SA Jack R. Coler; 1947-1975 Rest-in-Peace

Dear Supporters:

Husband, father, son, brother. Professional, dedicated, courageous. These are some of the things that come to mind when we remember Jack Coler. Others are partner, friend, and the unquestioned character traits of Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Jack left behind a loving widow and two young sons who may have only a faint memory of their devoted, caring and brave father.

On January 12, Jack would have reached his sixty-eighth birthday. There is no way of knowing what these last forty years of his life may have brought. But those who knew him could easily imagine a life rich in accomplishments and strong family ties. Perhaps retired from a long and productive Bureau career and with Jack’s commitment and dedication to law enforcement, he may have pursued another career as a Chief of Police. Or, with his sons and grandchildren continued his love of the outdoors with deeper adventures exploring remote wilderness areas.

All the potential enjoyment, happiness, successes and challenges of a life that was to be, however, was robbed from Jack, his family, and many friends by the Cowards of Jumping Bull on that agonizing and tragic day in 1975.

With certainty, Jack Coler knows that he can rest assured we will continue to honor his memory and sacrifice in the line-of-duty. That reverence and commitment has no expiration date. His memory will live on in every FBI Field Office in the country.

To see Jack as he was then, and to imagine meeting him today, please see the remarkable video produced by the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI available on YouTube. There, you will learn about the incredible Jack Coler and his equally brave and courageous partner, Ron Williams. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozhEumzwgKA

 “In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

PELTIER: WHAT HE'S REALLY TRYING TO SAY...

Dear Supporters:

As he often does, Peltier repeats the expression, “I guess what I’m trying to say is.” The February 6^th public statement is no exception.

(February 6^th being the anniversary of his arrest by the RCMP in Canada and the beginning of his incarceration, interrupted only by his armed escape from Lompoc penitentiary in July 1979.  Although, while he usually does mention the February 6^th date, oddly, this time he didn’t, which further supports the premise described below.)

Quite often these public statements are passably written, others not so, and it’s apparent when an LPDOC ghostwriter is at work or when one was actually written by Peltier. This one’s Peltier’s.

Peltier wanders aimlessly through random matters putting voice to his somewhat limited knowledge and views of technology, corporations, world strife and religious conflicts while deliberately avoiding issues like global terrorism. Instead he offers, “I guess what I’m trying to say...that the average person here in America has no reason to quarrel with any person in another land for religious reasons.” Avoiding, of course, the obvious, that a fairly large number of those people have vowed to destroy America and its democratic allies (and at times their own people as well) with suicide bombings killing innocent civilians all in the name of a God, and a Fatwa against the Infidels to find glory and virgins in the afterlife. It’s a sick reality of life we all have to deal with.

Peltier offers deliberate distractions, so far removed from reality it’s as if he believes that we can’t remember a collapse of his support network that occurred only a matter of weeks ago, or certainly, the events of June 26, 1975, including all the lies and fabrications that followed.

“The people I have gathered around me are people I know and trust. They are my voice, and I want that to be respected.”  The reality though is they don’t stick around all that long—it doesn’t take much for the believers to be disheartened that their cause célèbre is a bona fide fraud, an overbearing, egocentric dolt and that the myth and folklore have all the permanence of breath on a mirror. They never last because once the curtain is pulled back the wizard’s  charade is laid bare. And the rationale is evident through  his very own words, “and I want that to be respected.” Understand that directive; “I want”? What he’s saying is—do it my way or I’ll find others who won’t ask the tough questions and will follow my demands.

Even Peltier should be troubled at how far his fortunes have tumbled now that the “new International” Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, Lake Mary, Florida is housed in Suite 160; a rent-by-the-hour conference room (Footnote #1). But more so with the default setting that selected Henry David Hill as the titular Director who has more AIM history and baggage than Samsonite. But worse yet, the jury is still very much out whether HDH was working both sides of the AIM Tepee, being at once a staunch appearing diehard Aimster (a believer) and an agent provocateur (as they like to label those who don’t tow the party line or may have crossed over to the other side.) (Fn #2 ) 

“…defending freedom and justice must be done in every generation.” Really? Is that what it was? Let’s ask the families of Anna Mae Aquash, Jack Coler, Ron Williams and Perry Ray Robinson whether they were victims of freedom and justice. The vast majority of the older generation of Native America has no difficulty understanding the turmoil and bloodshed left behind in AIM’s wake and that collectively—Peltier counted among the most prominent—contributed nothing to their culture or collective existence.

Peltier tries to offer a fact or two but then adulterates it in typical fashion (not unlike his twenty-year fable that Mr. X killed the agents), stating, “America has more people in prison than all the rest of the world put together.” Not really. Violent crime has steadily decreased over the past twenty years. (Perhaps attesting to the fact that felons like Peltier remain incarcerated.) Although, per capita, America’s incarceration rate is high, it is not more “than all the rest of the world put together,” but actually a quarter of that. But look at some of those with low rates. There are too many countries where there is no due process at all. If there is a trial, it’s short and sweet and the accused taken out back and shot or beheaded, or sent to gulags or labor camps where there is no accounting at all. Or, they simply disappear.  Criminality in many corners of the world results in death, not incarceration.  There are far too many factors; social, legal, cultural, geographical, statutory requirements, sentencing guidelines, etc., for Peltier to make such a sweeping statement as if it were accurate, but in Peltier’s case, receiving consecutive life sentences for murder and seven additional years for armed escape remains appropriate for both sentencing and incarceration.

What Peltier is really saying is, “Look-over-here,” then, “Hey, look-over-there,” fostering a deliberate distraction from the real reason he sends out these rambling messages to ignore and forget the past and why he actually sits in a cell in Coleman, Florida. He doesn’t want to equate modern-day terrorism with that perpetrated by himself and other AIM cowards at Jumping Bull that June day. It’s a common thread and tactic of coAIMintelpro to attempt to keep everyone’s eye off the ball (Fn #3).

“I sincerely hope at this time next year I can be at one of these meetings with you and we can have a good time together and until then…give one another a good hug for me.”

Hugs? From Peltier? Best keep your women and children in a safe place. According to Peltier confidant, comrade and co-conspirator, the late Bob Robideau, there is more than just hugging going on in Peltier’s world.

No one is buying the brave warrior fighting for his people, protecting women and children scam anymore. The myth and folklore have spoiled and rotted from long exposure to sunlight and truth. Everyone from the President on down can see through the lies, false alibis and fabrications that are a hallmark of Peltier’s attempt to legitimize himself as he pollutes a proud native history by pretending to be something he never was, and never will be, a brave warrior (Fn #4). Clemency and forgiveness are not elements that balance cowardly and multiple murderous acts. A free Peltier will heal no historical wounds or promote reconciliation, but only legitimize AIM’s lawless  enterprise and Peltier’s criminality.

Perhaps one day Peltier may have the opportunity to be on the outside again, but it won’t be anytime soon nor will there be any guarantees on how he gets there.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1:  https://liquidspace.com/venues/orlando-office-center-at-lake-mary

2: For more information regarding HDH see:

http://rezinate.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/affidavits-and-doing-business/

and “the Smoking Gun.”

3:  The basics of “coAIMintelpro”

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

4: Dear President Obama:

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

A concise history of guilt.

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

Self defense:

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

Origins of the myth:

http://noparolepeltier.com/myth.html

Peltier and “contributions”

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

Peltier Inc.

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

(blog dated December 12, 2013)

SELF DEFENSE...

Reposted from Rezinate Blog; July, 21, 2013

1.
the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.


2.
a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one’s own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.


3.
an act or instance of defending or protecting one’s own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.

This seems pretty clear cut to me, and by definition excludes the events at Jumping Bull.

Nowhere in this accepted definition does it define an act of self defense as including the ability to purposely shoot mortally wounded men offering no threat or resistance at point blank range, who even if a case could be made that at some point they did constitute a threat.

Nowhere in this definition does it allow for the subsequent looting of whatever affects they may of had.

And nowhere does it allow the right to shoot a wounded person waving any kind flag in an act of surrender.

The truth is that after the initial shootout Williams and Coler were finished off to insure a lack of witnesses,to prevent them from identifying their assailants offering any testimony if they had survived-especially on Peltier’s part as he was convinced they had come to arrest for a Wisconsin warrant-the sole motivation for all that transpired and had absolutely nothing to do with self defense.

The fact that Robert Robideau and Dino Butler were able to employ such a defense ably assisted by a presiding judge whose wife and daughter were enamored of AIM, had had AIM members in their home, and engaged in fund raising doesn’t change the legal definition of self defense.

AIM, the Peltierites,and LPDOC shed crocodile tears about the great injustice of Peltier not being able to claim or argue self defense during his trial-yet they never address the reality that no grounds existed for him to do so-and the fact that Robideau and Butler were able to in a rigged court doesn’t set a president.  

To me it would be the same if a rapist murdered a woman who fought back and then attempted to claim he did so  to protect himself.

There isn’t a court in the land that would accept that, and it is a travesty that a court accepted Robideau’s and Butler’s defense.

I suspect that if this case were to be tried today all would have been found guilty and might well have received the death penalty. There was a time when I supported Peltier, but in retrospect I think the page began to turn as I paid more attention to his own words, the ongoing contradictions and obvious lies, the marketing campaign and the revenue being generated.

That led me to reading transcripts and various documents, and that’s when I closed the book on my personal support of him.

In addition I never saw any of the AIM leadership for anything more than what they were and are-thugs,murderers,and con men.

They and Peltier have been in the majority supported by a distant white fan base ignorant of the realities, that knows little or nothing about the rez or indigenous life….some sort of liberalism willing to assume rather than be informed-willing to gloss over or make allowances when it is justice that is called for, not a free pass.

A type of liberalism that has negatively impacted the nations for decades and will continue to do so as long as wannabes and misguided armchair activists are a part of the equation.

I by no stretch of the imagination can be called a conservative, nor likewise a liberal that goes to the extreme of wanting to edit words out of  books because they are “politically incorrect” -to engage in such an act is an attempt to rewrite history, to alter the  historical record, a window into another time and what was acceptable.

We cannot survive as the people we are and have been without our traditions-something AIM has been on a mission to usurp despite whatever for profit rhetoric they may intone.

They have sold everything unique to us as a people and continually strive to sell even more.

Take a look around-more specifically examine your favorite “leader”, take note of what they are offering for sale, then when you talk about the “spirituality” and great respect for our way of life, our beliefs they profess, let me know how you reconcile the differences between what they say and what they do.

What the nations need to do is to rise up in an act of self defense and drive these agents of cultural genocide from our midst.
They are not only apples but the rotten apples that taint the bushel, and I personally wouldn’t give a plug nickel for the whole damn bunch of them.

Rezinate

http://rezinate.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/self-defense/

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

PELTIER...Prove it....Or it's just another lie

Dear Supporters:

On Peltier’s website (under ‘publications’) is a tri-fold brochure that can be downloaded and used as a propaganda tool to convince the uninformed about the plight of Leonard Peltier. The brochure (updated, June 26, 2010…an inauspicious 35^th anniversary date) is typical LPDOC boilerplate, but two bullet-points (no pun intended) stand out beyond the rest of the tired rhetoric:

“Years later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, it was documented that:

● the FBI had been closely surveilling AIM activities on & off the reservations & had even been preparing for “paramilitary law enforcement operations” on Pine Ridge one month before the shootout.

● the two agents had possessed a map that highlighted the Jumping bull Ranch & labeled the family’s storage cellars as “bunkers.” (Minor correction; it was a farm, not a ranch.)

The first point was repudiated long ago; please see NPPA Editorial Essay #35, http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critic

“Possessed a map?”

PELTIER SUPPORTERS (exclusive, of course, of the incorrigible and rabid followers who refuse to be either civil or confused by the facts*) need take a moment to consider how significant “the two agents had possessed a map” would have been to Peltier’s defense. Try adding just an ounce of common sense with a sprinkling of logic and really examine this (outrageous) claim.

If…and this is an incredibly major IF…this were factual, then all…yes, all, of Peltier’s claims of a wrongful conviction would have been, by default, validated:

I am guilty of only being an Indian. 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. I could smell the wonderful smell of those pancakes and…cupfuls of scalding hot black coffee. But suddenly this beautiful morning was cut short by the staccato sound of gunfire. Were we surrounded and about to be slaughtered? 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…unannounced interlopers who had come roaring onto Jumping bull property without warning…we realized that the drivers of the two shiny cars were apparently already dead, slouched besides their vehicles in pools of blood. I didn’t see their agents die, hand no hand in it. (And, certainly, from the film Incident at Oglala), “This story is true” Peltier opines for the camera, confirming Robideau’s story of someone they all knew, Mr. X, who had driven to Jumping Bull that day in the infamous red pickup to deliver dynamite to the camp and who then engaged the agents, shot them both dead and drove off into the distance.** (Of course, Dino Butler called both Robideau and Peltier liars on that story). And there’s certainly a lot more.

If “the two agents had possessed a map,” it would have been jumped on at every opportunity by the defense team to support Peltier’s version of events and his alleged innocence. It would have been the proverbial “smoking gun” countering the government’s case against Peltier. It would have been his ticket to freedom.

(Of course the FOIA material was after-the-fact, after the trial, so it’s no surprise to anyone that nowhere in the 3,343 pages and over a million words of trial transcript that the word bunker(s) is ever mentioned.)

So where did this incredible “fact” (read, actually ‘fiction’) come from?

For Peltier follower’s sake, let’s dig a little deeper.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse (1992): Matthiessen mentions “cellar” twice, “storage” four times but each in the context of what they really are, no references at all to Agents Coler and Williams possessing a map of Jumping Bull. Nope, not there.

Prison Writings, My life is my sun dance (1999): Peltier’s ninth-grade-level reader makes many allegations but never mentions “the two agents had possessed a map.” Nope, not there.

Court decisions and appeals:

„ Direct appeal, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 9/14/78: Nope, not there, but the Court did state “The direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…”

„ § 2255 Motion for a new trial, United States District Court, 12/29/82: Nope, not there, but the Court did state: “It is noted that the defense utilized during the trial the services of nine attorneys, many of which were vastly experienced in criminal defense.”

„ § 2255 Motion based on newly discovered evidence (Freedom of Information and Privacy Act), District Court, 12/30/82: Nope, not there, but the Court did state: “Petitioner was tried, however, on the theory that he was guilty of aiding and abetting in the murders of the agents.”

„ Appeal from the District Court Ruling; Eighth Circuit, 4/4/84: Nope, not there, but the court did state “…we remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing…relevant to the meaning of the October 2, 1975 (FBI) teletype…”

„  Evidentiary (Ballistics) hearing October, 1984, District Court decision 5/22/85: Nope, not there, but the Court did state “Because the October 2, 1975, teletype, evaluated in the context of the entire record, would not have affected the outcome of the trial, and does not create a reasonable doubt which did not otherwise exist…” and,  “Defendant had an independent firearms expert present in the courtroom at the hearing, but he was not called to testify.”

„ Appeal of hearing decision, Eighth Circuit, 9/11/86: Nope, not there. The Court did state, “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…” “Yet we are bound by the Bagley test requiring that we be convinced from a review of he entire record, that had the data and records withheld be made available, the jury probably would have reached a different result. We have not been so convinced.”

„ § 2255 Motion, based on “a change in the theory of the government’s case,” Eighth Circuit, 7/7/93: Nope, not there. The court did state, “Peltier’s arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed.”

„ Rule 35 Motion (second), Eighth Circuit, 12/18/02: Nope, not there. The Court did state, “In this case, a simple comparison of the sentences to the relevant statue reveals that the district court had the discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences, and Mr. Peltier’s sentences are not therefore ‘illegal’ under Rule 35(a).”

„ Habeas Corpus: Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Leavenworth) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 11/4/03: Nope, not there either. The Court did state, “But whether the Parole Commission gave proper weight to this mitigating evidence is not a question we have the authority to review. Our only inquiry is whether the Commission was rational in concluding Mr. Peltier participated in the execution of two federal agents. On the record before us, we cannot say this determination was arbitrary and capricious.”

 And there are others, but by now even Peltier supporters should get the point. Or not.

Peltier supporters should (but are afraid) to ask Leonard where that allegedly damaging piece of information came from.

Peltier should provide some proof, anything of substance to support the claim—that the two agents had possessed a map that highlighted the Jumping bull Ranch & labeled the family’s storage cellars as “bunkers.”

Otherwise it’s just another lie destroying his shallow claims of innocence.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

*Among those are the Cornish’s, Herten’s, Randolph’s, Robideau's, Ninham's, Swearingin’s, Neame’s, MeYFaN’s, Sampson’s, LaBlanc’s, Rawson’s, Liesner’s, Stabile’s, Savoy’s, Kosky, Ellison, Frodsham’s and the Wild Horse’s, the "wannabe's," and others who are exactly the kind of supporters Peltier wants and needs. Mouths open and wide-eyed, digesting all the folklore from the Peltier camp and never understanding the facts. Not bright enough, at times, to see the contradictions in Peltier’s fables and unquestionably not courageous enough to challenge him about them either.

** Please, Peltier supporters, watch the darn film Incident at Oglala will you?  It’s on the website for crying out loud. Just click on it for Pete’s sake, that’s what it’s there for, and watch Bob Robideau (1948-2009) yak on for two minutes and fifty-two seconds describing what is one of the biggest lies in the Peltier folklore. The next scene, (and watch Leonard’s eyes as they flit back and forth), and stumbles with an explanation after he pronounces, “This story is true.” It is as much a lie today as it ever was but Peltier supporters through blind indolence just don’t get it.