PELTIER: NATIVE AMERICAN SUPPORT?

Dear Supporters:

In the section of Peltier’s website whoisleonardpeltier.info under Resources; Peltier Supporters; Native American and Tribal Leaders, there is a list of 46 entries of various descriptions. (Footnote 1)

What follows is a review of this list and summarization as to whether Peltier’s claims of widespread support within Native America is valid:

The list contains three individuals, Chief Arvol Looking Horse, Chief Wallace Dennison and Shawn A-in-chut Atleo (Canada)

(Any Canadian support for Peltier must be ignored. It is a matter of record that Peltier was lawfully extradited from Canada as was officially confirmed by the Canadian Minster of Justice. Fn.2)

There is one Association; First Nations School Association whose stated mission is “promoting education in British Columbia (Canada).” Once again, another foreign entity that has no legal authority or rights under American jurisprudence. 

 There are two Committees: 

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, which according to its website consists of nine elected members who govern the Nez Perce Tribe. A search feature available on this website showed no results for Leonard Peltier.

Prairie Island Indian Committee: Although no reference was found regarding a committee on the website, the Tribal Council consists of five elected members who govern the tribe.

There is one ‘Assembly:’ Assembly of First Nations of Canada, an “Advocacy Organization Representing First Nations Citizen’s in Canada.”

Honor the Earth is a Native American non-profit for environmental justice. 

The listing of the National Congress of American Indians has a special note to “see the historic 2011 resolution here.” According to the NCAI website it was “organized as a representative congress of American Indians and Alaska Natives that serves to develop consensus on national priority issues that impact tribal sovereignty.” In other words it is an umbrella and advisory organization on Native issues and doesn’t actually represent or have authority over its constituent members. 

A review of the referenced “2011 resolution” lists approximately six factual errors as it welcomes the opportunity to develop a “strategy” to meet with then President Obama for consideration of clemency. The resolution also states that Peltier had been “nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for the sixth consecutive year.” (Being nominated for a Nobel Prize [and Peltier for the ‘Peace’ Prize] is an ongoing yarn. A joke of sorts that is even recognized as such by the Nobel Committee itself, which has stated, “…so being proposed for the prize is no distinction in itself.” (Tell that to Peltier supporters.) (Fn. 3)

The list includes 18 Councils that we can assume for the moment may have passed some type of resolution providing support for Peltier. If Council members voted to provide support for Peltier that in no manner suggests that members they represent collectively endorsed the resolution.  

Peltier’s list includes 15 Native tribes and nations, from small groups like Duckwater Shoshone Tribe with 288 members to entire Nations like the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Navajo Nation consisting perhaps of tens of thousands of Native American tribal members, which begs the question: If the leadership of those Nations passed some sort of resolution supporting Peltier does that mean that every member of the Nation also supports Peltier?

To assume that every member of all these Tribes and Nations supports Peltier—or perhaps even know who he is, is sheer folly. It’s a predictable Peltier ploy and absurdity that he would expect us to believe that he has complete support from every tribal member when, in some instances, the council or leadership agrees on some support for Peltier. Are we to expect that tribal leadership took a survey of all tribal members and received a hundred percent agreement? That would be a senseless conclusion. Many Native Americans have recognized that the American Indian Movement has done little for the benefit of Native American culture. To the contrary, many have recognized that Peltier and AIM created more conflict than any benefits they ever claimed. Even a casual review of AIM’s tumultuous history and leadership would support their conclusions and that fact.

* * *

Nevertheless, let’s give Peltier the not wholly deserved benefit of the doubt and for the sake of argument allow acknowledgment for all “46” on the “Supporters” list, even including the foreign entities from Canada and Native support, cultural, environmental and non-profit organizations. Let’s give him temporary credit for the whole thing.

Nevertheless, the latest information from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs indicates that there are five hundred and seventy three (573) registered tribes in the United States.

Even if, for the sake of debate, we were to credit Peltier with all 46 on the list of Peltier Supporters this would represent only eight percent (8.3%) of the total number of recognized and registered tribes. Hardly a significant number to write home about.  (Removing the foreign Canadian and other non–Tribal organizations would reduce this percentage to an even more embarrassing level.)

The inference, notwithstanding Peltier’s claims of extensive Native American support to the contrary, places this list on par with the rest of the Peltier myth.

Peltier’s claims of widespread Native American support has as much validity as his claims for his questionable fund raising and alleged philanthropic activities. (Fn.4)

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

ADDENDUM: More Supporters?

On Peltier’s website the list of “Supporters” continues with ten additional categories of 206 individuals and entities ranging from “Nobel laureates” to “and more.” (Fn.5)

It would be a complete waste of valuable time to vet the entire list, however, it’s not difficult to identify the ones that are just too obvious to ignore or not challenge. The low hanging fruit is very easy to pick.

Under “Foreign Parliaments and Commissions” Peltier wants supporters to believe that the entire “European Parliament” supports him and his bid for clemency. That’s quite a bold claim, but not so fast. 

There is a ‘written declaration’ dated 10/24/16 (with an “elapse date” of 1/24/17; that’s a total of about three months!). According to the official entry the declaration was signed by “29 signatories” and submitted under “Rule 26.” This written declaration contains two glaring factual errors as it calls for Executive Clemency: The same glaring errors that are commonplace in Peltier folklore and challenged repeatedly by the NPPA.

So what does this actually mean?

The European Parliament is made up of 28 member States of the European Union and 751 members elected for five-year terms.

In real terms with the 29 signatories who signed on to support Peltier and with 751 Parliament members, Peltier’s support among the European Parliament is a staggering (with obvious sarcasm) 3.86%. Four percent hardly provides bragging rights. Although it does suggest a significant misrepresentation of the truth.

But that’s just the obvious part. More significantly, stated at the bottom of the ‘Written Declaration’ is the following; “…is published in the minutes with the names of the signatories and forwarded to the addressees, without however binding Parliament.”

In other words, simply a meaningless Peltier claim.

Peltier, as he has done for so many years, is playing the “Hey, look over here” game when there is nothing of substance in many of his claims. There is no there, there.

Noble Laureates: Nine are listed. There are currently 935 total Nobel recipients, so for Peltier this represents less than one percent (0.96). As referenced above with a footnote, there is a pattern to all this.

Literary Artists, Musicians and Celebrities: Jane Fonda. 

Of all people, Leonard Peltier should not have accepted an endorsement from the likes of Hanoi Jane.  By Peltier’s own words in Prison Writings (p.17) his father, Leo “…served in World War II, getting machined-gunned (sic) in the legs for his effort; his brother, my uncle Ernie was killed in battle.” Fonda is an anathema to every family member of those who served their country, and the all too many who died defending democracy. 

Yet there was a time when Fonda was hawking Peltier’s prison artwork for sale. If Peltier had any reverence for his father’s wartime service and his uncle’s ultimate sacrifice he should have denounced Fonda for what she really is, a traitor who aided and abetted the enemy, smiling and clapping on a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun that shot down, and resulted in American airmen being killed or imprisoned and tortured.  Fonda is a loathsome individual who should have been prosecuted for her treasonous actions. Why she wasn’t is a topic for another time and place. But, unsurprisingly, she’s in bed with Peltier.

Scholars: Ward Churchill. Really? Peltier counts among his ‘supporters’ the disgraced wannabe who fraudulently claimed Native American heritage and his stolen valor alleging to be an Army airborne Ranger who participated in long-range reconnaissance patrols in Viet Nam, when military records show he was trained as film projectionist and light truck driver. So much for disgracing Peltier’s Native heritage as well as his own father and uncle. But likely Peltier doesn’t recognize the irony of having support from the likes of the disgraced Ward Churchill.

Legal: Honorable 8^thCircuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney (RIP). It’s ironic that Peltier invokes support from Judge Heaney without placing it within its proper context. Judge Heaney felt very strongly about Native American issues and did write two letters expressing his ‘feelings’ on Peltier and Native American issues. However, Judge Heaney, each time the Peltier matter came before the 8^thCircuit Court voted against Peltier’s interests, not on any technicality as Peltier tried to claim in the past, but on the law. Judge Heaney never suggested that Peltier was innocent either, quite the opposite, and when interviewed Judge Heaney stated that Peltier got a “fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.” (For more details see the following editorial essay, Fn. 6)

Peltier supporters come in several predictable categories:

-Those who have a genuine concern for the historic ill-treatment of First Americans; being forced from their native lands onto substandard and often desolate Reservations, decimating their lifestyle and culture and every treaty broken by the government. They can even sympathize with Peltier who did grow up on a Reservation but they ultimately fail believing that any consideration for the murderous Peltier will correct wrongs of the past.

-Those who use Peltier, without him recognizing it, for their own ego or notoriety.

-Those who either forgot, or deliberately ignore the years long phony alibi and the lie of Mr. X.

-How many of those on the list have ever taken the time and effort to go beyond the superficial Peltier, beyond the myth and folklore; reading the trial and hearing transcripts, the many appeals that answer all of Peltier’s spurious allegations of a wrongful conviction and shallow claims of innocence; his own public statements some of which support a notion of his guilt; his media interviews, press releases and his own book, and the list goes on. The number of those is very small and with only a few very minor exceptions; such as Judge Heaney and Peter Matthiessen, who obviously came to opposite conclusions, although Matthiessen provided some details that Peltier would sooner forget.  

            There is much more to criticize but the lists of Peltier supporters are nothing more than a red herring creating a sizeable gap between Peltier rhetoric and reality. But based on forty-four years of myth and folklore, none of this is surprising. 

Footnotes:

1) This is the same list on the website as the link to “selected statements of support.”

2) Canadian Minister of Justice, A. Anne McLellan letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, 10/12/1999: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html

3) Background regarding the Nobel Peace Prize and Leonard Peltier:

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

Restriction against a nominee making a public disclosure:

https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

4) A history of Peltier’s fund raising and alleged philanthropic activities, 2004, 2006, 2007: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#fraud

5) On whoisleonardpeltier.info is a section relating to the International Forum with signatures on a boilerplate petition and a ‘complete’ list of VIPs and supporters. The links to pages that do not go to ‘no page found’ reflect letters with the same tired rhetoric that is the bedrock of Peltier myth and folklore. In other words, supporters offering erroneous information and skewed facts. There are also some photos with not thousands or hundreds but only a handful of people with Peltier signs.

-->

6) See the third section of this editorial essay regarding Judge Heaney’s involvement in the Peltier case: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html

U.N. Rapporteur, Deuxième partie (Part Two)

Dear Supporters:

Waited patiently, to no avail, for a reply from U.N. Special Rapporteur, University of Arizona, Professor, James Anaya to the NPPA’s email and letter dated January 27, 2014 (see 1/27/14 blog below). The letter was in response to the January 24^th “Media Advisory/Press Release” and Prof. Anaya’s visit with Peltier at Coleman Penitentiary. (Footnote #1)

The “press release” incompletely quotes Prof. Anaya but referenced his 30 August 2012 “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, on the situation of indigenous peoples in the United States.” (The ‘Report’)

The latest “Director” of the newly reformed ILPDC quoting from the Report, pages 13 & 20, relates directly to Peltier. But, there’s even-money that Harry David Hill did not read beyond those two quotes or the entire fifty-page Report. But we did.

Prof. Anaya compiled an historical document reviewing dozens of reports, federal programs and information and allegations in summary form presented in Appendices I and II that comprised fully one-half of his Report (pp. 24-50), and by visiting seven States in eleven days between April 23 to May 4, 2012 to reach his conclusions presented in the first half of the Report.

Nothing new was presented in Prof. Anaya’s Report, analysis, and statistics reviewing the history of the treatment of Native Americans (and other indigenous cultures). He comes to conclusions that are commonly known and accepted by all who understand these historical perspectives.

Early on he mentions “Of course their (Native American tribes, Indian Nations) greatest contribution is in the vast expanses of land that they gave up, through treaty concessions and otherwise, without which the United States and its economic base would not exist.” This is a common theme that Prof. Anaya fails to, or avoids placing into its proper perspective. Of course these things happened, but contrary to the prevailing myth, before the Europeans entered the continent and under Manifest Destiny continued the push from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the North American continent was not a Valhalla as many are led to believe. Long before, and during the European colonial powers or the successor United States and the white man’s relentless quest for land and resources, there was trouble in paradise.

And for the vast stretches of the continent, who’s to say who owned what? Many tribes claimed rights and ownership of the same lands.

Anaya’s Report devotes considerable space, an entire section, to crimes against women.

While visiting and posing for smiling photos with Peltier at Coleman Penitentiary, did the good professor ever think to ask Peltier to clarify the details of when and why he stuck a gun in Anna Mae Aquash’s mouth trying to force her to admit she was an informant (or provocateur as they like to be labeled). Or why Peltier’s AIM comrades went with their unfounded suspicions anyway and put a bullet in the back of her head, dumping her body in a ditch? Or, how Peltier knew that Anna Mae was dead in December 1975 when her body wasn’t found until the next March? Was that part of the Anaya-Peltier hug fest in the visiting room? Obviously, not.

A challenging statistic offered in Anaya’s Report (p.11) is:

“Estimates are that nearly 80 per cent (sic) of the rapes of indigenous women are by non-indigenous men, many of who (sic) have made their way into indigenous communities but who are not presently subject to indigenous prosecuaorial authority because of their non-indigenous status. Congress has yet to pass key reforms in the Violence Against Women Act that would bolster tribes’ ability to prosecute these cases.”

Neither of the references Prof. Anaya offers (Steven W. Perry, Statistical Profile and U.S.D.O.J. Report) supports that conclusion. Although, Perry’s decade old study relating to “Victimization in Indian Country” indicates that “Violent victimization of American Indians, by race of offender and type of victimization, 1992-2001,” the “rape/sexual assault” statistic does approach 80%, but the findings do not account for or differentiate those crimes against Native American women by white offenders occurring on “Reservations” per se, or elsewhere. It does, however clarify that attempts were made to determine “…how many victimizations took place at those locations (Reservations or Indian lands). “From 2000 to 2002—0.5% of all reported violence—occurred on Indian reservations or Indian lands.” And that, “Victims could be of any race.” Not all Native Americans live on Reservations, nor are all residents on Reservations, Native American. So, Professor Anaya’s 80% conclusion is suspect and may be erroneous.

Although based apparently on a faulty assumption, Prof. Anaya’s point of allowing more tribal authority against anyone who commits a crime on a Reservation or tribal land is well taken.

Prof. Anaya’s support of Peltier is fatally flawed (Fn. 2). He has bought into the mythology that in some perverse way a free Peltier will see some level of reconciliation and some payback of the “historical” (white man’s) “debt.” A careful examination of the facts, adding to that Peltier’s own self-incriminating statements over the years since his conviction should be the topic of the professor’s next Report.

Referring to Peltier as an “activist and leader in the American Indian Movement,” describing the murder of Agents’ Coler and Williams’ as “…a clash on the Pine Ridge Reservation” clearly indicates that Professor Anaya needs more time for additional research on both the facts surrounding Peltier’s actions that day at Jumping Bull and the devastation wrought by AIM, an organization that contributed nothing, along with Peltier, to the betterment of Native America.

In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) Didn’t really expect a reply, nor not waiting or expecting one from Robert Redford. It’s so typical that supporters want to avoid any serious follow-up discussions. They make their emotional pleas and then move on to other matters. Healthy debate uncovering the precise details and facts only serve to remove the sheen from the Peltier folklore and that’s unacceptable to the diehards. Especially when those details come from Peltier’s own words.

2) Not an uncommon theme in the history of the Peltier matter.

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

LET'S CAPTURE THEM! Capture turns to murder

Dear Supporters:

In the film “Incident at Oglala,” Bob Robideau proclaims

“We needed to capture these two agents, we didn’t know they were agents at the time. We didn’t have any idea who they were. We felt it had become necessary to capture them and that’s what we were going to do.”

There are several obvious problems with this fantasy scenario.

Everyone on the Reservation knew who the federal agents were; even during Peltier’s trial when Angie Long Visitor said “I looked over and seen them two FBI cars standing there.” “Because nobody has new cars around here.” And because of the “aerials.” (transcript 2657). In other words, everyone knew that white guys in civilian clothes driving late model cars with antennas, were Feds. No secret there.

Then when did the scenario change? They were first going to “capture” the agents, but after they were severely wounded and unable to defend themselves they were both shot in the face at point-blank range. So the capture, after it became obvious they were agents, turned into murder?

But Robideau had an explanation for that too. In the film he describes the phantom Mr. X: “That day I noticed a red pickup coming down from that white house up there (pointing for the camera), and when it got on the other side of these cars, it stopped, an individual got out, of course I knew who he was…and fired and killed both of them. Shorty after that the individual got back into the driver’s side of the pickup, and the pickup left, and made its way up along this tree line up here (still pointing for the camera) and past the green house and I never saw the red pickup again.”

(Mr. X, by the way, was allegedly bringing dynamite to the camp that day. And let’s not forget that Dino Butler called both Robideau and Peltier liars on Mr. X and this fable.)

So we have a feigned capture plot, a known shooter who does the deed and drives off, and yet, according to Leonard Peltier, it was all “pre-planned,” almost ordained.

In his secondary-school level book, Prison Writings, Peltier offered this whopper of a tale: “I can't believe that the FBI intended the deaths of their own agents…nor does it jibe with the fact that scores, even hundreds, of FBI Agents, federal marshals, BIA police, and GOONS were all lying in wait in the immediate vicinity. It seems they thought they'd barge in on that phony pretext, draw some show of resistance from our AIM spiritual camp, then pounce on the compound with massive force.” (Page 113)

“Spiritual?”

“Hundreds?” “Massive force?” “All lying in wait?”

Interesting, yet in Robideau’s tale they had plenty of time to shoot at the agents, wound them, kill them, steal their weapons and one of the vehicles, before the first agent even showed up at Jumping Bull.

All this fantasy is disproven by the fact of Agent Williams’ radio calls for assistance and that the nearest agent and two BIA officers were about twelve miles away when this all started. The responding agent and officers were also shot at when they attempted to enter the Jumping Bull property from Highway 18.

And, of course, this all flies in the face of Peltier’s latest reinvention of that day (“They attacked the Village,” NPPA Blog, 12/27/11).

Robideau’s statements stand, along with “Incident at Oglala” because Peltier still relies on Robert Redford’s fantasy remake of Peter Matthiessen’s “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,” who was characterized by a Harvard law professor as "Mr. Matthiessen is at his worst when he becomes a polemicist for his journalistic clients. He is utterly unconvincing-indeed embarrassingly sophomoric-when he pleads the legal innocence of individual Indian criminals." In other words, both works are fatally flawed…carbon copies as it were…but we cannot ignore the direct and recorded statements from either Robideau or Peltier.

Adding more insult and injury to Peltier’s cause even Peter Matthiessen didn’t by the pre-planed tale; “…the agents pulled up in that vulnerable place down in the pasture because they heard a warning shot or came under fire; if there is another persuasive explanation of the location and position of their cars, I cannot find it.” (ITSOCH p.544) In other words, for the factually challenged, feeble-minded Peltier sycophants, the Agents were attacked and murdered at Jumping Bull that day.

The fabled and feigned innocence and the remanufacturing of facts continues embarrassingly in the Peltier camp…their problem lies in the fact that their claims are so easily dispelled as Peltier continues to foster the myth that he somehow legitimizes a rich Native American history.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

For a factual and accurate review please see the following:
http://www.noparolepeltier.com/timing.html
http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html
http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise
http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html

LPDOC...Can't get the facts straight

Kudos to Delany Bruce in the LPDOC’s November 5, 2010 “Press Release” because she had the courage (unlike the rest at the LPDOC who hide behind a website), to put her name to the release. And yes, this is the same Delaney Bruce who just three years ago Peltier belittled and threatened, but she’s back.
(Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#delaney)

There are several, but especially two glaring errors in her reporting on the Peltier front:

“Native Americans have eagerly awaited a sign that the U.S. has listened to their concerns about the Peltier case, but were disappointed to see no mention of it in the U.S. report.”

Native Americans? This is hardly close to accurate. Peltier and the LPDOC have looked around and can certainly recognize—even if they are loath to admit it—that the overwhelming population of Native Americans have seen Peltier and the disruption caused by AIM as a thing of the past and something that contributed nothing their cause. Peltier’s popularity and support is almost non-existent and those outside of the U.S. (who typically only use Peltier to further their hatred of America…{Elsie are you still out there?}) are meaningless and have absolutely no say in what happens here.

Is there any wonder there was no mention of Peltier in the report?

Delaney (and Peltier supporters) need to do one thing in regard to the following statement…for once, please, read the trial transcript and get the facts straight:

She said: “With no evidence whatsoever, the FBI decided to ‘lock Peltier into the case’. Government officials presented false statements to a Canadian court to extradite Peltier to the U.S. where prosecutors went judge shopping and venue hopping to secure a conviction. In a racially charged courtroom, prosecutors lied to the judge, ignored court orders, and made inappropriate statements to the jury. They intentionally hid evidence of Peltier’s innocence and instead manufactured a ‘murder weapon’. As the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, ‘these facts are not disputed’.”

Peltier’s innocence? Remember, he wasn’t in Seattle that day.
(Please see: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise)

As for inappropriate statements to the Jury, please see the ones that defense attorneys Lowe and Taikeff made…some were outrageous. (There will be an NPPA editorial essay posted soon that will answer a number of these kinds of questions concerning the trial.)

Actually the correct quote was:

"Much of the government's behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed."

This comes from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 when Peltier filed a motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking immediate release on parole and challenged the record before the U.S. Parole Commission. This decision, also denied, was far beyond Peltier’s criminal appellate process that had long since been resolved against him.
Please note some little details that Ms. Bruce, Peltier and the LPDOC seem to deliberately ignore…the reason they do this has to be obvious to even the most ardent supporter:

"Previous federal court decisions provided the (Parole) Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agent Coler and Williams." And further, "While Mr. Peltier, asserts 'the Commission identified no plausible evidence that [he] shot the agents after they were incapacitated, this statement is simply not true. The evidence linking Mr. Peltier to these crimes is enumerated above. The most damning evidence, the .223 shell casing found in Agent Coler's trunk, may be more equivocal after the surfacing of the October 2nd teletype, but it has not been 'ruled out,' as Mr. Peltier contends. There is no direct evidence that Mr. Peltier shot the agents because no one testified they saw him pull the trigger. But as we stated above, and restate here, the body of circumstantial evidence underlying the Commission's decision is sufficient for the purpose of rational basis review." (Emphasis added)
(See the entire decision here: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/tenth_circuit.html)

Lastly, everyone should have realized that Peltier’s latest claims of some legal revelations in his case had but one purpose; to lull the unsuspecting into thinking he has some legal remedies. He doesn’t. All the claims were either waived at trial or have been litigated and appealed to death. So the real purpose is to continue the scam…collect more money from the unwary…and Peltier, the LPDOC (and the former LPDC) have yet to come clean about their finances. Folks are being duped, but maybe they don’t really care.
(Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#fraud)

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods