PELTIER: IMPORTANT REMINDERS

Dear Supporters:

There has been a slight delay in reporting on Peltier’s latest public statements; this is due in large part to several other NPPA projects that needed attention.

In the meantime it is important to remind Peltier supporters and detractors of just a few, but very crucial events, in the legal history of the Peltier saga:

“The trial witnesses unanimously testified that there was only one AR-15 in the compound prior to the murders, that this weapon was used exclusively by Peltier and carried out by Peltier after the murders.” (Emphasis added) (Footnote.1)

“Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed. (A) The government tried the case on alternative theories; it asserted that Peltier personally killed the agents at point blank range, but that if he had not done so, then he was equally guilty of the murder as an aider and abettor.”

“The Government’s statement at a prior oral argument, upon which Peltier relies, was not a concession.” “In any event, this eight-word comment in response to Judge Heaney‘s statements, is a totally inadequate basis for asserting that the government conceded that it had not proved that Peltier personally shot the agents at close range…” (Emphasis added) (Fn.2)

“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]

“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, 8^th Circuit, 12/18/02]

"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 subsequent court decisions have been overturned."

[10th Circuit Court of Appeals, 11/4/2003]

“I believe he got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.” [8th Circuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney]. Fn.3

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) Eighth Circuit decision: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/800.html

After the three-day ‘ballistics’ hearing: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/609.html

2) Fatally flawed: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/997.html

3) The Heaney factor: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/10/peltier-heaney-factor.html

PELTIER: THE HEANEY FACTOR

Dear Supporters:

In the roll top desk in my study is an 8x10 color photograph.

It’s been there a long time.

I don’t need it on display but I do look at it from time to time as I read, research and write.

The photo is graphic and disturbing, a tragic moment frozen in time on June 26, 1975.

Two young men, one shirtless, lying face down in the grass next to a bullet riddled gold Chevrolet. (Footnote 1)

I never knew FBI Special Agents Jack R. Coler or Ronald A. Williams, and it wouldn’t matter if I had.

Reflecting back over the past 17 ½ years and all the countless hours spent on Peltier issues, there seems to be one central point during the lengthy process of his appeals that serves as the lynchpin of Peltier’s “otherwise notoriously convoluted procedural history” through the criminal justice system. (Fn: 2)

Even more than all the government’s evidence against Peltier, the Honorable Gerald Heaney (1918 – 2010) of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (an unquestioned example of America’s Greatest Generation) undeniably played the most critical role in the fact that Peltier remains incarcerated to this day. (Fn: 3)

Judge Heaney was both lauded and reviled by Peltier and Peltierites depending on which position served their purpose at the moment.

The attack

Over the years Peltier has had numerous competent attorneys (many paid for by the largesse of the American taxpayer, others pro bono and an unknown number paid for by funds—the source of which remains under scrutiny) but there are a few exceptions, this being one of them:

In November 2001, Peltier’s then attorney filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (of which Judge Heaney was a member), citing Rule 35, a “renewed motion to remove or reduce his sentence.” The motion, which included several other claims, was denied in 2002 because it was filed “…twenty-two years after the 120-day filing period had expired.” During that 22 years Peltier had already had opportunities under Federal Rules 35 and 2255 that had been previously considered and denied. The unanimous court decision (Judges Magnusson, Arnold and Heaney) reviewed prior appellate history and included this most salient of all facts:

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.

Peltier's attorney publicly and angrily stated that this ruling was "a disgrace" and further proof that "nobody who seems to care about Leonard is in a position of responsibility or authority," adding, "They're inclined to let him rot in prison." (Fn:  4)  

This attorney wasn’t insightful enough to see the foolishness of his public pronouncement, let alone his own flawed logic. The reality was that all three judges were—in fact—in a position of “responsibility and authority” and that should have been patently evident, the most important and relevant one—to Peltier—being Judge Heaney.

From the outset Peltier has fashioned and promoted himself as a political prisoner.

Peltier claims a vast conspiracy among the government, FBI and the courts “in a corrupted pre-planned trial,” those in government who are “blind, stupid, or without human feelings,” that the “white racist America is the criminal,” accusing the presiding judge as  “a high-ranking member of the white racist American establishment.” (Fn: 5)  Peltier claims to have “became a scapegoat” and “was the last Indian left to railroad for the deaths of their two agents.” (Fn: 6) 

It should be unmistakably apparent; there are no grey areas in Peltier’s public statements.

There is no other way to interpret Peltier’s decades-long conspiracy theory, but that by implication, it must also include the Honorable Judge Gerald Heaney.

The praise

Judge Heaney obviously held a deep concern for the treatment and plight of Native Americans and in 1991 wrote an impassioned letter to U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye (another WWII hero), who was then on the Select Committee on Indian Affairs.  Judge Heaney set out some details asking for consideration for clemency by President George H.W. Bush, stating in part, that the U.S. government must share the responsibility for the agents’ deaths and that “At some point , a healing process must begin. We as a nation must treat Native Americans more fairly.” (See below for details.)  (Fn: 7)

Peltier, Peltierites and the various “defense committees” over the years have vigorously promoted this letter to support bids for parole, clemency, commutation, and Peltier’s claimed innocence.

The reality

 (Brief background: Peltier was convicted and sentenced in U.S. District Court, Fargo, North Dakota in 1977. Under the Freedom of Information Act Peltier subsequently received, among other documents, an October 2, 1975 FBI Teletype concerning ballistic testing related to a .223 shell casing (located in the trunk of Agent Coler’s vehicle) and the Wichita AR-15 related to Peltier. In 1982, under Rule 2255, Peltier moved for a new trial claiming that this new evidence was deliberately withheld and violated his constitutional right to due process based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brady v. Maryland.  The Government’s position was that the Teletype was not in violation of Brady. The District Court agreed and denied the motion for a new trial. Peltier appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and that court [Judge Heaney] remanded the matter back to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing [ballistics hearing] on the meaning of the October 2^, 1975 Teletype. In October 1984 a three-day hearing was held and the District Court affirmed that the Teletype was considered preliminary information, which the prosecution had no obligation to disclose, thus denying Peltier’s Rule 2255 motion. Peltier appealed this denial again to the Eighth Circuit. That court [Judge Heaney] ruled against Peltier based on Brady and U.S. v. Bagley. See details below.)

In 1991 Judge Heaney appeared on a pitifully unbalanced 60 Minutes segment hosted by Steve Kroft where Judge Heaney, Peltier and others were interviewed. The program was nothing more than a Peltier folklore propaganda piece taken straight from the Peltier playbook. The errors in this program would take many pages to explain. (Fn: 8) 

Kroft asked Judge Heaney the proverbial $64 question:

“Do you believe he got a fair trial? 

Judge Heaney’s unscripted reply, seemingly to Kroft’s surprise (as if he was expecting a blockbuster moment):

“I believe he got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.”

(Anyone in law enforcement and the criminal justice system knows that perfect trials are as rare as unicorns.)

The Heaney letter:

Although Judge Heaney did make his personal feelings known supporting Peltier’s bid for clemency it must be made very clear that he never implied in any way that Peltier was innocent. Quite the contrary, Judge Heaney’s letter included:

            --“No new evidence has been called to my attention which would cause me to change the conclusion reached in that case.” (Clearly implying that Peltier was, and remains, guilty.)

            --“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 it is a mitigating circumstance.”  (In other words, sharing the blame does not lessen Peltier’s guilt.)

The Heaney decisions:

In the appellate decision of the evidentiary (ballistics) hearing, authored by Judge Heaney, we find the following: (Fn: 9)

            --We then held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Peltier responsible for the murders.

            --Constitutional error occurs, and the conviction must be reversed, only if the evidence is material in the sense that its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.

            --When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.

            This comment is so crucial it bears repeating:

--When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.

--There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been available to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies casting strong doubts on the government’s case. Yet, we are bound by the Bagley test requiring that we be convinced, from a review of the entire record, that had the data and records withheld been made available, the jury probably would have reached a different result. We have not been so convinced. 

(In other words, contrary to Peltier’s persistent claims over the years that he lost this decision on a technicality, it is clear that the decision was made based on a finding of fact, the entire court record, and the law. It appears that it may have been a tough decision but nonetheless Judges Heaney, Ross and Gibson agreed. It was unanimous with no dissenting opinion.)

Postscript

With all due respect to the late Judge Heaney, much of his passion was misplaced.

Heaney claimed that the government over-reacted during the American Indian Movement (AIM) takeover of the hamlet of Wounded Knee in 1973. Instead of carefully considering the legitimate grievances of the Native Americans, the response was essentially a military one which culminated in the deadly firefight on June 26, 1975. While the government’s role in escalating the conflict into a firefight cannot serve as a legal justification for the killing of the FBI agents at short range, it can properly be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Leonard Peltier was tried, found guilty, and sentenced. He has now served more than fourteen years in the federal penitentiary.

Really?  Mitigating circumstance? Does this imply that killing the Agents at long-range, would have made a difference, or that serving only seven years for each brutal murder is a sufficient sentence? The personal opinion and passion in the language seems to imply as much.

Referring to the brutal murder of Special Agents Coler and Williams as a “firefight” denigrates the memory and sacrifice of two young men who were performing their lawful duties. We know there was no “firefight” because an eyewitness (Agent Williams) described over the radio that those they followed into a field off Highway 18 were about to take them under fire. This was an unprovoked attack, joined in by a number of other AIM cowards unloading a barrage of rifle fire in a deadly crossfire on the Agents trapped in an open field.  There was no escalation, as Heaney asserts, by the government on June 26^th but an onslaught of murderous and cowardly AIM assailants.  

Heaney erred by compressing the timeline between AIM’s utter destruction of personal property and artifacts and the terrorizing of residents at Wounded Knee in 1973 and the Agents’ murders at Jumping Bull over two years later.

In referencing “legitimate grievances” of Native Americans, Judge Heaney picked the wrong gang to endorse. AIM wreaked havoc across the country. The self-serving leadership of the likes of Russell Means, Dennis Banks and the Bellecourts proved, over time, that AIM contributed nothing of value to Native America.  AIM’s history is anathema to Native American concerns. It may have brought Native issues to the forefront, but did so along a destructive path. If there is any doubt, ask the family of Perry Ray Robinson, murdered by AIM during the Wounded Knee takeover (along with the many rumors that there are more AIM victims buried in unmarked graves), or the daughters of Anna Mae Aquash, the Native activist who had the misfortune to be interrogated at gunpoint by Leonard Peltier. Anna Mae, on orders from AIM hierarchy was kidnapped, raped, shot in the head and dumped in a ravine. Ask Anna Mae’s daughters what they think about Leonard Peltier and AIM. (Fn: 10)

Judge Heaney’s letter, dated April 18, 1991 claimed that the FBI used improper tactics in securing Peltier’s extradition from Canada.

This was a hotly debated issue publicly, and in the courts (particularly over the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits). However, the Canadian government fully reviewed the proceedings and in 1999 stated as a matter of public record that Peltier was lawfully extradited and that the circumstantial evidence…taken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges. (Fn: 11) Judge Heaney was in senior status at the time and still hearing cases when the Canadian government published its conclusion in a detailed letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. However, there is no indication that Judge Heaney attempted to correct his erroneous conclusion on Peltier’s extradition.

Heaney’s letter and private opinions, as a sitting senior federal judge, were intended to influence consideration for clemency by the President. It offered a personal bias that perhaps was clouded by strong feelings about the historical mistreatment of First Americans. He spoke of “legitimate” Native American grievances while ignoring the turmoil and destruction caused by AIM. Judge Heaney did not recognize that any “healing” could not begin with the likes of the murderous Leonard Peltier and that Peltier should only be treated as “fairly” as he treated Jack Coler and Ron Williams.

Nonetheless, Gerald Heaney set aside those personal beliefs when it came to fulfilling his obligation as a judge. He then acted as the outstanding and dedicated jurist he was and ruled against Peltier based on the law. The result of which is the sole reason why Peltier remains where he belongs.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes

1) It is undisputed that Agents’ Coler and Williams (Ron with a defensive wound) were both shot in the face at point-blank range, killing them instantly. Yet, when responding FBI Agents and law enforcement discovered them, their lifeless bodies were obviously rolled over to face the ground. It is not known who among the AIM cowards moved the mutilated agents’ bodies, one, or maybe all. In Indian folklore counting coup was when a vanquished enemy was touched. Being rolled over to face Mother Earth also ensured that the dead would not meet the Creator in the afterlife. After an unprovoked attack and brutal murders the spineless AIM antagonists could hardly—as Peltier has claimed of those who were there that day—call themselves warriors.

2) U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota; Memorandum and Order, U.S. v. Peltier, C77-3003, filed February 25, 2002.

3) Gerald Heaney was truly a member of America's Greatest Generation. At the outbreak of World War II, as a young lawyer, he could have avoided the heat of battle and used his legal talents 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 and Ranger, participating in the D-Day invasion (earning a Silver Star) along with several significant battles through the end of war in Europe. His courage can be neither denied nor ignored. (This writer proudly shares a small part of Judge Heaney's background, having also graduated from the United States Army, Infantry Officer’s Candidate School, Ft. Benning, Georgia, although twenty-four years and several conflicts later.) Judge Heaney was a jurist of impeccable reputation and experience. His character is irreproachable and unquestioned, and we know this because of a very specific example from the Peltier case.

Gerald Heaney was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson to fill a new seat on the Eighth District Court of Appeals in 1966, went into senior status in 1988 and then served part-time until 2006. Along with two other appointments, President Johnson effectively altered the balance of the court. Judge Heaney was more likely to support claims for civil liberties and engage in an activist judiciary. He was more likely to write dissenting opinions and authored many of the court’s decisions, as he did in the Peltier case.

4)  http://www.noparolepeltier.com/duluthnews.html

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#birthday (see last section)

5) Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (New York: Penguin Books, 1991 361-365.

6) Leonard Peltier, Prison Writings (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999) 140, 162 and Part IV.

7) Judge Heaney letter to Senator Inouye: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/heaney.html. https://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info, In Peltier’s website, under “resources” and “legal” there is a reference to Judge Heaney’s letter, however, this letter, along with references from other claimed resources, cannot be accessed to read.

8) 60 Minutes, hosted by Steve Kroft: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc9ofu

There are so many factual errors that today this broadcast would be considered fake news. Skewed details and factual inaccuracies are prevalent throughout the program. Just one of many glaring errors is Kroft referring to Peltier’s AR-15 while showing a photo of a hunting rifle. Critically, in this segment Peltier makes his first public admission that he fired at the agents, “Yes, I fired at them.” This was in 1991, yet in Peltier’s 1999 (Yes, eight years later) autobiography, Prison Writings, he said “I fired off a few shots above their heads, not trying to hit anything or anyone, just to show that we had some kind of defense so they didn’t just roll in and slaughter us.”

(p. 125) It’s always easy to keep the facts straight when telling the truth but Peltier has changed his version of what happened that day so many times that it’s tough to keep the lies straight, causing an everlasting stink. Apparently Peltier forgot what he told Kroft. The segment includes a cameo of the fictional Mr. X with Peltier offering another explanation about why he couldn’t talk about that person or what he allegedly did. Yet, in Prison Writings Peltier makes no mention of Mr. X or the infamous red pickup. Wonder why? There is a pattern here.

9) 1986 Eighth Circuit Hearing decision:

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/800.html

10) http://www.americanindianmafia.com

Joseph & John Trimbach, American Indian Mafia (Denver: Outskirts Press, Inc. 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc2pz1C5bQ4 Gun in her mouth.

http://jfamr.org/denise_interview.html Denise Pictou-Maloney

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-confirms-activist-ray-robinson-was-killed-during-1973-occupation-of-wounded-knee/

11) Canadian letter re Peltier extradition:

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

PELTIER: "We will" too...

Dear Supporters”

“Friends of Peltier” recently released a well-made YouTube video entitled “Time for you to stand up for Leonard Peltier.” It featured a number of people, young and old, Native American and not, known and unknown, famous and infamous, all offering a chorus of “I will” and “We will” lend support to encourage executive clemency for Leonard Peltier. (Footnote #1)

Some, without doubt, are sincere in their belief in Peltier’s innocence, or at least that he has served enough time for his crimes; others have their own agendas.

There’s no appearance in the video, but in a voice-over Peltier says:

“I am, of course, I’m very sorry for the lives that were lost. I’m grateful if the President would give me clemency. I’m grateful if he would give me justice, give my people justice.”

Thomas Poor Bear continues with “a firefight erupted” mentioning that three were killed and that prayers are offered for their families.

Thomas is dead wrong, (no pun intended), that “a firefight erupted.” We know exactly how things started and developed that day from one of the victims. Those in the FBI’s Rapid City office, and others, heard Ron Williams on the radio describing that in the vehicle they followed - they were stopping, they were getting out, it looks like they’re going to shoot; and the shooting started. Ron then tries to describe where they are and if help doesn’t get there soon they would be dead. Those listening hear him call out that he had been shot. The crime scene photos tell the end of the story. Two dead FBI agents with their faces blown away laying face down in the dirt. Facedown meant that they were touched and moved. Were the “brave warriors” that day counting coup?

(Fn. 2)

Thomas is kind to offer thoughts and prayers for the three, as there should be empathy for the Stuntz family. But what did he do that day? Through Peltier’s actions and foolish leadership Stuntz apparently believed it was acceptable to shoot at two FBI agents pinned down in an open field. Stuntz also felt it was right—and gave Peltier a smile, when he stole the FBI raid jacket from the trunk of the dead agent’s vehicle. Stuntz apparently believed it was meaningful to shoot at agents and officers who were responding to Jumping Bull; until an officer shot him. If there is remaining anger in the Stuntz family over his death it should be directed towards Peltier. Stuntz’s death lies squarely in the hands of Leonard Peltier. Stuntz followed Peltier to his own death.

(Fn. 3)

This is what has been expected from those who support Peltier, a continuing message with much obsession and lacking fundamental facts that perpetuate the decades old myth that Peltier was the last Indian standing to be prosecuted for the brutal murder of Agents’ Coler and Williams at Jumping Bull, and worse yet, that his actions that day, along with other American Indian Movement members, are somehow removed from the criminal acts and linked to a storied heritage that Peltier has hijacked and adulterated since June 26, 1975. It’s essential to the folklore scenario to keep supporters away from the facts and divert their attention to the notion that somehow Peltier represents and did this, for “his people.” Nonsense.

Those in the video (excluding the children*), along with the overwhelming number of those who support Peltier, can be divided into two distinct groups; 1) Those who do not know, and, 2) Those who do not care, about the facts.

Let us not forget as well that the vast majority of Native America does not support Peltier, his criminal actions, and those committed by AIM. They recognize that Peltier and AIM contributed nothing to the betterment of their society. Perpetuating the myth does a disservice to Native American culture and history; the AIM and Peltier legacies are a dark and disturbing chapter that is acknowledged and recognized by many.

A few questions need to be asked of those who support Peltier and appear in this video:

- Was Peltier lawfully extradited from Canada?

The answer is yes. So says the Canadian government. “…I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.” (Fn. 4)

- Did Peltier receive a fair trail?

Aside from receiving years of intense scrutiny that has upheld his conviction, the answer comes from someone who actually later wrote letters in support of Peltier. Judge Gerald Heaney (may he rest in peace), Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, three times (1984, 1986, 2002), denied Peltier’s appeals based on the facts and the law.

In his impassioned April 8, 1991 letter, Judge Heaney never suggested or implied that Peltier was innocent. To the contrary he stated “No new evidence has been called to my attention which would cause me to change the conclusion reached in that case…” and "…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. 5)

(Whom else Judge Heaney may have alluded to obviously and logically points to Dino Butler, Bob Robideau and other AIM members.)

Also, in the fatally flawed and factually inaccurate 1992, 60-Minutes segment, Steve Kroft asked if Peltier received a fair trial to which Judge Heaney replied, “I believe he got a fair trial. Not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.” (Fn. 6)

Kroft then followed with criticism about the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits.

But the final word, and a vital piece of the Peltier saga occurred during Peltier’s own trial. When Peltier’s defense team believed the government could call Myrtle Poor Bear as a witness, Peltier’s own attorney stated on the record and characterized her as a “…witness whose mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.” Peltier wants to, but cannot have it both ways. He cannot use Poor Bear’s affidavits as the excuse for an alleged illegal extradition from Canada and then demean her and prevent testimony that would have supported his allegations of a wrongful extradition. (And, apologies to Thomas if Myrtle is a relative.) (Fn. 7)

Peltier’s factual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been well established (for those who take the time and effort to review and understand it), but it has been his public proclamations - which have all the weight of the testimony we never heard from him, that establish much more, his actual guilt to a moral certainty. A few examples:

- Mr.X: If Peltier was innocent then why for the better part of twenty years did he (and Robideau and the LPDC and the LPDOC, etc.) claim that someone they all knew killed the agents and drove off in the infamous red pickup? Have all those in the video not heard the elaborate description in Redford’s, Incident at Oglala, where Peltier says “This story is true.” Well, it wasn’t, as has been proven time and again and even admitted as much by Dino Butler and one of Peltier’s own attorneys. So why the phony alibi? Why the elaborate hoax? Reason would dictate that a truly innocent person would be able to consistently repeat the same story. Peltier’s version has changed too many times.

(Fn. 8)

- Looking back Peltier has no difficulty framing why he remains in prison. On February 6, 2010 he stated; “I never thought my commitment would mean sacrificing like this, but I was willing to do so nonetheless. And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.” In the context of this statement, referring as he did to Jumping Bull and Joe Stuntz, not excluding anything and making no exceptions, this is tantamount to a confession for the murders of Agents’ Coler and Williams. (Fn. 9)

- On August 28, 2014 Peltier stated in a public message, “I don’t regret any of this for a minute.” Can this be made any clearer for those who proclaim, “I will,” and “We will?” How do those who look at Peltier as a victim justify a statement like that? For those who are thoroughly confused and buy into the fable of Peltier the warrior, then to some it’s justifiable to murder federal agents. There’s something to be said about that kind of mentality and none of it is good.  But here’s where the confusion lies, lost in the clatter surrounding Native American history they have picked a fraudulent symbol to correct any of those wrongs. (Fn. 10)

The “We will” video is all passion with no substance and ignores, deliberately to Peltier’s delight, the truth, because, facts matter. The smiling faces touting “I will” and “We will” are being scammed and they don’t even realize it. The truth they miss gets lost in the noise of the folklore, peddling to the softhearted with efforts to keep everyone’s eyes off Jumping Bull and June 26, 1975. Being “very sorry” is shallow and does not negate Peltier’s complicity.

As a minor point all have forgotten, here’s the reminder of Peltier’s disrespect and ingratitude to the political process when in 2000 he was not granted clemency, he stated, “These politicians are such sleazebags that you just don’t know.” (Fn. 11)

“Will we?” Yes, certainly as we have and will continue to do; ensure that the President, Attorney General and the USDOJ Pardon Attorney know what Peltier has said and that he remains a remorseless and unrepentant murderer who will continue his consecutive life sentences and the seven consecutive years for the armed escape from Lompoc. 

(Fn. 12)

Peltier should be afforded the same measure of mercy he gave Jack Coler and Ron Williams. And that would be none.

Here is the video that shows how the story should be told https://vimeo.com/74140239

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

(To all: Best for the holiday season to everyone and for a healthy and happy New Year.)

Footnotes:

1) http://app.streamsend.com/private/tvwxwpt2pe/Y9S/o5bI2WE/browse/22831301#ss-video_50571

2) “Just after noon” http://www.noparolepeltier.com/noon.html

3) Leonard Peltier: “I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I looked at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile.” Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (Penguin Books, 1992) 552

4) Canadian Minister of Justice letter: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html

5) Judge Heaney letter: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/heaney.html

6) Kroft 60 Minutes segment:  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc9ofu_leonard-peltier-with-steve-kroft_news

7) See court decision at II.B.2.i: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html

8) Mr. X http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html, http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2012/12/peltier-kuzma-closes-circle-much-more.html,

 http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2012/12/peltier-kuzma-part-ii-and-clemency.html

9) Peltier would go it again: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#confession,

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2010/02/peltier-confesses-to-incident-at-oglala.html

10) No regrets: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2014/11/peltier-not-for-minute.html

11) Peltier calls President Clinton and politicians, sleazebags: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/speak.html

12) One of a number of letters regarding clemency and Peltier: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/obama.pdf

* Using children in such a way does them a disservice. Certainly, Native American children should be encouraged to embrace their proud and storied heritage and learn of the treatment their ancestors had to endure. They are too young, however, to understand the implications of their smiling endorsement of Peltier. The non-native adults are leading their children down a dangerous path by reinforcing - indoctrinating them without their full understanding - that killing law enforcement in the performance of their duties is something to celebrate. Shame on them for that.

PELTIER UPDATE: BREAKING CAMP, MANDELA & PROOF OF LIES

Dear Supporters:

Breaking camp: Once again the LPDOC is facing internal strife and the latest leader to abandon ship, Dorothy Ninham, and Peltier himself provide some telling details.  In each statement it is important to focus on those key words and connect the dots to understand what’s really happening and why every two or three years there’s a turnover in the Peltier camp. For a brief review of how ugly it became at times, please see (Footnote #1).

Ninham states “From a business standpoint, it is good policy to replace managers every three years just to keep ideas fresh and so it is that David Hill will guide the new freedom campaign.”  This in effect removes the money-laundering scheme perpetuated by Wind Chases the Sun, Inc, in DePere, Wisconsin. We’ll have to see if David Hill, who has a trunk-full of his own AIM history and baggage tries to wrap it in some other way that the IRS will accept. Remembering, after all, Peltier is not a charity case. Never was, never will be.

So there it is; Peltier, Inc.

It’s a business packaged with folklore and falsehoods that the unsuspecting buy into (no pun intended) without shining some direct light on the facts. Has anyone ever seen where all those allegedly tax deductible donations have gone? No, they haven’t and never will. It remains Peltier’s dirty little secret and no amount of dares have forced him to come clean to his dwindling supporters (Fn #2).

Ninham and those before her have had enough of the Coleman inmates’ bullying  do-it-my-way-or-else fractured ego. Peltier was an AIM thug before he became an AIM assassin and nothing has changed. She gracefully sugarcoats it with, “This is Leonard’s wish and we respect his right to choose the people who will be surrounding him.”  Which is the polite way of saying she’s had enough of Peltier.

Peltier’s explanation revealed more with a predictable understatement  “…those of you who are familiar with the organization, there have been changes every two or three years…,” but as he segues back and forth with coAIMintelpro style

(Fn #3) diversions, trying to convince that “This isn’t all about me,” clarifies that it really is; “We don’t have enough money to always fund the most needed lawyers (…who serve pro bono by the way…) and legal workers or secretaries or web managers or whatever.” The word, “whatever,” should raise some eyebrows because that slip of the tongue, (which has happened before and is actual proof—unlike  many LPDOC cyberspace launched missives—really did come from Peltier himself), pulls back the curtain just a bit and hints that those “tax-deductible” dollars have some other hidden and probably illicit purpose.

But Peltier finally gets to the point of this latest dustup in Peltierland. “So I would like to sincerely encourage you to try and mend your differences…(followed by yet another diversion). Ninham implied nothing of the sort but now Peltier is admitting that there was trouble in paradise. Why else would he ask for some reconciliation amongst his loyal network leaders?

But then Peltier does come down to the a final admission, “…but the future of my involvement is very important to me and when you get to be 69 years old, one day could be a lifetime.” And, then more diversions to keep the eyes of those watching off the proverbial ball. It’s all about him, pure and simple. The pretense of care for his people is part of the scam, an element of the pretense that all he really needs is for you to write a check.

Nelson Mandela: Peltier rambled about the passing of Nelson Mandela, but in a few recent news clips of interviews a couple of key quotes are worth noting; Mandela said he “reflected on (his) mistakes,” and that he engaged in “authentic acts of humility.”  There is one difference with absolute certainty, Peltier is no Mandela and any effort to equate the two is folly.

Proof of lies: Anyone interested in the Peltier experience need not travel far to run headlong into a hedge grove of lies. One can start with the link on the NPPA’s home page that takes them to Peltier’s website, where, among other things are two flagrant examples of Peltier’s penchant to lie and the LPDOC’s inability to recognize that they are helping make the case for Peltier’s guilt even stronger.

Mr. X, anyone? This two decade long lie and one of Peltier’s early and many alibis has been proven to be false in 1995  by one who was at Jumping Bull that fateful day, Dino Butler. And, along with other additional proof, most recently by Peltier’s own attorney just this year. (Fn #4)

Yet here we have the film “Incident at Oglala” played, annoyingly without prompting, and the dated and slanted 1991 Steve Kroft, 60 Minutes interview. In both a masked and graveled voiced Mr. X claims credit for driving the red pickup and first engaging and then killing the agents. This isn’t new news to anyone, either for or against Peltier and common knowledge that Peltierites desperately try to bury.

In “Incident” Robideau goes into great detail about what he saw and Peltier himself follows with, “This story is true.”  Well, it wasn’t.

With Kroft, Peltier admits “Yes, I fired at them,” but in his autobiography, Prison Writings (1999) claims “I fired off a few shots above their heads, not trying to hit anything or anyone (p.125)” Ooops…must have forgotten what he told Kroft while he also failed to mention anything about Mr. X or the infamous red pickup in the book. Wonder why that happened?

The reason these two pieces are on the Peltier homepage is obvious, self-perpetuating propaganda because there is criticism of the FBI and Peltier’s conviction. They both, however, in an awkward sort of way, portray and augment the myth and folklore Peltier has succeeded in wrapping himself in as he tries to transform the murderer into a warrior and the Native into a perpetual victim. He plays both cards from the bottom of several marked decks.

Actually, they lay bare the blatant hypocrisy of Peltier’s fabrications (i.e., deliberate lies), but only those looking closely can see the trees and the forest.

There it is, in living color on Peltier’s home page, one of the key people in the entire legal process of his last nearly four decades behind bars, as Kroft asks Federal, Court of Appeals Judge, Heaney, the sixty-four dollar question.  (It is my personal opinion that this live interview was not scripted and based on the bias of the entire 60 Minutes program—taken wholly from the then Peltier playbook—that Kroft was taken aback by Judge Heaney’s response, like the lawyer questioning a witness who should never ask a question unless he already knows the answer.)

Kroft: “Do you believe he got a fair trial?”
Judge Heaney: “I believe he got a fair trial.”

Case closed.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

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

     http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#free

     http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#Robideau-NYC

     http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#delaney

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

3) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#unmasked

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

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

Amnesty International & Leonard Peltier; NPPA Response 7/31/13

Dear Supporters:

What follows is a response to an Amnesty International blog post on 7/17/13:

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/americas/5-reasons-president-obama-should-release-leonard-peltier/ (last accessed 7/31/13)

It’s apparent that Zeke Johnson needs to do more research for A.I.; there is much more than just the Peltier folklore-rhetoric-talking points. As for the five reasons, let’s add the following:

1) Poor Bear:  The final word on Peltier’s extradition comes not from Peltier but the Canadian government and the Minister of Justice who stated “…that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.”  Poor Bear did not testify against Peltier at trial, and for good reason as noted from the trial transcript by the 8^th Circuit; ““Her testimony was at times very vague, and she often responded that she could not remember. Indeed, the defense counsel, anticipating that she would be called as a witness for the government, described her in his opening statement as a “witness whose {F.2^nd 333} mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable”” Yes, let’s repeat that, “the defense counsel,” Peltier’s attorney, threw her under the proverbial bus when they thought she would be a witness against Peltier. On direct-appeal the 8^th Circuit stated regarding extradition; “Peltier’s claim is, on its face, lacking in substance.” This may be a good time, as well, to review the critical witnesses against Peltier, those who, besides the other evidence, the jury had to consider in their guilty verdict.

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

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#review

http://noparolepeltier.com/585.html

http://noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical

2) FOIPA: The document was a preliminary FBI Laboratory report that the District Court did not believe was discoverable, however, the 8^th Circuit sent it back to the District Court for a three-day evidentiary/ballistics hearing, something which Peltier and others always fail to mention. At that hearing Peltier had a firearms expert in the courtroom, but did not call him to testify nor did they offer any contrary evidence. The court decision (authored by Judge Heaney, infra) made it fairly clear that, “When all is said and done, however, a few simple but very important facts remain. The casing introduced into evidence had in fact been extracted from the Wichita AR-15. This point was not disputed; although the defense had its own ballistics expert, it offered no contrary evidence.” And also during the direct appeal the 8^th Circuit stated “The evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong.”

http://noparolepeltier.com/800.html

http://noparolepeltier.com/585.html

3) Judge Heaney: Understand that he made his decision based on the facts and the law, which was confirmed in his cameo appearance in the film (not documentary), Incident at Oglala, notwithstanding, that he later expressed his own personal feelings about Native rights. Note, however, he never said or implied that his decision was wrong (or denied on a technicality as Peltier professes), nor that Peltier was innocent. Quite the contrary, “…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.”

http://noparolepeltier.com/heaney.html

4) U.S. Parole Commission: If the parole hearings allegedly provide such a powerful inference of Peltier’s innocence, then there is a very simple solution. Have him post on the LPDOC website the transcript of the 2009 hearing. That way, people can judge for themselves the truth and depth of Peltier’s guilt and claims of innocence. But that would never happen because it would divulge much too much and Peltier would never want all that to come out.

5) Coleman: Peltier may have infrequent visits from family members, is approaching age 69, in poor health, suffering from diabetes, but that hasn’t stopped him from continuing the folklore.

Besides...how do we get beyond Peltier’s own self-incriminating statements, changing stories and the two decade old fabricated alibi that someone else, the phantom Mr. X. in the infamous red pickup truck was the one who killed the agents? Even his own attorney recently admitted that was a lie.

If A.I. has studied this case as it claims, then why are the specifics of the legal history being ignored in favor of the folklore? Making this an alleged political issue instead of the criminal act it was, weakens a meaningful discourse.

Yes, correctly pointed out, the legal remedies have been exhausted; and Peltier should be given as much humanity as he gave Jack Coler and Ron Williams.  Justice is being served with consecutive life sentences, and which Peltier ignores, the additional seven consecutive years for the armed escape from Lompoc.

In addition to the conviction, Peltier himself has proven his guilt beyond all doubt. How else can reasonably intelligent people get beyond statements like ““I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I looked at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile,” Leonard remembered. “I didn’t think nothing of it at the time; all I could think of was, we got to get out of here.” (ITSOCH, p.552) (As they were standing over two mutilated bodies of the men they had just shot and killed.) Or, in a public statement on February 6, 2010, “I never thought my commitment would mean sacrificing like this, but I was willing to do so nonetheless. And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.”

“Because it was the right thing to do” shows no remorse, no civility, no compassion, no rehabilitation, however, it is an admission of guilt.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

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