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

Subject: Jennifer Bendery re Leonard Peltier

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stating that the “Prosecutors hid key evidence,” and that “They withheld ballistic evidence that proved it wasn’t Leonard’s weapon…” is simply factually untrue. A three-day evidentiary (ballistics) hearing in 1985 and another appeal to the Eighth Circuit clearly proved otherwise: “When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15 (Peltier’s weapon). That point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.’’ (8^th Circuit, 9/11/86)

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

"In the Spirit of Coler and Williams"

Ed Woods

Cincinnati, Ohio

PELTIER: KUZMA CLOSES THE CIRCLE & Much more

Dear Supporters:


“From what I understand it’s now been determined that the Mr. X. story was just concocted.”

Thanks to Peltier attorney Michael Kuzma the lie of Mr. X has been officially admitted by the Peltier organization.

On 11/3/12 Michael Kuzma (Kooz-Mah), 1893 Clinton St., Buffalo, New York 14206, (716) 822-7645, email, michaelkuzmaesq@gmail.com (In case anyone needs an FOIPA lawyer), participated in a 90 minute blog-talk-radio program. The organizers were somewhat unprofessional and disorganized at times and some of the questions posed by the moderators and those who emailed or called-in demonstrated a lack of understanding of the facts surrounding Peltier’s conviction or the function of the government for that mater. (Footnote 1)

Mr. X was the individual in the infamously fictitious red pickup, whom they all knew and was delivering dynamite to the camp that day. He was followed by the agents, engaged them at a distance, wounded them and then approached them both administering the final fatal shots to their faces. Or at least that’s how the legend was offered.

Mr. X, in a very real sense was the first, and then only alibi, offered by Peltier. In other words, where he claimed that he wasn’t responsible, was innocent for the agents’ deaths and someone else did it. It’s not that this was a casual remark easily dismissed, no, this one had legs and took on a long life of its own and permeated nearly everything that followed. For example, a brief review of Peltier’s alibis:

He was eating pancakes and drinking hot coffee in the AIM camp when the shooting started. He fired over their heads. In a CNN interview admitted for the first time firing at the agents. In a Leavenworth interview “I can’t say anything about that Darrin. I haven’t said anything about it for almost sixteen years.” “…because all the media have asked me about this, and it’s the same answer, I can’t say anything about it. I appreciate what he has done.” Robideau’s approximately six minute and fifty-two second detailed description of Mr. X’s actions in the film Incident at Oglala was followed immediately by Peltier’s admission “This story is true.” In the film and Mathiessen’s ITSOCH, both interviewed the phantom Mr. X.  Peltier, 50 said during a recent interview at the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, “I know I’ve said in the past who he is.”

No surprise that Peltier never mentioned Mr. X or the infamous red pickup truck in his autobiography, Prison Writings.

And, of course we will neither forget nor ignore that one of the three principals in this deadly saga, Dino Butler, came out publically in 1995 and said that the entire Mr. X story was not true (Fn. 2).

For a complete review of the Mr. X narrative and lie please see the three sections, “Mr. X the Movie,” “Mr. X the Interview,” and “Mr. X the Lie,” available from the No Parole Peltier Association home page. (This section will also include an updated addendum including Mr. Kuzma’s admission.)

The closest to any official acknowledgement (aside from Peltier’s own statements and Butler’s renunciation) came from the then Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) on May 23, 2000, “Mr. X has long been a controversial topic, by both supporters of Leonard Peltier and those who oppose his release.” Only, controversial? (Interesting to note they include “supporters,” implying that even those on his side didn’t buy this lame fabrication.)

That is, until now, and thanks to the unfiltered public admission from Peltier’s attorney, it’s now painfully official. Mr. X was Peltier’s most significant alibi and it has always been nothing more than a lie. The truth though is that Peltier was the real Mr. X.

Thank you Mr. Kuzma.

Which begs the question, if Peltier can foster such a lie for so many years why should anyone believe his other claims or feigned cries of being a political prisoner and innocent?

Mr. Kuzma made a few other significant comments during the broadcast.

                   If all else fails, use the race card:

Mr. Kuzma called me a racist. Well didn’t actually say racist, but that’s certainly what he intended to convey.

During the podcast Kuzma mentioned a retired FBI agent who runs a website from Cincinnati and then editorialized with “the most segregated city in America.” The reference was obviously to this writer and this website. The implication being that someone living in a particular city he automatically assumes is a racist. Really? Let’s look at this attorney’s professional logic. So, someone gets transferred by his job to a city, buys a home, continues to raise a family, works there for a number of years, retires, starts a second career (another eleven years and still counting) and suddenly, in Mr. Kuzma’s mind that makes someone a racist. That would be like saying people living in Buffalo, NY must be Eskimos. Actually, in a recent study the ranking from least to most segregated cities were: Nassau-Suffolk (which is odd because they are counties comprising what most New Yorkers refer to as Long Island—that, according to native New Yorkers excludes Brooklyn and Queens, which are still part of the Island of Long but are firmly two of the five borrows of New York City proper. No self-respecting Brooklynite or Queens resident would consider themselves residents of Long Island. But, Nassau County’s north shore, The Gold Coast, and Suffolk County’s, The Hamptons are the Mecca of the very rich, the ‘one percenters’ who’s necks are presently on the proverbial chopping block. Kuzma didn’t comment whether they would be racists too.); then there’s, St. Louis, Cleveland, Miami, Philadelphia, Chicago, Newark, New York City, Milwaukee and at the top of the list, Detroit. Nope. No Cincinnati. So, without an ounce of proof, Mr. Kuzma makes a value judgment based on the city where someone happens to live. Maybe he ties that in some way with those who recognize Peltier’s unquestioned guilt. If you oppose Peltier’s freedom because he’s an Indian, perhaps, therefore, and because you happen to live in a particular city, you’re by his definition, a racist. Well, then, we’ll just have to ignore a couple of facts; Kuzma is not a Native American, and my great-grandfather was a full-blood. What this does though is establish a clear line of bias in Mr. Kuzma’s personality and thought process.

                            The Movie:

Kuzma provided a wonderful endorsement, encouraging everyone, especially the young (those who are uninformed about Peltier’s guilt or the history of his convictions) to watch Incident at Oglala. And for that we applaud and thank him for two reasons. It clearly depicts, because otherwise there would be no point or climax to the film, a hooded Mr. X with Mr. Redford narrating (and Robideau’s explicit description) how he engaged the agents, then shot them and drove off in the infamous red pickup. People should watch and listen carefully to this portion of the film and rampant Peltier folklore (That’s my alibi Leonard is telling us, someone else did it; honest to God it was someone else: and as he says in the film, “This story is true.”) Then let them remember, because we’ll remind them once again, Mr. Kuzma, putting the Mr. X lie exactly where it belongs, “From what I understand it’s now been determined that the Mr. X story was concocted.” So, folks, Peltier supporters or those who want to learn the real facts of what happened at Jumping Bull that day, you can ignore Mr. Concocted. But what you can’t ignore though is the twenty-year lie that Peltier and others proclaimed as the truth. Thanks again, attorney Kuzma.

                              Under the bus:

Not being shy about demeaning fellow bar members, Kuzma throws Elliot Taikeff (“one” of Peltier’s attorneys at his Fargo trial) and Eric Seitz, who handled Peltier’s 2009 parole hearing, under the proverbial legal bus. Kuzma does soften the blow a bit by saying it’s easy to Monday-morning-quarterback someone.

Kuzma tells us that Seitz was “out-maneuvered.” Gee, really, out-maneuvered; at a parole hearing? Seitz, who had represented Peltier since about 2000, did make some incredibly naïve (if that is the correct and most polite description) public statements after the parole hearing that "…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. I don't think that's going to impress very many people who aren't already of the same opinion."

Brilliant conclusion. Yep, kill (actually two) FBI agents and spend the rest of your life in prison. Makes sense to most people. Besides, that wasn’t true, the government witnesses did introduce additional evidence, not the least of which was testimony from the 2004 trial of Arlo Looking Cloud where Peltier was quoted making some specific admissions about killing the agents. There was other information provided as well, public statements that Peltier himself has made which further support his conviction and solidify his guilt. (Fn. 3) Seitz’s Witnesses included Peter Matthiessen who has dug himself such a deep hole he can never climb out or overcome the severe criticism of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse by Alan Dershowitz that his tome is embarrassingly sophomoric and not only fails to convince but inadvertently makes a strong case for Peltier's guilt. Seitz’s other witnesses contributed little more, a philosophical argument, and a place to stay on the Reservation.

Seitz may well have been trying for Everest or Suribachi. He had a tough burden to overcome…but perhaps Kuzma was correct after all; he forgot his climbing gear. The decision was upheld on appeal as well.

The parole hearing itself has been a previous topic of discussion with Peltier making claims about what allegedly was said. Peltier was even challenged to put all the critics and naysayers in their place and post the hearing transcript on whoisleonardpeltier.info. Justice and the truth demand it. So it was very interesting, compelling really, to hear Mr. Kuzma say that he has a recording of the hearing that he received through the FOIA (presumably with his client’s permission), and that he has played the recording in public (presumably with his client’s permission), or at least at a monthly meeting of the Leonard Peltier Support Group in Buffalo, NY at the Burning Books book store (sounds charming). Kuzma didn’t say whether the recording was edited. Odds are that it was…but there’s no proof at the moment.

So, let’s ask Mr. Kuzma to do what Peltier wouldn’t, put the recording on the website. Let’s see how far Kuzma and Peltier are willing to go to make sure everyone hears what actually transpired, without the myth filter. Let President Obama and the rest of us hear what was offered by both sides so they can make their own decision about Peltier’s guilt. (If there isn’t a transcript, I will offer to transcribe the recording…free of charge…just send a copy.)

As for Elliott Taikeff, Kuzma is taking a cheap shot because he wasn’t alone at the defense table. He had plenty of help and support. Reading the transcripts, and listening to him in Incident at Oglala, attorney John Lowe was pretty aggressive. Matter of fact, as related in the Editorial Essay, Critical Witnesses Against Peltier (Fn. 4), it was difficult not to conclude that Lowe’s aggressiveness passed the decorum threshold reaching a level of sarcasm and unprofessional demeanor that I personally have never seen in a federal courtroom.

Then there’s Bruce Ellison, the sideshow mouthpiece who has some skeleton’s in his closet according to those who know much more about Annie Mae Aquash’s murder. Where was he during all this?

But to place this kind of criticism in its proper perspective the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous Direct Appeal judgment, Circuit Judges, Gibson, Ross and Stephenson summed it up best. “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.” “The allegation of Peltier’s counsel on appeal amounts to no more than hindsight and second-guessing by one lawyer concerning the trial tactics used by another lawyer. Peltier was equally well-represented at trial and on appeal.” (Fn. 5)

                   If it fails again, play the conspiracy card:

As if the fog of folklore surrounding Peltier wasn’t thick enough, Kuzma adds this most bizarre and astonishing claim to the list:

“…because we’ve learned that after Judge Heaney, for example, started speaking out regarding Leonard and his case and how he really didn’t get a fair shake, he got a visit from the FBI. So if we could prove that during one of Leonard’s, say appeals, that Judge Heaney was improperly approached, now that might be something that would get a court interested in Leonard’s case…”

This is analogous to the shooter on the grassy knoll and begs to be examined in greater detail to demonstrate that Kuzma has not only taken a full measure of Peltier Kool Aid, as he criticizes other Peltier attorneys, but takes a giant leap off the cliff of reality and ignores the real history of this case.

First, Kuzma would be challenged to produce anything, other than his own ramblings, that there is one scintilla of proof that Judge Heaney was improperly approached by the FBI. Kuzma’s first response, presumably, would be that the proof is being withheld by the FBI and Department of Justice by not releasing all the contested documents. Perhaps Kuzma imagines a memo, teletype or FD-302 stating that Eighth Circuit Court Judge Heaney was visited by FBI agents and told to back-off from his public statements that seem to support Peltier. But that’s not what Kuzma claims…he states that they already have it; proof that something like this actually happened. Kuzma says, “because we’ve learned.” So, put it up for all to see, what exactly have you learned and from what source? If you can’t, or won’t, then we’ll have to plant this little seed of folklore-lie somewhere on the grassy knoll where it belongs.

Judge Gerald Heaney was a member of the Greatest Generation. As an attorney during WWII he could have opted for a safe stateside assignment, but instead became an Army officer, participated in the D-Day invasion and other campaigns and later became a respected jurist.

The key Eighth Circuit decisions and a timeline regarding Judge Heaney in the Peltier case follows:

Direct Appeal; September 1978, Judges, Gibson, Ross and Stephenson
Remand; April 1984, Judges HEANEY, Ross and Gibson
Appeal of Hearing; September 1986, Judges, HEANEY, Ross and Gibson
Movie; Incident at Oglala, 1991, in which Judge HEANNEY appears
Letter; From Judge HEANEY, April 1991 to Senator Inouye.
Changed Theory; July 1993, Judges, McMillan, Friedman and Arnold
Letter; From Judge HEANEY, October 2000 to Senator Inouye
Rule 35; December 2002, Judges, Hansen, HEANEY and Arnold

Let’s start by noting Peltier’s conviction and sentence have never been overturned.

Trying to follow Kuzma’s logic here is like doing a Rubik’s cube in the dark. At what point would Judge Heaney, according to Kuzma, been compromised (threatened, intimidated, coerced) into not ruling against Peltier? Judge Heaney was part of the three-judge panel and authored one of the arguably most critical decisions against Peltier; the appeal of the evidentiary hearing in 1986. Judge Heaney, as he clearly explained in the 1999 film Incident at Oglala, that his decision was based on the law, the Bagley test. Notwithstanding, he had some strong personal feelings about the treatment of Native Americans and their history in general, he nonetheless decided on the law, which wasn’t a technicality as Peltier folklore would want us to believe.

In April 1991 Judge Heaney wrote a letter to then U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye on the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

One would have to assume that this would be the time that Kuzma fantasizes about the FBI’s move against Judge Heaney.

But then what happens? Judge Heaney writes a follow-up letter to Senator Inouye dated October 24, 2000, referencing his first letter from 1991. (That’s nine years later if Kuzma is counting.)

And, in yet another appeal to the Eighth Circuit in December 2002, Judge Heaney, in another unanimous decision, rules against Peltier…again…on the facts and the law.

So what happened to Kuzma’s revelation that “we’ve learned” that the honorable judge was “visited” by the FBI? Under other circumstances most would dismiss Kuzma’s outlandish allegation as simply frivolous, but since it has no basis in fact, or logic based on the timeline, it’s just plain dimwitted.

Besides, Judge Heaney never implied that Peltier didn’t get a “fair shake.”

Judge Heaney's letter listed several mitigating reasons why he believed Peltier should be afforded some consideration of leniency: "At some point, a healing process must begin," he said. Something he obviously felt very strongly about.

He added, "My thoughts on these other aspects result from a very careful study of the records..." but throughout this letter Judge Heaney never suggested that Peltier was innocent. Quite the contrary, he had this to say on the issue of Peltier's guilt: "Third, the record persuades me that more than one person was involved in the shooting of the FBI agents. Again, this fact is not a legal justification for Peltier's actions, but is a mitigating circumstance." (Fn. 6)

And, in an offhanded remark, it was Mr. Kuzma during the program who said the FBI is engaging in a major disinformation campaign about this case. Really? Kuzma ought to know about his own disinformation; he has a pretty good handle on that process. This is a coffee and kettle scenario for sure.

                         Frank Deluca, aka Frank Blackhorse:

Kuzma spent much time on what appeared to be a compulsion about the Jewish-Italian wannbe Indian who seemed to be on every law-enforcement radar yet kept dodging confinement. Devoting, apparently, much time using his FOIA skills, Kuzma is trying to determine whether or not Frankie was “one of their guys” (the FBI), of which Kuzma had no doubt. “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…I think he was a fed.” By “Fed” Kuzma must mean an FBI informant who he suspects of infiltrating and instigating the noble aims of AIM (no pun intended). Frankie is arrested, not prosecuted, does this and that and gets away with it. The “guy just vanished” and that Kuzma just “might learn the truth about this character.”

Much of what Kuzma repeats comes straight from the Peltier playbook, namely, Matthiessen’s, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse and it’s no secret that that Deluca was arrested with Peltier in Canada.

With all the angst Kuzma expresses over who or what Deluca was or wasn’t and why he is still roaming free above the 49th Parallel, he omits that Peltier himself knew who gave him up to the Canadian authorities. (According to Rogue Duenas via Matthiessen) “And finally we moved him (Peltier) over the mountains to Alberta, to Smallboy’s camp, way out in the bush. Black Horse was with him and there was another guy there, too, but we don’t work with him no more. Because they got there on a certain night, and the very next day the Mounties were right on top of them. (ITSOCH, p. 251) And identifying this other guy, ““Peltier himself says that “the person who was responsible for our arrest was the old man Yellow bird who we learned later was paid for his work by the R.C.M.P.; because of this traitor, Smallboy’s camp nearly split up.”” (ITSOCH, p. 403)

Nowhere throughout Kuzma’s ranting about the activities of Deluca does he connect him with Peltier and the murder of Coler and Williams. It’s like he’s spun-off in several different directions at once. But Kuzma knows, as we all do as well, that Deluca—for whatever he may eventually turn out to be, wasn’t at Jumping Bull on that most critical day. It was Peltier, Robideau and Butler, among other AIM members, not including Deluca, who first mortally wounded both agents and that Peltier (which was the government’s argument of the case and one that many people believe is true), fired the final fatal shots to the faces of Coler and Williams. (Further, I would personally want to know which of the brave warriors—an oxymoron in this instance—rolled the mutilated bodies over to face the ground. Maybe it was Joe Stuntz after he stole Coler’s jacket and put it on giving Peltier a smile.)

And, throughout the 90-minute discussion, Kuzma failed to mention anything pointing to Peltier’s alleged innocence in all this. Not one single word to support the notion that Peltier is not as guilty as sin.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

References:
1) A co-host actually made the statement referring to President Obama that “…he ..should get bolder…and would not be so accommodating to the far right?” Really, has the co-host paid any attention to the campaign over the past year?
2) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html
3) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#paroledenied
4) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical
5) USCA, 8th Circuit, 585 F.2nd 314, 1978, September 14, 1978, Fn. 5.
6) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#birthday
    http://www.noparolepeltier.com/heaney.html

On Civil Discourse

Dear supporters and subscribers:

Welcome to the NPPA’s new Blog.

The blog was to begin in January with an entry regarding Jack Coler’s birthday, however, a recent exchange of emails with the Leonard Peltier Defense-Offense Committee (LPDOC) concerning an out-of-control, foul-mouthed, self-appointed supporter who was not representing Peltier well in the court of public opinion, presented an opportunity to explore the concept of civil discourse and debate.

In an email dated 12/9/09 at 3:01pm the following was received from Jeff Armstrong, Communications Director, LPDOC:

(Name omitted) et al,

I have to agree that we should take the high road on this and not stoop to the level of Leonard’s framers and defamers. I’m not speaking for the LPDOC here, but I would like to see a more civil debate based on the facts of the case. I hope Ed Woods will reciprocate by withdrawing any objections he has filed with the IRS to hold up our 501 c3 status. Will he join us in calling for the release of 10,000 pages of FBI documents identifying informants and other participants in the FBI’s war on AIM? How about the “misplaced” Myrtle Poor Bear files? This is vitally important historical information whose suppression can only be justified by perpetuating the myth that Leonard Peltier and other AIM activists were violent criminals, rather than idealistic activists in a turbulent era.

Jeff Armstrong

Reply to Jeff Armstrong, Leonard Peltier and the LPDOC:

Jeff, Leonard, LPDOC:

First, thank you for the sincere and articulate reply and I would like to respond to the important points you’ve raised.

1) Continuing the Peltier debate in a civil, responsible and professional manner is crucial to ensure that those watching can make their own judgments concerning exactly what happened at Jumping Bull, and Peltier’s guilt.

2) Fundraising, etc.: The short answer is, no. This is an area where Peltier needs to be open and honest with his supporters and has been an ongoing issued both from outside observers and within the LPDOC (LPDC). As far back as 2003 LPDC leaders were calling for “transparency” concerning Peltier finances; and that has never happened (Editorial Essays 18,19 and 20 in the Debate Continues section, and http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#fraud). A crucial premise here, of course, is the whole notion of tax-deductible donations. (Although, I did just notice that you have removed the—donations are tax deductible—comment from your website, and that’s a positive step.) But looking deeper into the issue and asking for donations for things like “legal expenses associated with Leonard’s case-filing and cost recovery fees and attorney travel, for example-as well as community outreach and public education efforts conducted on his behalf,” are not legitimate charitable donations. If Leonard wants to ask for money for those things, and people are willing to contribute, that’s fine (as long as he claims it as income), but not when it’s mixed with or implied that there are some others benefitting from this money. Claiming that “Our application for 501(c)(3) federal tax-exempt status is pending” is perhaps a true statement but it is disingenuous and misleading; it will be pending until the IRS turns it down because no matter what terms the Peltier issues are framed in, Leonard is not, and never will be, a charity case. Supporters must know that, and Leonard needs to show “transparency” regarding finances as some of his close supporters have repeatedly demanded.

3) FOIA: It’s been repeated a number of times in Editorial Essays that I would like to see that pages remaining be made public in the national archives. That would help quiet the endless speculation. However, the Freedom of Information Act regulations are cumbersome and I wouldn’t begin to understand all the fine points, but do fully understand the need to protect the identity of sources; they or their families would still be in jeopardy. But that’s something to be argued in the courts, as Leonard and his attorneys have done.

There is a important corollary to this however: A good example is the 6/26/75 FBI log on your related website http://www.freepeltiernow.org/LEGAL/INCIDENT.htm.That one (1) page is there to support the premise that the Incident at Oglala was a pre-planned government move against AIM. Since Leonard has the entire document, why not, in all fairness, post the entire log and not just the one page that removes the context of the radio transmissions. I have personally asked the LPDOC for a copy of the complete document and they have never responded. This radio log will be the topic of an upcoming Editorial Essay entitled “the smoking gun.”

As you have seen, Aim is mentioned only a few times on the entire NPPA website, and mostly in passing. There are certainly other issues out there but Leonard is the focal point here.

Another, more recent point relates to statements made by Leonard, his attorney, Seitz, and the LPDOC after the parole hearing. I have asked, and will ask again for Leonard to post the Parole commission’s Notice of Action. That would resolve the question about exactly what the Commission had to say as they reached their decision. I’ve made an offer to transcribe the hearing as well. But without some real proof, Peltier supporters will not know what really happened at Lewisburg.

Betty Solano’s recent statement (November 10^th Newsletter) that “…the U.S. Parole Commission on August 20 denied Leonard his well-deserved release on the basis of false and unsubstantiated claims by the FBI and the Justice Department” is so patently false that there has to be some reconciliation of the facts. The devil is in the details as it were. I was there and was pretty much privy to the entire event, and what Solano claims is not true. But we can straighten out this conundrum, as she also said, “Well, no more beating around the bush.” And I couldn’t agree more, so to put it more colloquially, Betty, Leonard, Et. Al., I’m calling your bluff. There is one very simple way to resolve this and I have offered to spend the time to transcribe the hearing recording. Post the Notice of Action and a transcript of the parole hearing so others can make their own judgments about who’s telling the truth.

I will tell you now, Jeff, if I am proven wrong, I will fold up my tent, head off into the sunset, shut down the NPPA website and not spend another moment of my life on Leonard Peltier.

4) Poor Bear: I would have no idea about any missing files or that Leonard has made such a claim. On a personal note my career was spent chasing bank robbers and the like and I had no access to anything officially connected to RESMURS or Peltier. Everything I have obtained and posted has come from either public sources (like all the court decisions), books, or the Internet and Leonard’s and others, public statements.

Why is Poor Bear even an issue anymore? That’s a rhetorical question of course, because she’s an issue that has been fully explored and resolved. She was never a witness against Leonard, she contributed nothing to his conviction, and even Leonard’s lawyer recognized that because in his opening statement he said she was a “witness whose mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.” So Leonard really cannot have it both ways.

And yes, there’s the extradition; but the Canadian Government after considerable review said that Peltier was legally extradicted to the United States. http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html They had the final word on extradition.

AIM: That was a very good turn of a phrase and I can see why you are the communications director: “perpetuating the myth that Leonard Peltier and other AIM activists were violent criminals, rather than idealistic activists in a turbulent era.”

So then, we’re blaming their criminal actions on the times? No accountability for all the chaos they caused? Rather than go there, because frankly I don’t care about AIM, you would have to make a much larger argument to convince any reasonable people that AIM benefited those it claimed to help. And I know there are a lot of native people on the Ridge and elsewhere who would agree with that assessment. The history of AIM is not on your side of that argument and no matter how much Peltier and his supporters try to convince otherwise, all that has to be done is take a close look at AIM leadership, where they came from, where they went afterward and the path of destruction they left in their wake.

Having a reasonable and civil discourse and debate on the Peltier matter is a positive thing and I thank you for helping to promote that while we focus in on the details of Peltier’s guilt and the myth that has grown around the folklore. We can then let the undecided make up their own minds.

Regards,

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods