PELTIER: REALLY. MR. X IS BACK?

Dear Supporters:

There are important revelations of the Peltier saga that simply cannot be ignored or dismissed.

In early August one of Peltier’s attorneys, Larry Hildes of Bellingham, Washington, did a radio interview.

What follows are a few, of many other, direct quotes followed by factual responses challenging Hildes’s claims:

The claims: Somebody & the FBI admitted:

“And somebody apparently shot the agents from point blank range from a location where Leonard was not, with a gun that the FBI admitted he did not have or use.”“And they were killed by someone who apparently came up behind them in their vehicle. Leonard was a long distance away on the top of a ridge, nowhere near them and did not hit them with any shots that he fired.”

The Facts: Mr. X

Hildes is obviously referring to the years’ long lie of Peltier’s only real alibi, the fabrication of the fictitious Mr. X. For nearly two decades Peltier claimed that someone they knew was bringing dynamite to the AIM camp, was followed by the Agents onto the Jumping Bull property, engaged and wounded the agents, shot them at point-blank range and drove off in the infamous red pickup.

This episode was described in Peter Matthiessen’s In the Spirit of Crazy Horse and in Robert Redford’s film Incident at Oglala. In the film, AIM protagonist and participant that day was Bob Robideau who for six minutes and fifty-two seconds goes into great detail describing what he saw of Mr. X’s actions, and in the very next filmed sequence Leonard Peltier proclaims “This story is true.”

Well, it wasn’t then or now. And how do we know this?

In 1995 another AIM protagonist and participant that day, Dino Butler came out publicly in a Native American publication and said “That is totally false. Totally untrue. That never happened.” (Footnote 1)

It isn’t curious at all that in Peltier’s autobiography, Prison Writings, he offers all manner of excuses and explanations but—and not by accident, never mentions Mr. X. Wonder why?

And then there’s another—still current Peltier attorney, Michael Kuzma, who in a November 3, 2012 lengthy radio interview put the Mr. X lie permanently to rest, “From what I understand now its been determined that the Mr. X story was concocted.” (Fn. 2)

 “Concocted” is just another way of saying; yes it was a lie, a lie woven into the fabric of Peltier folklore. 

Peltier’s ‘defense committee,’ along with its website has changed a number of times and moved away from verbalizing the Mr. X fairytale. On May 23, 2000 the then Leonard Peltier Defense Committee stated “Mr. X has long been a controversial topic by both supporters of Leonard Peltier and those who oppose his release.” Controversial? A gross understatement for certain. Even today, the ILPDC’s most current website—of course with flagrant misinformation, has only this to offer regarding the killing of the agents:

“When the skirmish ended, the two FBI agents were dead. The U.S. Government claims they had been wounded and then shot through their heads at close range.”*

That’s it, no “somebody” who “came up behind them.” 

The Facts: FBI admitted

The FBI and government never stated that Peltier did not have or use the ‘’gun” (the Wichita AR-15) to kill Agents’ Coler and Williams.

To the contrary, the government contended at trial and on appeal that Peltier used the Wichita AR-15 to first fire at the Agents and that the bolt mechanism of this weapon was matched to 114 shell casings, thirty-nine of which were introduced as evidence at Peltier’s trial as part of the Exhibit 34 series. One of these was the bullet casing found in the trunk of Agent Coler’s vehicle (Trial Exhibit 34B). Further, the government stated in a brief that;

“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 Leonard Peltier and was carried out by him after the murders.” 

Based on a later released (after the trial) FBI Laboratory Teletype dated October 2, 1975, Peltier appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit claiming that this document contradicted other evidence, including a later October 31, 1975 FBI Laboratory Report (that was introduced at trial) as a possible ‘Brady’ violation. 

The 8^thCircuit decision stated: 

“We affirmed the conviction on September 14, 1978…In affirming we too accepted the government’s theory that both agents had been killed with a high-velocity weapon fired at point-blank range at a time when the men were seriously wounded and unable to defend themselves. We then held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Peltier responsible for the murders.”

Nonetheless, the 8^thCircuit remanded the appeal back to the District Court for an evidentiary (ballistics) hearing held in October 1984. The three-day hearing reviewed in detail the ballistics evidence concluding that the October 2, 1975 Teletype would not have affected the outcome of the trial. 

However, Peltier appealed that District Court decision to the 8^thCircuit again. The 8^thCircuit Court then further concluded:

“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.”

The court also significantly added:

 “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.” (Fn. 3)

Clearly, the FBI and the Government never stated that Peltier “did not have or use” “a gun” (the Wichita AR-15).

The Claim: Supposedly—guns blazing—at the compound

“He has been in federal prison now for forty-four years for supposedly shooting at two FBI Agents who stormed the reservation with guns blazing supposedly looking for a man who had stolen a pair of boots and was involved in a minor burglary ring.” “I mean, as you say to come in looking for Jimmy Eagle, who wasn’t there and a pair of cowboy boots that he supposedly stole, with guns blazing, firing at the compound where mostly AIM folks were staying and trying to kill people.”

The Facts: Supposedly

Well, that’s not quite how it happened. There was no “supposedly” in Peltier’s conviction. Peltier was tried and convicted and his conviction and sentence upheld through over a dozen appeals. 

Among other similar appellate conclusions was that: 

“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]

The Facts: Guns blazing

It is well established that there was an eyewitness to exactly how the confrontation on the Jumping Bull property began. There is no disputing that Agent Ron Williams was overheard on the radio by personnel in the Rapid City Resident Agency and those within radio range as he was trying to describe exactly where they were and that those in the vehicle they followed from Highway 18 had stopped, gotten out and looked like they were about to fire on them. They heard Ron say that they needed help or they would be dead, they heard the gunfire, and Ron say, “I’ve been hit.” 

The Facts: firing at the compound…to kill people

First, to make a public statement that the Agents were there to kill people is disingenuous.  

Secondly, the AIM members were in a campsite (referred to as tent city) located along White Clay Creek in a wooded ravine a few hundred yards over rolling terrain from where the Agents were initially attacked and taken under fire.  It would be physically and geographically impossible for the Agents to have been “firing at the compound where mostly AIM folks were staying.”

* * *

In a letter dated January 15, 2016, among other issues, Hildes  stated:

“As you have done for far too many years, you have attempted to insert yourself into Mr. Peltier’s case, and first Amendment expression with patently untrue statements, incendiary characterizations, threats, and just plain lies.  In publishing your deliberately false statements to numerous third parties including government officials and the media, you have intentionally and maliciously severely harmed Mr. Peltier, and it is our intention to take legal action accordingly.”

It is clearly evident that Peltier has made himself into a public figure with all manner of public statements, media interviews, press releases, books, solicitations (for allegedly tax-deductible donations. Strangely, on the ‘donate’ page of Peltier’s website there is no mention of donations being tax-deducible) for his “legal defense” (a matter that has been long resolved) and scarcely documented charitable activities. As a public figure Peltier has acquired notoriety through controversy of his own making. His public pronouncements are subject to scrutiny to a greater extent than a private individual.

Offering opinions and analysis based on Peltier’s public assertions should be expected by public figures, especially when they contradict the legal record, prior statements, are obvious fabrications or perceptible admissions of guilt.

“Untrue statements and incendiary characterizations?” Highlighting the many false statements and fabrications may sound incendiary to Peltier but we cannot ignore the fact that Peltier is an unrepentant convicted double murderer. Unrepentant because his few attempts at reconciliation to his victim’s families have been shallow and self-indulging (Fn. 4), and a convicted double murderer as the appellate record repeatedly affirmed. 

(Fn. 5)

“Threats?” Peltier has never been threatened by anything published by the No Parole Peltier Association (NPPA). 

“Just plain lies?” Peltier would be unable to identify any lies within the hundreds of pages of editorial essays and blogs (that expose decades of myth and folklore and contain abundant footnotes and references to primary sources).

The NPPA has not “inserted” itself into the Peltier case but has acted from its inception on April 30, 2000 for two purposes; to challenge the fabrications emanating from decades of the Peltier façade and his denigration of his victims but most importantly to act as a victim’s rights advocate by honoring the memory and sacrifice of Jack Coler and Ron Williams who were severely wounded in an unprovoked attack and then brutally murdered in the line of duty.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) Mr. X the lie: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html

2) This is a lengthy and detailed blog/essay about Peltier attorney, Michael Kuzma’s radio interview: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2012/12/peltier-kuzma-closes-circle-much-more.html

3) Appeal from evidentiary hearing http://www.noparolepeltier.com/800.html

4) Prison Writings, pp. 13-15 (as well at other similar statements)

5) U.S. Court Decisions: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/court.html

*Yet in total contradiction of the facts and Peltier’s erroneous claims, the Peltier website absurdly has Redford’s Incident at Oglala available for viewing. 

September 12, 2019 Peltier turns seventy-five. Both Jack and Ron would have been seventy-two but they were robbed of their last forty-four years.

PELTIER...the holiday and clemency

Dear Supporters:

Thank you for your continued support and all the best for a Merry Christmas, or whatever you may celebrate during the holiday season, and for a healthy and happy New Year.

This is the time of year when we try to set aside the turmoil around us and focus on positive thoughts for the holidays and hopes for better times ahead.

But sometimes that’s made more difficult when we’re reminded there is evil in the world that won’t go away.

In his December 20, 2012, “Holiday Greetings from Leonard,” Peltier mentions the horror of Newtown, Connecticut and then, as usual, segues that historically to the ghastly events of earlier Native America; Wounded Knee, Sand Creek and the Washita (and there were others he didn’t mention).

(Peltier’s gratuitous comments aside, our deepest prayers and sympathies are offered to the victims, their families and the Newtown community.)

So Peltier is equating the psychotic actions of a deranged homicidal maniac to the failures of the early government’s handling of what they considered the “Indian problem.” Yes, Manifest Destiny created a cultural abyss where many atrocities and violations of Native people’s basic human rights and broken treaties occurred. But, Peltier, and others, ignore that there was more than just a significant amount of Indian-on-Indian violence long before the white man’s arrival, and afterward. So it wasn’t all that peaceful before, when the white man’s lust for land and resources only made it much worse.

Ignoring his other irrelevant pleas, Peltier makes the expected transition to his real purpose, himself.  “You have given me hope again.” “…and hope that this will be the year that I will get to know freedom again…”

But let’s have a reality check. As always, Peltier seeks some measure of credit for appearing compassionate by even mentioning Newtown…it’s a false performance as witnessed by years of him speaking what he really means. Let’s then add one other horrific event to his counterfeit repertoire; Jumping Bull, Pine Ridge, South Dakota.

His innocence is as thin as tissue paper and he has proven his own guilt (far beyond his conviction and dozens of appeals) by his own words. Words that have been chronicled here many times and will be repeated regularly along with any other myths he may add in the coming years. (Like the one recently added by his own attorney.)

Peltier brags about the New York City concert that certainly didn’t have any significant impact with the usual suspects of those who are ignorant of the facts and blind to Peltier’s incessant crocodile tears of innocence. Claims based on a mountain of lies and fabrications; those who know the facts but don’t care because they have their own agendas; those who are clueless and think it’s a neat thing to do, in other words, along for the ride; and the abusers, those who use Peltier-the-pawn. Especially the “One Percenters,” like Michael Moore, who could give one whit about Peltier the person as long as it adds to his unsavory notoriety and red carpet dalliances. But Peltier isn’t completely stupid, from his concrete condo any publicity is good publicity, so he’ll take the good with the bad as long as it generates even one lame-brained Peltierite repeating his name. After all, that’s the goal and game he’s playing; divert them from the facts.

The reality and the prospects of commutation are even thinner than Peltier’s feigned innocence. The President will easily understand exactly what the legal history of Peltier’s case is all about and that for the last 37 years he has only reinforced what dozens of courts have already correctly concluded: Guilty as sin, “and if necessary, he’d do it again, because it was the right thing to do.” Yes, the President will really appreciate that bit of remorse and rehabilitation. Don’t believe so.

Peltier’s other major sin is his false prophet persona as a warrior for his “people,” an embarrassment to the true Native American chiefs and warriors and their proud and storied history, and a distinction that is not missed by the vast majority of Native America today. They are not fooled by Peltier’s spineless bravado. 

This makes Peltier’s actions at Jumping Bull no less heinous and obscene as those at Newtown. Both were the actions of undeniable cowards.

Admittedly this is not a cheerful holiday message. As Peltier grovels for his freedom, Jack Coler and Ron Williams’ families will endure yet another Christmas and New Year with the memory of the brutal slaying of their loved ones.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

PELTIER: KUZMA Part II and CLEMENCY

Dear Supporters:

In the same blog-talk-radio interview on 11/3/12, Peltier attorney, Michael Kuzma had this to say about Peltier’s chances for clemency. (Footnote 1)

“Well if you read some of the recent articles, in fact there was, there were a couple of articles published within the past couple of weeks which indicated that President Obama has been the stingiest President since Reagan with respect to the granting of pardons and commutation of sentences, he’s actually been worse than Bush Two. Obama has been a disappointment in so many different ways. I know, David Geffen from Dreamworks was a big supporter of President Clinton and actually decided to back President Obama over Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton didn’t commute Leonard’s sentence, you know, in spite of that support from Geffen and some of the Hollywood types. President Obama has made, you know, no indication that he’s gong to commute Leonard’s sentence any time soon.”

Peltier knows the only way he’s walking out of Coleman-1 is with a commutation of his sentence.

Based on his 2009 Lewisburg parole hearing his next hearing won’t be until July, 2024, at the age of 80, and a projected release date still many more years after that. Face it, parole is off the table.

In Kuzma’s interview he adds another insult to the President like Peltier did previously. Kuzma’s “Obama has been a disappointment in so many different ways,” was discourteous and inappropriate when they’re supposed to recognize that the President is the only one they need to convince. But, Peltier did the same thing; in another public interview when President Clinton didn’t cut him lose he said, “These politicians are such sleazebags that you just don’t know.” That was in 2000. Guess some people, or their attorneys it seems, just can’t grasp the concept of not insulting the people you most need to win over. But that’s been a brand mark of the entire Peltier campaign for decades. (Fn. 2)

As for President Clinton not granting clemency, we’ll have to leave it at this: There were several who came out publically and claimed credit for convincing President Clinton not to free Peltier (and as it turns out he was on the short list…even with some staffers at the White house Christmas party that year actually wearing “Free Peltier” buttons). But for those claiming credit it was just wishful thinking. Fact is that only three people know exactly why Peltier wasn’t released, President Clinton and two others. And the reason came down to a basic understanding that President Clinton recognized Peltier’s crimes were significant and freeing him would accomplish nothing.

The Statistics:

President Obama has pardoned twenty-two and commuted one sentence, while denying approximately one thousand others. It has been reported that President Obama takes his exclusive Constitutional authority very seriously and was troubled (as were many others, both in Washington and elsewhere) by President Clinton’s pardon of fugitive investor Marc Rich. (Fn. 3)

Of those pardoned, all had served their sentences, thirteen received sentences of only probation, and of the others who were incarcerated, averaged sentences of only 2.8 years. The shortest sentence was 30-days, and the longest, nine years, for relatively minor charges ranging from drug offenses to a liquor law violation and mutilation of coins. There were no terrorists, rapist or murderers on the President’s list. (F. 4)

The recipient of the commutation, a female, had served 10 of a 22-year sentence for selling crack cocaine, which was challenged by her attorneys based on a disparity of sentencing guidelines. She was also undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer. (Fn. 5)

However, if you recall, Mafia boss, John Gotti, sentenced to life in prison for murder and racketeering, died in prison from cancer. (Fn.6)

So the statistics do not bode well for any realistic chance Peltier would be considered for release and there are a number of factors the President would certainly consider in the process. And, of course, he has many more pressing concerns about the country at the moment.

More to follow….

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mountian-child/2012/11/14/leonard-peltiers-attorney-michael-kuzma  

2) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/speak.html

3) http://www.propublica.org/article/the-shadow-of-marc-rich

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Barack_Obama

5) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/obama-commutes-sentence-of-alton-woman-in-cocaine-case/article_c30d817e-1523-11e1-8e09-0019bb30f31a.html 

6) http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-10/us/john.gotti_1_paul-castellano-teflon-don-john-gotti?_s=PM:US 

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