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

SA Jack R. Coler, 1947 - 1975, R.I.P.

Dear Jack:

 

Those of us who remain, your family, friends, FBI associates and law-enforcement across the country know that you are looking over us as another year passes.

 

Many of us believe that you are still the same strong, dedicated, committed and quintessential police officer, then FBI Agent, that you were in 1975.  It comforts us to keep that memory alive, especially those who knew you personally, that you are ageless and possess an omniscient awareness. You are no doubt proud to watch over your family and grandchildren.

 

Today is January 12, 2022, the day of those earthly times when you would have turned seventy-five. As you likely know there are rumors that some nameless individual may be under consideration to be released. His forty-five years is not nearly enough for what happened on Pine Ridge. No matter the outcome, you know we never stopped trying and assuredly will never forget. 

 

We are grateful to have a guardian angel, a brother in arms, as those in Blue face grave challenges from a growing segment of society that has little respect for those who willingly place themselves in harm’s way to protect and serve this great nation. A nation that today is facing internal strife and division and one self-induced crisis after another. 

 

As you undoubtedly know, you, Ron and all the FBI Service Martyrs are honored every year with a memorial service. We also pay tribute to those in Blue who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Line of Duty. 

 

Your legacy will never be forgotten.

 

Jack, please continue to watch over us and help protect those willing to serve.

 

“In the Spirit…

 

Ed

PELTIER: QUIET FOR THE MOMENT

Dear Supporters:

The ILPDC and Peltier have been fairly quiet lately.

There could be several explanations; he’s preparing for the Washington State civil suit scheduled for early next year, dealing with I.R.S. issues regarding a highly questionable 501(c)3 “tax deductible” claim,* his attorneys have advised that blasting out unsupported notices to supporters is fraught with problems when they provide conflicting facts and disprovable claims, or maybe, he’s given up fighting a lost cause. 

In any case we’ll just wait until Peltier goes public and sticks his prison sneakers in his mouth again.           

Peltier’s Facebook page is a little stale except for a ridiculously frail article by Robert Dean of Rebel Noise. And that is exactly what it is “noise” by repeating the same “fatally flawed” alleged facts that Peltier has been peddling for years. Folklore and myth that has been debunked repeatedly and not worth the time or effort to correct here, once again.**

They did though add a little extra falsity regarding Wesley Cook.***

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

* http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/01/peltier-public-charity-part-2-inurement.html(NPPA Blog 1/13/19)

** http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/03/peltier-important-reminders.html(NPPA Blog March 5, 2018)

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/03/

(NPPA Blog March 8, 2019)

***A 2015 excerpt from the NPPA website:

Regarding Wesley Cook:

For those who may not be familiar with Mumia Abu Jamal: During the early morning hours of December 9, 1981, Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner was alone and arresting a motorist who then resisted. Mumia, as he is known today, shot Officer Faulkner in the back. Officer Faulkner, although wounded, was able to shoot Mumia in the chest. While on the ground, and still conscious, Mumia fired at point-blank range hitting Officer Faulkner in the face. He died instantly. Mumia, according to several witnesses who never left the scene, including the motorist himself, who happened to be Mumia's brother, testified that Mumia remained there also. Recovered next to Mumia was the murder weapon, a .38 caliber revolver, which was registered to him. According to the prosecutor the only thing they didn't have as evidence for the local (not Federal) prosecution was a videotape of the murder. Mumia was convicted and sentenced to death and in some perverse way has also become a darling of some left-wingers and celebrities. For additional details see, www.justice4danielfaulkner.com.) (In another ironic twist there have been claims that Officer Faulkner was killed by a mysterious stranger who fled the scene. Perhaps-with obvious sarcasm-this mysterious stranger is the same person, Mr. X, who Peltier claimed killed Agents Coler and Williams. (See Mr. X, The Lie; http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html)

If all this sounds painfully familiar, it should.

Then there it is, clear and unequivocal, Peltier and the LPDC place Peltier in the same very close and select company as Mumia and McVeigh; cold and remorseless killers. They are now connected, rightfully so, for an even greater reason, they are all miserably guilty.

PELTIER: NPPA REACHES 19 YEARS

Dear Supporters:

This journey began on April 30, 2000 and as declared from the very beginning on the homepage of the No Parole Peltier Association website:

The stated purpose of the NPPA is to: 1) Honor the sacrifice of Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams who were brutally murdered in the line of duty, and 2) Respond to the erroneous statements and allegations made by the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. The NPPA will forego political rhetoric and name-calling and concentrate on the record of the events. Its central focus will be to review and analyze public statements made by Leonard Peltier, which further indicate his guilt, and to provide interested readers and researchers with another view, long missing from the public debate, of this very serious matter. The NPPA opposes parole or clemency for Leonard Peltier. IMPORTANT NOTE: It is critically important for any concerned reader and researcher to review the Court Decisions regarding Peltier's conviction and appeals. It is within those decisions that each and every issue and allegation raised by Peltier, and repeated by Peltier’s Committee(s), has been addressed and resolved.

We held true to that commitment, keeping the torch lit to honor the memory and sacrifice of FBI Agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams.

What follows is a brief summary of events, presented in NPPA Blogs since April 2018:

—Peltier whines and complains about having a cellmate.

—Peltier makes a completely false statement regarding an initial appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

—Peltier maneuvers for a compassionate release.

—Peltier wins and loses in federal court regarding the removal of his paintings on display for sale on government property in Washington State.

—The NPPA recognizes the birthday of murdered Special Agent Ronald A. Williams.

—The NPPA acknowledges the 43^rdanniversary of the attack and killing of Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams.

—A review of the FBI’s Hall of Honor recognizing Special Agents who have been killed in the line of duty as a result of adversarial action.

—Comments on the recent debates of the Redskin issue.

—FBI Director Wray makes an historic visit to Indian Country and meets with Native American leaders. There was no mention of Peltier.

—NPPA supporters are provided with a summary of “important reminders” regarding the federal appellate court decisions that “Peltier had personally killed the two agents” and that he “Got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.”

—Recognition of Jack R. Coler’s birthday and that he may Rest in Peace. 

—Last of three blogs detailing that former U.S. Attorney James Reynolds’ support for Leonard Peltier was erroneous and misplaced. 

As the NPPA enters its 20^thyear every effort will continue to confront Peltier’s false statements concerning his conviction and consecutive life sentences (which have never been altered after numerous appeals) and bring to light his public statements that are false or misleading while confronting the decades of Peltier myth and folklore.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Addendum:

1) Correction: In the 3,022 word March 8, 2019 NPPA blog entitled “Why Peltier is the Worst?”  (A straight-forward opinion that turned into an essay), there was a an incorrect word in an effective declarative sentence which should have read, “Lies are still lies no matter how they are gift-wrapped.”  This has been corrected on the original website blog.

2) Regarding the January 13, 2019 NPPA Blog entitled “PELTIER: PUBLIC CHARITY? PART 2, INUREMENT” that provided details regarding Peltier/IPLDC approval for 501(c)3 (tax-deductible) status and reviewed the legal use of IRS Form 13909 (Tax-Exempt Organizational Complaint-referral): On 3/6/19 a letter was received from the IRS acknowledging  in part: “The IRS has an ongoing program to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). We’ll consider the information you submitted in this program.” A second letter dated April 4, 2019 added “We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.”

3) Regarding the January 8, 2019 NPPA blog entitled “PELTIER: WANTS A TRANSFER” on March 9, 2019 the ILPDC announced, in part: “On Monday March 4th, 2019 Leonard Peltier was advised that his request for a transfer had been unceremoniously denied by the United States Bureau of Prisons…”

“44 years is too damn long for an innocent man to be locked up...” (NPPA comment: Hardly innocent!)

“We plan to demand he receive appropriate medical care, and to continue to uncover and utilize every legal mechanism to secure his release. To do these things we need money to support the legal work…” (NPPA comment: emphasis added—and it is more than curious that since the complaint to the IRS about likely misuse of its non-profit status, there is now no mention that any donations to assist Peltier’s “legal mechanism to secure his release” would be tax-deductible.)

“Please call the ILPDC National office or email us for a copy of the postcard you can send to the White House. We need your help to ask President Trump for Leonard's freedom.” (NPPA comment: Save the postage. The likelihood of President Trump considering a Peltier commutation is zero.)

PELTIER: WANTS HIS OWN CELL, AGAIN & SOME LIES

Dear Supporters:

On 2/4/19 the International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (ILPDC) distributed the following message on behalf of Leonard Peltier. (The ILPDC message is indented and italicized with NPPA comments and emphasis added):

The National Office and Board of Directors, are asking that you e-mail the following Bureau of Prison officials requesting that they re-assign the cellmate of Mr. Leonard Peltier 89637-132 to his own cell for the following reasons:

COA/publicinformation@bop.gov

SERO/ExecAssistant@bop.gov    Jcdinicola@bop.gov

It is with incredible concern that I learned that Leonard Peltier 89637-132 was assigned a cellmate. This is highly unusual as Leonard has had a single cell for a considerable amount of time, making this sudden assignment suspect. 

This isn’t the first time Peltier whined about cellmates. Goodness gracious, imagine the horror that on March 24, 2011 at USP Lewisburg “another prisoner was moved into Leonard’s cell.” (Fn. 1)

Practically since day one (and we’ll consider Day One as February 6, 1976 with his arrest by the RCMP), Peltier has marketed himself as an exceptional case, an allegedly privileged character—a wrongfully convicted political prisoner—or so the then developing folklore and myth would have us believe. 

But what happened to Peltier the tough guy? 

Peltier is a tough guy when he and others are shooting at two agents pinned down in an open field. He’s the tough guy participating in cold-blooded murder, blowing away the faces of two wounded and defenseless human beings. He’s the tough guy when he sticks a gun in a woman’s mouth and threatens her life and he’s the tough guy when he and others steal government property and make a run for it (well maybe not that tough as a fleeing felon thief).*

But apparently he has been pampered considerably over the years with a cell to himself, painting his days away and running a business against prison rules. But that’s another story.

There has been an unfortunate historywith Leonard being negatively impacted by the actions of cellmates. The time he had a cellmate in USP Lewisburg, he received disciplinary action including a transfer to USP Coleman, for contraband Leonard had nothing to do with and he is concerned this could happen again.

Let’s examine this “unfortunate history.”

On 6/27/11 at USP Lewisburg Peltier received two “Shots” (inmate jargon for prison infractions) that put him in the “hole” for six months (solitary confinement, which by Peltier’s own admission he’d spent in excess of five years worth).  One was minor for claiming (for which he had no proof) that he had received a 20-pound Scottish note through the prison mail system and was attempting to send it to someone else. A minor infraction perhaps, but the significant event was that Peltier’s then cellmate was transferred two weeks prior and during a subsequent routine cell inspection a guard received an electrical shock.  Please see the following for an explanation of Corrections Officer Hamilton’s report and details of this incident (Fn. 2).  Peltier was playing dumb that in that tiny cell he didn’t see the exposed wires, and that’s hard to believe, but what’s not hard to believe is that he did at least see or know about the exposed wires but chose not to do the right thing and advise Officer Hamilton. 

This pattern of the BOP against Mr. Peltier is similar to the time that the BOP used another Native prisoner, Standing Deer in a plot to assassinate Mr. Peltier. 

The Standing Deer (true name, Robert Hugh Wilson) claim as the alleged catalyst for Peltier’s escape from Lompoc Penitentiary has as little truth as the decades long lie of Peltier’s only alibi, that Mr. X killed the Agents and drove off in the infamous red pickup. Both assertions are ludicrous.

Rather than repeat here—again—all the fallacies surrounding the Standing Deer nonsense, a previous Editorial Essay devoted considerable details calling out Peltier on this outrageous lie and his lame excuse for the armed Lompoc escape. (FN. 3)

That the ILPDC believes and spreads the Standing Deer drivel is understandable, they are clueless to the facts, blinded by folklore, and besides, these are the great warrior/victim’s claims that they best not ignore. But even the mentor and Peltier scribe, Peter Matthiessen and the deceased Bob Robideau help defuse the babble that Standing Deer was drafted to kill Peltier. (Sorry for using the wrong verb, kill, we’re talking about the “innocent political prisoner” Leonard Peltier, who prefers assassinate! More nonsense.)  

(Without attribution this ILPDC appeal was simply signed, Sincerely.)

No Parole Peltier Association supporters are entitled to do the same, contact the Bureau of Prisons and express their opinion that Peltier is neither entitled to nor deserves any special treatment. It can be pointed out as well that Peltier should be given as much compassion as he showed to Jack Coler and Ron Williams; and that would be none.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

* 1) Remember, that during Peltier’s escape from Pine Ridge he was in the front passenger seat of a motor home pulled over by Oregon State Troopers. Under the seat was Agent Coler’s revolver in a paper bag that had Peltier’s thumbprint on it.

2) In early 2009 Peltier was transferred from USP Lewisburg to USP Caanan in Waymart, PA. He wasn’t there long before he, to use the phrase from a real tough guy, caught a beating, from two inmates, reportedly gang members who likely weren’t buying into the great warrior, privileged political prisoner tripe or perhaps weren’t impressed that he was a cop killer. Maybe they didn’t care for him because of the reputation that preceded him or maybe they just wanted the bragging rights that they kicked the snot out of the self-proclaimed legend and protector of his people. Don’t know if the gang members were prosecuted or wound up in solitary themselves, but at any rate they should have been. Picking on a then sixty-five year old man, who at least on July 28^thof that year was a bloated figure staring at his sneakers in front of the parole board hearing officer, Peltier wouldn’t have put up much of a fight. In stark contrast to this warrior was the infamous Teflon Don, John Gotti who was severely beaten while serving his life sentence at USP Marion. Gotti didn’t whine or complain, he simply told the guards that he “fell.”

Footnotes:

1) Peltier wants his own room…. http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2011/04/

2) The Peltier shot… http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2011/08/

3) Please take a little time to learn about Standing Deer: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#standi

            Peltier’s alibi lie of Mr. X: (Mr. X the Interview), (Mr. X the Movie), 

            Mr. X The Lie: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html

            Peltier: Important Reminders: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/03/peltier-important-reminders.html

PELTIER: PUBLIC CHARITY? PART 2, INUREMENT

Dear Supporters:

This may be the proverbial smoking gun (certainly, no pun intended) in Peltier’s decades long quest to fill his coffers ostensibly for charitable activities but are clearly to pad an alleged need to fund his flagging and arguably non-existent legal defense. 

Peltier has pointed that gun at his own foot and loaded it with a bullet that has  “Inurement” written on it.

Peltier’s alleged charitable activities, and there have been many claims, when brought into the sunlight hardly stand up to scrutiny. (Footnote 1)

Based on years of myth and folklore Peltier has offered himself as the

warrior/victim, as a prophet of sorts for Native rights, but based on his continued cash-centric efforts has become more the prophet of profits.

Peltier has claimed many times that donations to his cause were tax-deductible (often removing, yet returning to the tax deductible mantra; however, there is an explanation for these on-and-off-again claims) but this time adding an extra layer that they are indeed legitimate and under the guise of a “Public Charity” with 501(c)3 status.

The Internal Revenue Service is very clear about the requirements for tax deductible activities of “E.O.” or Exempt Organizations and granting 501(c)3 status.

The Application for Recognition of Exemption, I.R.S. Form 1023, clearly states:

“Section 501(c)3 requires that your organizing document state your exempt purpose(s), such as charitable, religious, educational, and/or scientific purposes.”

I.R.S. regulations make it clear that:

Private Benefit and Inurement : A public charity is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit to individuals or organizations. This restriction is to ensure that a tax- exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is more than incidental, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status. No part of an organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of an insider. An insider is a person who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization such as an officer, director or a key employee. This means that an organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to accrue to insiders.

And further:

If a public charity provides an economic benefit to any person who is able to exercise substantial influence over its affairs (that exceeds the value of any goods or services provided in consideration), the organization has engaged in an excess benefit transaction. (Emphasis added.)

There is no dispute that Leonard Peltier and his committee have more than a casual or symbiotic relationship. They are one in the same, mirror images with common links and goals. Peltier has made it clear that he is in charge and none of the committee’s public pronouncements and activities exist without his approval. Peltier is the insider. Without Peltier there would be no need for a committee as Peltier unquestionably exercises substantial influence over its affairs. There is an ongoing and lengthy history supporting this conclusion.

To further reveal this assertion in July 2016 the ILPDC publicly posted the following:

“There is only one Committee. The ILPDC is planning/managing the only official freedom campaign for Leonard Peltier (in concert with Leonard Peltier and his attorneys). You may see public or Internet-based fundraising efforts not endorsed or managed by the ILPDC. Beware. These are not approved actions and the fundraising isn’t being done on behalf of the Committee. Only credentialed chapters of the ILPDC and selected partners are authorized to raise funds in Leonard’s name. Therefore, we encourage donors to always ask for a fundraiser’s credentials and/or check with the ILPDC as to the legitimacy of any fundraising effort conducted by an individual or organization other than the ILPDC. Thank You.” (Emphasis added)

Yet, with the legal requirement that a 501(c)3 be established for charitable, religious, educational and/or scientific purposes the committee offers these notable public statements:

“There’s some good news on the Tax front as we received word from the IRS that we’ve received our 501c3 status! So, all of you that have been waiting to send your donations can use them as a tax right off (sic) –now is the time.”

“In addition, the timing couldn’t be better as we are struggling in our fundraising for the office and Leonard’s legal fund.” (8/31/18)

“This move forward will entail us requesting Leonard’s supporters to help make this a reality by contributing to Leonard’s legal fund. And we can let you know that we can send you a tax deduction for your donation as our 501(c)3 has after much struggle become a reality!”  (10/8/18)

It has been hectic here at the National Office, and I want to bring you all up to date on our needs for financial help. We need help on paying Leonard’s legal fees  for his transfer and his First Amendment case in Washington State. We are estimating that we will need to raise $5,000 by the end of 2018. For supporters that need a tax deduction we are a 501c3 organization and will happily send you a tax statement for 2018 tax year.  (11/20/18)

Mandated within the I.R.S. Form 1023 application is the “Required Provisions in Your Organizing Document.”

The application referenced that provision as being “Page 1 Article II Paragraph 1.”

However, that section of the ILPDC By-Laws states the following:

Article II. Purposes 

The purposes for which the corporation is organized are: 

To bring together through intersecting learning circles the indigenous knowledge and traditions of the original inhabitants of North America with governing society procedures and practices. On this most heterogeneous of continents, with intertwined histories of its peoples evolving from all parts of the globe, the International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee will work to blend cultures and traditions through mutually respectful identification and acknowledgement of shared universal needs and values to help support and strengthen socially responsible and equitably administered democratic nations. 

Said organization is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations described under Section 501(c)(3) of the internal Revenue Code, corresponding section of any future federal tax code. (Emphasis added)

Sounds notable, even beneficent but also a bit conspicuous that nowhere in the By-Laws or on the Form 1023 does it state they are raising “tax deductible” donations for the legal fund of a convicted double murderer. 

It’s more likely than not that the I.R.S. would not have granted the 501(c)3 if the organizing document or the Form 1023 spelled out the apparent purpose of raising money for Peltier’s legal fund as their highly public pronouncements indicate.

That approved 501(c)3 would hardly serve a public interest but obviously a private one, that of Leonard Peltier, who without qualification has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization.

* * *

Fortunately, the I.R.S. has a process to report concerns regarding Exempt Organizations.

IRS.gov provides a Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form 13909 that requests certain information (Fn. 2):

Name of referred organization: International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, 116 W. Osborne Ave., Tampa, Florida, 33603.

Employer Identification number (EIN): 81-5117989.

Nature of violation: The Form 13909 provides a list of boxes that can be checked where appropriate.

Names of persons involved: Jean Roach (Chairperson), Gerri Timmons (Treasurer), Dan Battaglia, (Secretary), Stephanie Autumn (Director), Yvonne Swan (Director), Paulette Dauteuil (Co-Director)

Dates: The I.R.S. letter 947 approving public charity and 501(c)3 status for the ILPDC was dated August 22, 2018, however the Effective Date of Exemption was backdated to December 15, 2017. (Note the dates of the public fund raising notifications listed above.)

Submitter information: On the form the submitter information has a box that can be checked to not disclose the submitter’s identity.

* * *

The above is provided for background and informational purposes.

Supporters may take whatever action they feel appropriate concerning Peltier and the ILPDC’s 501(c)3 and whether it is appropriate for a convicted double murderer to be entitled to such tax exempt status.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#fraud

(2004-2007 and needs to be updated, however, the 501(c)3 issue is timely)

2) https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

PELTIER: A PUBLIC CHARITY? PART 1

Dear Supporters:

First, best to all for what was hopefully a great holiday season and for a healthy, happy and productive New Year.

Yes, as disturbing as it may sound, it is true that Leonard Peltier and his International Leonard Pletier Defense Committee (ILPDC) has been granted 501(c)3 status making donations—for the first time ever—legitimately tax deductible. 

No, that wasn’t a typo. Peltier’s August 22, 2018 letter from the IRS under Employer Identification Number 81-5117989 is listed as Leonard Pletier. Oops!

In a public release on August 31, 2018 the ILPDC excitedly announced they had some “good news on the tax front” and had received notice from the I.R.S. granting 501(c)3 status.

Upon hearing such great news one has to wonder how a convicted felon, someone serving consecutive life sentences for two brutal murders can become a public charity. (Omitted is a big  “?” at the end of that sentence.)

There should be no misunderstanding that over the years Leonard Peltier has made it abundantly clear that the actions, publications and press releases of the ILPDC (the former LPDOC and the previous LPDC) are not taken without his approval. Peltier and previous “committees” have criticized other websites that gave the appearance of speaking or fundraising on his behalf. Leonard Peltier is and owns the actions of the ILPDC.

To clarify that point, in July 2016 the ILPDC published this:

“There is only one Committee. The ILPDC is planning/managing the only official freedom campaign for Leonard Peltier (in concert with Leonard Peltier and his attorneys). You may see public or Internet-based fundraising efforts not endorsed or managed by the ILPDC. Beware. These are not approved actions and the fundraising isn’t being done on behalf of the Committee. Only credentialed chapters of the ILPDC and selected partners are authorized to raise funds in Leonard’s name. Therefore, we encourage donors to always ask for a fundraiser’s credentials and/or check with the ILPDC as to the legitimacy of any fundraising effort conducted by an individual or organization other than the ILPDC.

Thank You.”(Emphasis added)

On October 31^st, searching for an answer to the 501(c)3 question, the email below was sent to contact@whoisleonardpeltier.info. The Halloween request was no joke or prank and was well within the bounds of the law and I.R.S. regulations and certainly not libelous to ask a straightforward legitimate and legal question. (Footnote 1) 

That evening a polite response was received from ILPDC Co-Director, Ms. Paulette Dauteuil who advised that she was travelling and would provide the requested application by the end of the following week (November 9^th). 

On November 8^th another polite email was received advising that the IRS Form 1023 was copied and would be placed in the mail that afternoon. However, Ms. Dauteuil requested a mailing address. One was provided along with a suggestion that an emailed scanned document would be acceptable.

Nothing arrived and during a November 16^thphone call to the ILPDC Ms. Dauteuil, who was polite and courteous, said she had sent the form by certified mail and provided a USPO tracking number. However, a check of the tracking number indicated that the letter was sent but returned as “addressee unknown” and “return to sender.” 

This was a bit odd and after another email request was made to scan and email the document, on November 19^tha copy of the ILPDC’s Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption was received.  The application was reviewed and found to be missing pertinent details. A follow-up email was sent requesting additional documentation that is part of the application process but was not included with the form itself. (Fn. 2)

On November 26^th Ms. Dauteuil politely advised via email that she was working on “getting all the papers together and will get them to you as soon as possible.” Politeness aside for the moment considering that we are on diametrically opposite sides of the Peltier matter, these are now public records and the ILPDC is required by I.R.S. policy and regulation to respond to a records request.  

The “papers” didn’t arrive but instead an email on December 4^th from Paulette advising that she “…sent a request to our attorney and they will send you the supplemental documents you requested.” 

Curious perhaps, but this isn’t a matter that requires an attorney, only the I.R.S. requirements for 501(c)3 organizations to provide publicly available documents within the required timeframe.

The Florida attorney, David A. Frankel responded cordially and by December 20^th all the requested documents were received. 

In the meantime, it would appear that Leonard Peltier, convicted for the brutal murders of two already wounded human beings, and serving consecutive life sentences for those heinous crimes, has in fact received 501(c)3 status from the Internal Revenue Service.

To be continued.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) From:Ed Woods

Subject: ILPDC 501(c)3 Document Request

Date: October 31, 2018 at 9:16:30 AM EDT

To: clark peter ILPDC

Dear ILPDC:

IRS regulations require disclosure of 501(c)3 documentation as excerpted below from IRS.gov.

Please provide a .pdf copy of the ILPDC’s application (IRS form 1023) for the ILPDC’s 501(c)3 status.

Thank you in advance for providing a publicly available and required document.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

What does the disclosure law require a tax-exempt organization to do?

An exempt organization must provide a copy of covered tax documents to an individual who makes a written or in person request at the organization’s principal office. If the organization regularly maintains any regional or district offices having three or more employees, it must also respond to request submitted to any such office. Covered tax documents include, in general, the organization’s application for tax-exempt status and its annual returns for a period of three years beginning on the date the return is required to be filed. If the request is made in person, it must generally be honored on the day of the request; if it is written, then the organization generally has 30 days to respond. (November 30, 2018) (A request that is faxed, e-mailed or sent by private courier is considered a written request.) (Emphasis and date added)

The organization may want to charge reasonable copying costs and the actual cost of postage before providing the copies. The law permits this.  But the organization must provide timely notice of the approximate cost and acceptable form of payment within seven days of receipt of the request. (November 7, 2018) Acceptable forms of payment must include cash and money order (for an in-person request) and certified check, money order and personal check or credit card, for a written request. (Emphasis and date added)

https://www.irs.gov/site-index-search?search=disclosure+requirements&field_pup_historical_1=1&field_pup_historical=1

What does the IRS consider to be a reasonable charge for copying costs, which an exempt organization may charge for copies of tax documents covered by public disclosure requirements?

A tax-exempt organization may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies, which is generally defined as the amount charged by the IRS for providing copies. Under regulations, the IRS may not charge more for copies than the fees listed in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee schedule.  Although the FOIA fee schedule directs the IRS to provide the first 100 pages free to non-commercial users, the regulations allow the exempt organization to charge a fee for all copies. The FOIA schedule currently provides a charge of $.20 per page. (Emphasis added)

An organization may require payment before it provides copies, but must advise requesters of the total cost of the copies requested if adequate payment is not included with the request. The organization may also charge the actual postage costs it incurred to mail copies to the requester. (Emphasis added)

2) Email, November 22, 2018:

Paulette:  

I will not wish you a Happy Thanksgiving because I understand and appreciate that this is not a day for celebration by Native Americans. 

Thank you for the 1023 Application Form, however there are more documents and information associated with the 501(c)3 application that are part of the public records and request process for tax exempt organizations. Several sections that are marked “yes” require further details and explanations and are an integral element of the 501(c)3 application and are required for public inspection. 

Please provide copies (scanned and emailed would be acceptable and preferred) for the following application references:

1) Part II, 5: A copy of the Florida filed corporate by-laws.

2) Part III, 1: Location and purpose clause; "Article II Purpose." (Assuming this may be satisfied with the copy of the By-Laws, above.)

3) Part IV: Narrative Description of Your Activities: From form 1023; “…Using an attachment….it will be open for public inspection. Therefore, your narrative description of activities should be thorough and accurate.”      Please provide this narrative as provided with the 1023 application.

4) Part V, 2b: This question was answered “Yes.” According to the Form, “If ‘Yes’ identify the individuals and describe the business relationship with each of your officers, directors, or trustees.” Please provide the answer to this question as provided with the 1023 Form.

5) Part VI, 1a: This question was answered “yes.” Please provide details related to “past, present, and planned activities,” and, “describe each program that provides goods, services, or funds to individuals” as provided with the 1023 application. 

6) Part VIII, 10: The answer to this question was “yes.” “If ‘Yes', explain. Describe who owns or will own any copyrights, patents, or trademarks, whether fees are or will be charged, how the fees are determined, and how any items are or will be produced, distributed, and marketed.” 

Please provide the answer to this question as provided with the 1023 Form.

7) Part VIII, 11: The answer to this question was “yes” and the form stated, “If ‘Yes,’ describe each type of contribution, any conditions imposed by the donor on the contribution, and any agreements with the donor regarding the contribution.” Please provide the answer to this question as provided with the 1023 Form. 

8) Part VIII, 22: The answer to this question was “yes,” and “If 'Yes,' complete Schedule H.” Please provide a copy of the Schedule H details provided with this 1023 application form.

9) Schedule G, 2a: The answer to this question was “yes.” Schedule G states, “If ‘yes’ explain the relationship with the other organization that resulted in your creation.” Please provide the answer to this question as provided on the 1023 Form. 

10) Paulette, you signed the application as the Co-Executive Director yet are not listed in Part V of Officers, Directors or Trustees. Was this missed while scanning the document?

Thank you.

Regards,

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed