstanding, Peltier certainly didn’t want her to testify, for or against him, at his trial.  

 

4) The critical shell casing and the 10/2/1975 FBI Laboratory teletype: 

 

The government did not believe the teletype was part of the discovery process because it was a preliminary document, rather than the final lab ‘reports.’  Eighth Circuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney disagreed and sent Peltier’s appeal back to the District Court for a 1984, 3-day evidentiary (ballistics) hearing. The District Court denied, and Peltier appealed again to the Eighth Circuit and we all know what happened then. Judge Heaney, with a majority opinion, denied Peltier’s motion for a new trial based on the Bagley test, “…that we be convinced, from a review of the entire record, that the jury probably would have reached a different result. We have not been so convinced.” 

 

Exactly what part of ‘entire record’ and ‘not convinced’ is so difficult for Peltier and his supporters to comprehend?

 

Any thorough discussion regarding the ballistics evidence must include that it was resolved. 

 

It was obvious that Judge Heaney felt strongly about Native American issues and the Peltier case. However, he made his decision based on the law and in his letters, recommending clemency, he never suggested that Peltier was not guilty. He also stated in a television interview “He got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial” 

 

5) Judge Sharp, respectfully, even just a mention of James H. Reynolds weakens any support of Peltier. Reynolds’s claims in letters and an interview are unsupportable. Reynolds has no credibility regarding Peltier’s conviction or appellate process. If there is any doubt, please read what follows and give him a call:  http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2022/01/peltier-president-biden-james-reynolds.html Further references regarding James H. Reynolds are included here in footnotes: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2021/06/peltier-is-forgotten-story-james.html

 

6) You stated during the interview that “We know they were not in the pickup.” 

 

This presumes you reference the government’s position that Peltier, Norman Charles and Joe Stuntz were in Sam Loud Hawk’s suburban (alternately describe as a van, and known to be used regularly by Peltier after he repaired it), and this was the vehicle followed by Agents’ Coler and Williams and the same vehicle and occupants from which (according to eyewitness Ron Williams on the FBI radio), started the unprovoked attack on the Agents. 

I would be very interested in seeing the origin and proof of where “We Know” comes from.

Could it be from Peltier himself, who has repeatedly changed his version of events and has a proven track record of lies? 

As a former federal judge, now defending Peltier, his lack of consistency over the years regarding the facts makes your advocacy very difficult. Passions aside, your position carries the ethical duty of not misrepresenting the facts, while endeavoring to vigorously defend your client. This is made all the more difficult because there are no remaining legal avenues to pursue; only commutation or parole. In the light of day, however, the truth and facts weigh heavily against your client.

Peltier claimed he was in the AIM camp about to eat pancakes and have some hot black coffee that “…was cut short by the staccato sound of gunfire” (Prison Writings, p. 121). That’s what he claimed anyway. Remember too, for nearly two decades Peltier also promoted the lie of Mr. X as the killer.

Yet, according to Peltier’s defense team, Angie Long Visitor was characterized as a “critical and material” witness. Angie testified to seeing the red and white (1966 Chevrolet) van, owned by Sam Loud Hawk, but used by Peltier, at the “Y” fork on the Jumping Bull property. (Testimony & Matthiessen’s, Crazy Horse, p. 332) (The location of the van at the “Y” fork is significant to the unfolding events. Please, at least view Matthiessen’s map of the Jumping Bull property; in the Crazy Horse-Introduction.) 

A shell, or bullet, casing located in this van, (along with the shell casing from the trunk of Agent Coler’s vehicle) were referenced in a court decision as a result of the three-day ‘ballistics’ hearing: “Later examination of the remaining .223 bullet casings submitted in connection with

 {F. Supp. 1159} the RESMURS case, resulted in approximately 114 positive identifications with the Wichita AR-15.” (U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, May 22, 1985)

 

The location of Peltier’s red and white van at the “Y” fork on the Jumping Bull property, and a hundred and fourteen (114) shell casings matched with Peltier’s AR-15, could certainly account for a number of the bullet holes in the Agents’ vehicles, along with Peltier’s location at the time of the unprovoked attack.

 

AND HERE ARE MORE, IMPORTANT POINTS:

 

7) The Oath:

 

You made the analogy that several times in your life, the Navy, the Bar, the federal bench, you took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and repeated at least twice, that in Peltier’s case “Constitutional violations were open and obvious,” and that were “committed by others who took the same oath.” 

 

Judge Sharp, I’m certain you recognize that this is a seriously consequential accusation. 

 

We both understand the emotional nexus in the Peltier saga. However, by implying that the justice system, and those jurists involved, ruled against Peltier with deliberate malice, may tarnish your reputation through overzealous advocacy. 

 

I have not tallied all of Peltier’s motions and appeals, only those related to Peltier’s conviction and appeals. I am aware that there were many others, including at least parole and FOIPA issues. As a result, the Peltier matter has been before a number of judges. The total could reach twenty or even more over the years, and yet you imply that these judges all missed or allowed open and obvious Constitutional violations to occur.

 

Would all those Judges who served, arguably many decades of professional judicial service, with dignity and honor, have deliberately violated their oath to the Constitution in the Peltier case? Certainly, one would hope you are not implying (as Peltier has repeatedly) some grand, over-arching conspiracy against Peltier, or perhaps rampant judicial incompetence and possible misconduct. There are significant odds that those jurists would find your characterization offensive, or worse. 

 

By your own implication, one of those who failed their oath would include Judge Gerald Heaney; certainly, someone who played a critical role in the Peltier matter. 

 

To place this in its proper perspective, this is how the Honorable Gerald Heaney, (May he Rest in Peace), was described in www.noparolepeltier.com:

 

“Gerald Heaney was truly one of America’s Greatest Generation. At the outbreak of WWII, as a young lawyer, he could have avoided the heat of battle and used his legal qualifications in a safe stateside, or behind the front-lines, assignment. Instead, he enlisted as a private and then sought a U.S. Army commission and became a young infantry officer, qualified as a prestigious Army Ranger and participated in the D-Day invasion. He earned a Silver Star, and fought in several battles through the end of war in Europe. His courage can neither be denied nor ignored. Judge Heaney was also a jurist of impeccable reputation and experience”—obviously, by upholding the oath he swore to. 

 

Yet, you apparently appear to so casually demean, and dismiss his character and years of judicial service. 

 

Can either of us, with our predictable human faults and personal achievements, measure up to such an incredible person as Judge Heaney? As for myself, I would be humble and suggest not.

 

As you described your judicial quest, you had met the professional traits necessary to become a judge, acknowledging your own temperament, integrity and judgement; qualifications you ascribe for yourself but apparently and openly deny to others.

 

8) Changed Theory:

 

It is bewildering that an attorney and former federal judge, who has purportedly reviewed the Peltier matter, the trial transcript and multiple appellate decisions, can continue the false narrative that the government changed its theory of the prosecution. 

 

Judge Sharp, you have repeatedly made this claim but have not provided specifics as to how this actually occurred. As a former federal judge, you certainly understand that broad and sweeping claims are just not sufficient and now only echo Peltier’s fabrications regarding his conviction and appeals. 

 

As previously mentioned, aiding and abetting was on the table from day one. That bears repeating; aiding and abetting was integral to Peltier’s prosecution from the very beginning. 

 

Peltier was indicted on November 17, 1975 for ‘murder’ and ‘aiding and abetting’ and warrants were issued based on those charges: And, at the conclusion of Peltier’s trial, even jury instructions that included aiding and abetting were agreed upon by the government and defense. 

 

No mystery, no secrets, no magic, yet the provable falsehood is repeated as if saying it enough times will make it true. 

 

This “fatally flawed” conclusion was rejected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993:

“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., aiding and abetting)

 

What part of ‘impossible’ and ‘upon which’ are such a challenge for Peltier supporters to grasp?

                                                             * * *

 

I have not seen the latest clemency petition, but would certainly like to. I can’t imagine that it contains anything new or exceptional but would like the opportunity to respond to the issues it offers. I would appreciate a copy. Previously, Peltier posted the petitions on his website.

 

It would be encouraging if any future media statements included more elements of the actual record. However, removing ‘contested facts’' from the Peltier narrative would result in a very short interview. 

 

Most respectfully, for your reputation and posterity, I would urge you to review the facts in greater detail, contrasting the entire record with Peltier’s public statements, feigned innocence, years of fabrications and an alleged wrongful conviction. On balance, you may just find the actual truth disturbing. 

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams
Ed Woods

The Beginning:  

                       

 

The End: Jack is on the left, Ron on the right.

The Interview, March 10, 2022:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tuMvVGP3TyFwvKGtvQnvN68n5YX59DN6/view?fbclid=IwAR3PjYxZ84wPWCE0XZUnjttY1x3ETl2IEZJfBSgEqjoElGCaBCJ7EkM7ceA

PELTIER: PRESIDENT BIDEN: JAMES REYNOLDS Part 4

Edward Woods

January 20, 2022

 

President Joe Biden

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, D.C. 20500

 

Hon. Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General

Hon. Rosalind Sargent-Burns, U.S. Pardon Attorney             

 

Leonard Peltier 

Federal Inmate #89637-132

Clemency Denial Request

James H. Reynolds

Former U.S. Attorney

            

 

Re: Leonard Peltier

 

Dear President Biden, Hon. Garland, Hon. Sargent-Burns:

 

As I have previously requested, I would continue to urge that should Leonard Peltier’s clemency petition reach your desk, that he not be considered for a commuted sentence. 

 

Any consideration should be the result of a thorough review of his conviction and the nearly three decades of multiple appeals that have clearly established Leonard Peltier’s guilt. Each and every claim of a wrongful conviction, both arguably legitimate and seemingly frivolous, have been addressed in great detail by the appellate courts. One of many appellate court findings concluded, “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)

 

The unprovoked attack on FBI Agents Coler and Williams resulted in them both being wounded, Jack Coler nearly fatally, and Ron Williams, wounded three times, removing his shirt and waving it as a flag of surrender (that was ignored) and then using it on Agent Coler’s severely injured arm. Jack Coler was likely unconscious but Ron Williams was not. He faced his killer as the barrel of Peltier’s AR-15 was placed against an upraised hand, blowing Agent Williams’s fingers through the back of his head. Agent Coler was then shot twice. Both Agents, with destroyed faces, were manhandled and rolled over to face the ground as their weapons were stolen by Peltier and others.* A horrible scene and terrible death in the line of duty.

 

These will provide just a hint of what Agents’ Coler and Williams faced that fateful day before they were murdered:

      

            

Peltier, through a number of public statements, remains unrepentant, including his 1999 ‘apology’ to his victims’ families that amounted to no more than further insult and ended with, “I cannot see how my being here, torn from my own grandchildren, can possibly mend your loss. I swear to you, I am guilty only of being an Indian. That’s why I’m here. Being who I am, being who you are—that’s Aboriginal sin.” (Multiple court findings tell an entirely different story.) 

 

Following the clemency process, I am certain FBI Director Wray will provide additional details.

 

There is no doubt that Native Americans were horribly treated, but releasing Peltier will never correct the wrongs of the past. His crimes that June day on Pine Ridge were, and remain, an entirely criminal act for which he was rightfully convicted and sentenced.  Leonard Peltier would be the last person to atone for those historical wrongs and should be shown the same degree of mercy he gave to Agents’ Coler and Williams; and that would be none.   

 

Re: James H. Reynolds

 

It may be somewhat irregular to openly criticize a former U.S. Attorney, however, the statements Mr. Reynolds has made in writing, during an interview, and the authority he has allegedly assumed in the Peltier matter, can neither be ignored nor sustained under scrutiny. 

 

Within Peltier’s clemency petition file there should be two letters, one undated but addressed to former President Obama and one dated July 9, 2021, both setting forth reasons considering clemency for Leonard Peltier. (The letters are attached for reference.)

 

Mr. Reynold’s earlier letter claimed, as the U.S. Attorney for South Dakota, that he retained as Assistant U.S. Attorney, Evan Hultman, who preceded him as U.S. Attorney and who had handled the prosecution of Leonard Peltier, and “I directed Hultman’s handling of the appeal of Leonard Peltier after my appoint (sic).” 

 

(Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lynn E. Crooks, was intimately involved with the prosecution and appeals of Leonard Peltier.)

 

Statement of Lynn E. Crooks, retired Assistant United States Attorney, North Dakota:

 

“This claim is a gross misstatement of the record. The trial record being in Fargo, ND it was only logical that I be given primary responsibility for assigning and coordinating research projects with other members of the trial team and then preparing the first drafts of the Government’s responses to the murderer’s arguments. In doing so I had numerous conversations with Mr. Hultman and all other members of the trial team, as well as my own United States Attorney. Other than small stylish changes there were no substantial changes that I can recall being made to the agreed upon drafts which were prepared in this fashion. I had no conversations of any kind with Mr. Reynolds. To the best of my knowledge, he 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.” (Emphasis added)

 

In Mr. Reynolds 2021 letter he states:

 

“Finally, on appeal, we pursued the theory that Mr. Peltier was an “accomplice” under an aiding and abetting theory…”

 

Mr. Reynolds offers a factually erroneous statement, an incongruous and untimely ‘theory’ regarding Peltier’s charge of aiding and abetting: On November 17, 1975 Peltier was indicted for two counts of first-degree murder and aiding and abetting.  On November 25, 1975 at Rapid City, South Dakota, warrants were issued charging Peltier with murder – first degree, killing two Federal officers while in the performance of their duties and aiding and abetting (Title 18. U.S. Code, Sections 1111, 1114 and 2).  (Peltier trial; March-April 1977, Fargo, North Dakota)

 

Further, the Peltier trial transcript {4974} – {5164}, (clearly before the appellate process began), unmistakably indicates that there was considerable discussion between the defense and prosecution with USDCJ Benson regarding jury instructions on the aiding and abetting charge, as well as being included in the government’s closing argument.

 

For someone who claimed the authority that he (inappropriately using ‘we’) directed the appeals, how can he so blatantly distort the significance of the aiding and abetting issue? Mr. Reynolds’ claims are clear enough, however, his motivations to misstate the record are troubling and flawed.

 

Mr. Reynolds further states that “We were not able to prove that Mr. Peltier personally committed any offense on the Pine Ridge Reservation.”

 

For Mr. Reynolds to err in arriving at such an inexplicable conclusion would indicate that he either has never read, or nonetheless understood the multiple appeals that supported the government’s position that Peltier personally and cold-bloodedly murdered two already wounded FBI Agents, or, that Mr. Reynolds does understand the actual record and perhaps hopes his statements will be taken at face value as a former U.S. Attorney, and not further examined or validated. 

 

Mr. Reynolds missed or ignored any number of multiple definitive court findings that included:

 

“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.)

 

Mr. President, Honorable Garland and Sargent-Burns, before Mr. Reynolds claims are considered regarding Peltier’s clemency petition, a thorough vetting of his alleged claims would certainly be in order.** 

 

As for Leonard Peltier, he remains an unrepentant murderer, and although he has spent many years in prison and has some underlying health issues due to age, Agent Jack Coler and Ron Williams, both twenty-eight when they were murdered, were robbed of their opportunity to grow old with their families rather than being left in a muddy field with their faces destroyed. 

 

Respectfully,

 

Edw. Woods

Edward Woods

justice@noparolepeltier.com

 

*During Peltier’s escape to Canada, he and other AIM members were stopped in Oregon. Under the seat where Peltier sat was found a paper bag that contained Agent Coler’s service revolver. On the bag was Leonard Peltier’s thumbprint.  

Also, contrary to Peltier’s several fabricated statements of how the shooting started, there is no dispute that there was an eyewitness to exactly how the unprovoked attack on the Agents began. Agent Williams was overheard on the FBI radio describing exactly what was about to happen.

 

**Not included above is an interview Mr. Reynolds gave to the NY Daily News that was wholly inappropriate and unprofessional, 

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ex-u-s-attorney-backs-leonard-peltier-bid-clemency-article-1.2933475 

(last accessed 1/4/22).

 

Encls. 

Two Reynold’s letters

Brief facts of June 26, 1975

 

cc:

1-U.S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland

1-U.S. Pardon Attorney, Rosalind Sargent-Burns

1-Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director Christopher Wray

1-Hon. Louis J. Freeh

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/