PELTIER: UNSHARPENING AIDING & ABETTING #1

 Dear Supporters: 

 

Is Leonard Peltier’s latest attorney, Kevin H. Sharp, acting in the best interests of his client?

 

What follows describes the reasons why the NPPA is convinced he is not.

 

The answer to this central question, as Sharp continues to promote provable falsehoods, would be based on either of two assumptions:

 

One is that for some inexplicable reason an attorney and former federal judge has failed to grasp the facts.

 

The other is that he does understand that he is provably wrong, but that it matters little in his blind pursuit to attempt to secure Peltier’s release.

 

Sharp, as a Peltier activist, and like Peltier himself, has become a public figure. As such he is held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. Sharp’s many public statements are thus subject to scrutiny to explore why he is incapable of comprehending a fairly simple and straight-forward factual conclusion. 

 

What follows challenges—once again—the repeated refrain from Kevin Sharp, that the government changed its theory of its prosecution during Peltier’s lengthy appellate process to one of Aiding and Abetting. In other words—after Peltier’s conviction and during his appeals.

 

Aiding and Abetting is not the only issue Sharp has adulterated.[i]

 

It is unmistakable that Sharp cannot claim any credit for mouthing what is an obvious fallacy. He is certainly not that creative or possessing extraordinary legal acumen, at least in the Peltier case. Why? Because, this Aiding and Abetting delusion has been around for years—three decades actually—before Sharp crawled into the Peltier teepee. 

 

Previous Peltier attorneys, seeing what they believed was a legal opportunity and weakness in the government’s case, initially attempted the ‘changed the government theory’ approach for the first time in 1991.[ii] It failed miserably, of course. According to the court it was a “fatally flawed” argument and all Sharp did was purloin their legal failure. The original effort was attempted collectively by five (5) Peltier attorneys.[iii]  Perhaps Sharp, as he has done publicly already—criticizing prior Peltier related judges—believes he is more capable than all these prior attorneys as well.[iv] Actually, and to the contrary, even the Court of Appeals recognized that Peltier “was equally well-represented at trial and on appeal.” (8^th Circuit, 9/14/78). 

 

How can Sharp promote, misinterpret or misunderstand this Aiding and Abetting falsehood when the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993 clearly dismissed this issue.

 

Supporters, whether attorneys or not, if at least familiar with basic criminal law procedures and the justice system or can understand straight-forward and plain text language, are strongly encouraged to review the entire decision for themselves. [v]

 

The highlighted words that follow are impossible to misinterpret or fail to understand. Sharp succumbs to the axiom that People are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

 

It is impossible to conclude that, in all the circumstances, (AUSA) Crooks…intended…to abandon one of the two theories upon which the government had tried the case and upon which the case was submitted to the jury. (i.e., Alternative theories; murder and aiding and abetting)

 

“For the second time, the appellant, Leonard Peltier, seeks by a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (1988) to set aside his 1977 conviction for the premeditated 1975 murder of two agents… The district court denied relief, ruling that (1) the record does not support Peltier‘s contention that an alleged concession by government counsel during oral argument before this court in the prior section 2255 appeal resulted in a change in the theory of the government’s case and, therefore, produced a conviction that could not be supported by the evidence introduced at trial and…”. 

 

(Peltier Trial; Defense opening argument; Tr. at 34)

Finally, if as the government has told you they will prove or expect to prove that one or more people shot and killed these two agents at very close range, it will be important for you to be able to determine whether anybody not actually close in, was around the edges, either knew this was taking place or was supporting or aiding and abetting them in some way, that would make them culpable. 

 

(8^th Circuit Opinion) 

Defense counsel urged the court to require the government to elect between the two theories. The court responded: ”It seems to me the government’s response was to present all of the available relevant evidence and it‘s up to the jury to make the determination on the basis of that evidence whether one or {F.2d 467} either of these situations [occurred].“ Tr. at 3449.

 

Both the government and the defense submitted proposed jury instructions on aiding and abetting. Defense counsel, however, urged the court not to give the jury any aiding and abetting instruction. In response, the government supported such instruction:

 

With regard to the area of aiding and abetting, I would state that aiding and abetting is helping. Aiding and abetting is seeing to it or assisting someone in the commission of a crime. Now even if the jury did not believe that the defendant himself walked up to the agents and shot them from close range, from one foot or point blank range, they could nevertheless believe beyond a reasonable doubt under the state of the evidence that the defendant helped the person who did and the government is not required under the law in the eighth circuit to prove that this defendant actually pulled the trigger if the defendant is responsible in aiding and abetting. There is evidence to show circumstantial evidence by his contact both before and after the offense to prove that he aided and abetted those who were involved with him. (Tr. at 4929-30)

 

The (District) court gave the jury four instructions on aiding and abetting. Instruction Number 38 explained: ”The burden is on the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that the offenses were committed as alleged in the indictment, but that the defendant was the person who committed them, or aided and abetted the person or persons who committed them. (8^th Circuit opinion)

 

On direct appeal this court, in outlining the evidence, stated: ”Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the strongest evidence that Peltier committed or aided and abetted the murders is as follows . . . .“ 585 F.2d at 319 (footnote omitted).

The foregoing discussion establishes beyond question that from the beginning of this case through its submission to the jury (1) the government pursued alternative theories -- that Peltier either himself directly killed the two agents, or aided and abetted others in doing so, (2) the defense was fully aware of these alternative theories and unsuccessfully attempted to compel the government to elect between them, and (3) the district court recognized the alternative theories and charged the jury in accordance with them.

 

Peltier contends that by stating ”we can‘t prove who shot those agents,“ government counsel conceded that the government had not proved that Peltier personally shot the FBI agents, and that he thereby recognized that the only basis for supporting Peltier’s conviction was that he aided and abetted the murders.

 

First, as the district court recognized in this section 2255 proceeding, it is unclear whether the references to ”those agents“ was to the ”two marshals“ mentioned two sentences earlier who had recently been murdered, or to the two FBI agents killed in this case. In any event, this eight-word comment in response to Judge Heaney‘s statements, is a totally inadequate basis for asserting that the government conceded that it had not proved that Peltier personally shot the agents at close range, or that that was the sole basis upon which the government tried the case. Earlier in the argument, the government had stated several times that its theory was that Peltier was guilty of murdering the FBI agents because he either killed them personally or aided and abetted their killing: 

 

It is unmistakable that Aiding and Abetting, from the very beginning, was not only on the table but integral to the prosecution. 

 

What Sharp is accomplishing by his public campaigning is only harming his client by repeating claims that have been consistently rejected. In other words, he risks becoming just another shill promoting the tired and threadbare Peltier myth and folklore. No mystery, no secrets, no magic, yet the provable falsehood is repeated as if saying it enough times will make it true. 

 

Sharp is hamstrung because he is unable, and by inference, unwilling, to tell the truth and the whole story. Either way, it would be devastating to Peltier and the alleged ‘political prisoner’ narrative.[vi]

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

 

cc: 

With cover letter via FedEx

(17)

---

[i] http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2022/04/peltier-judge-kevin-h-sharp-part-3.html

Including, among others: alleged 60 murders of AIM members, killing of Joe Stuntz, Peltier extradition from Canada, the .223 shell casing and FBI Laboratory teletype, referencing the discredited James H. Reynolds, misrepresenting the Myrtle Poor Bear episode and alleged Constitutional violations.

[ii] http://www.noparolepeltier.com/997.html (1991)

[iii] http://www.noparolepeltier.com/997.html

William M. Kunstler, Eric A. Seitz, Lawrence W. Schilling, Ramsey Clark, and Bruce “I’ll take the Fifth” Ellison.

[iv] Kevin Sharp publicly demeans former federal judges who heard and ruled on Peltier’s case:

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2022/08/peltier-kevin-h-sharp-apology-4.html

[v] http://www.noparolepeltier.com/997.html United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 997 F.2d 461, 1993 U.S. App. Decision July 7, 1993, Filed

[vi] http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2022/05/

Dispelling the spurious claim and myth that Peltier is a political prisoner.

PELTIER & NOVEMBER 3, 2020

Dear Supporters:

 

Peltier sits in his cell at USP Coleman and counts the days. Well probably, counting the hours, minutes and maybe even the seconds until the end of the day of the first Tuesday in November.

 

Peltier knows that a pardon, clemency, parole, the Cares or First Step Acts are off the table. As long as there is a Trump administration an unrepentant convicted double-murderer will not see the light of day. Peltier will continue to serve the remainder of his consecutive life sentences along with the seven additional consecutive years for an armed escape from Lompoc penitentiary.

 

The unprovoked attack (there was an eyewitness*)and brutal slaughter of two already wounded and defenseless human beings does not place Peltier in the sympathetic category deserving of forgiveness or compassion. Among many other facts, there are a few critical points in Peltier’s long appellate history that need to be noted.** 

 

Peltier likely prays daily to his Creator that candidates Biden and Harris will be elected. Peltier may have visions of another day, February 6, 2021 marking his forty-fifth year of incarceration and may imagine being freed on that arguably significant date. With a change of administration the possibility of a free Peltier is stronger now than ever before, notwithstanding the fact that even President Obama denied clemency. Peltier may hope to leave Coleman to waiting throngs of supporters welcoming him with drums, chants and open arms. Well, he can dream anyway. 

 

After forty-five years in prison is that enough for his crimes? We believe not.

 

On September 12^thPeltier will be seventy-six. Should he be relocated closer to his native territory? Perhaps, but that is up to the Bureau of Prisons.

 

Whatever the outcome of November 3^rd, Peltier will continue, whether in or out of Coleman, the fabrications he has honed over the past decades, ignoring the facts, offering unfounded scenarios of what happened on June 26, 1975 and continuing to peddle the same tired myth and folklore. Although Peltier has made it clear that he does not consider himself an American citizen, he would certainly covet the Constitutional benefit of a pardon.

 

If, by chance, Peltier is free in 2021, there are two issues that will not end.

 

Peltier’s fund raising through alleged and largely undocumented philanthropic activates has remained a dark secret. Peltier has forgone any pretense of financial clarity or openness, which was even demanded by his own support committee and surely noticed by the I.R.S. But those efforts may morph into different forums like stumping for speaking fees to continue spreading skewed versions of the facts and the incoherent premise of being an alleged political prisoner. Peltier making money from the vicious murder of two human beings is abhorrent and unacceptable.

 

Peltier profiting from the brutal slaying of FBI Agents’ Coler and Williams will be monitored and any lies and fabrications challenged in the public forum.  Peltier, a public figure, will still be held to task for any misstatements of the truth. 

 

However, if Peltier returns to the Turtle Mountain Reservation and lives his remaining years in quiet solitude with family and friends, then so be it.

 

If that is the final outcome, we will nevertheless continue to honor the memory and sacrifice in the line-of-duty of Special Agents Jack R. Cole and Ronald A. Williams.

 

May they rest in peace.

 

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

 

* Agent Williams was overheard on the FBI radio describing exactly what was happening, an unprovoked attack. Those listening heard Ron as he was shot.

** http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/03/peltier-important-reminders.html

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozhEumzwgKA

P.S.

There is a recent podcast series touting Peltier as the “longest serving political prisoner." The narrator, while well intentioned, blindly repeats the same scripted, tired and disproven Peltier rhetoric, the same decades-long myth and folklore. All the issues raised by the podcast have been addressed and resolved and provable if they took the time to understand and explore Peltier’s lengthy appellate history. Repeating old allegations serves no purpose and does nothing to support the notion of Peltier’s feigned innocence. As to the matter of being a political prisoner, the narrator fails to understand a simple premise: If Peltier is really a political prisoner it would strongly suggest that June 26, 1975 was not a random over-reaction by Peltier and other AIM members, but that FBI Agents’ Coler and Williams were lured onto Jumping Bull to be assassinated. But that is simply not the case.

Discussions with S.D. Legislator Steve Hickey; Part 1

Dear Supporters:

(South Dakota, State Legislator, Steve Hickey {R-District 09, Minnehaha County, Sioux Falls} has proposed clemency for Leonard Peltier as a meaningful gesture in celebration of South Dakota’s 125 year state history. His underlining principle has merit, however, most of the reasoning is based on the many falsehoods and folklore promoted by Peltier over the years. There will be a series of factual responses in the NPPA Blog addressing these issues and outlining why Leonard Peltier is the last person deserving of any consideration by the good people of South Dakota. "In the Spirit of Coler and Williams"  Ed Woods)

Steve:

In response to one element of your comment “(and there is no evidence he pulled the trigger or even had the gun).”

It’s important to explore this in some detail.

Five people know exactly what happened; FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams, AIM members, Dino Butler, Bob Robideau and Leonard Peltier.

Two, of course had been severely wounded by AIM members, and then murdered.

We can only hope (and pray) that Jack Coler was unconscious and unaware of his fate. Ron Williams, however, was alive. So we have a wounded FBI Agent who can identify at least three of his assailants. He’s able to look them in the face and into their eyes as he raised an arm in defense as a high powered bullet sent his fingers through the back of his skull. (Peltier, during his escape, was later quoted as saying “the M..f…begged for his life but I shot him anyway.”) The rifle then perhaps turned on Jack Coler with two more shots destroying his head. Dead men make poor witnesses.

We can speculate that perhaps the three each took one shot apiece at the wounded agents, possible, but not likely. As Peltier said, “we gotta get out of here,” as they ransacked their vehicles, stole their weapons and headed for the hills.

Dino Butler has remained remarkably silent, perhaps being the only one with some semblance of a conscience.

Bob Robideau, in an email to me, said, “They died like worms,” and to me personally in New York City, that he killed the agents and if he was in the same situation, those agents would be dead again. This was at a time when he was attempting to take as much of the blame off Peltier; he later abandoned Peltier for thoroughly disgusting reasons which will not be mentioned here nor on the website, however, is available on the Web. Reasons that cast even deeper shadows on Peltier’s character.

Peltier has a long history of an inability to offer the truth or at least stick with just one version of what happened at Jumping Bull:

He was in the AIM camp eating pancakes and drinking hot coffee when the shooting first started (Prison Writings), he fired over their heads not to hit anyone (PW), In a 60 Minutes interview he admitted, publically, shooting at the agents. Perhaps one of the most outrageous excuses, likened to his alibi of “self-defense,” was the claim that Coler and Williams were sent in to draw fire from the AIM camp so hundreds of law-enforcement in the area could come in and finish them off (PW). This was based on the alleged “sanctioned memo” (see link below). And, of course, the two-decade long lie of Mr. X. Remember Robideau in “Incident at Oglala’ going into detail, pointing off into the distance describing Mr. X, whom they all knew and was delivering dynamite to the camp that day, engage the agents, wound them, go down to the wounded agents and shoot them to death, then driving off into the distance in the infamous red pickup? And, in the very next scene in the film Peltier saying “This story is true.”

Dino Butler, publically said this was a lie, and recently Peltier’s own attorney admitted as much. So what are we to believe from Peltier? As has been offered scornfully in the past; he wasn’t in Seattle that day.

Peltier was indicted, charged, tried, convicted, and appealed on the issue of Aiding and Abetting in the murders of Agents' Coler and Williams. Peltier has tried to distance himself from this fact but it is a matter of record and undeniable.

The Government’s  argument (legal position) during the trial was that Peltier was the killer (a premise I agree with), and the jury accepted it. The decision addressing this issue is contained in PELTIER v. HENMEN, cite as 997 F. 2d 461 (8th Cir. 1993), page 485, section II, paragraph 2: "Peltier's arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed. (A) The Government tried the case on alternative theories; it asserted that Peltier personally killed the agents at point blank range, but that if he had not done so, then he was equally guilty of the murder as an aider and abettor."

I have read the entire trial transcript and all the court decisions (more than once) and understand the testimony and the legal charges and arguments on both sides. It takes some time, but  have you had the opportunity to review those important details? Aside from the other evidence, the testimony of the critical witnesses is telling and what the jury had to consider placing Peltier at the murder scene. (see link)

I hope we can engage in a civil discussion on the facts and Peltier’s undeserved consideration for clemency or recognition by the good people of South Dakota.

Regards,

Ed

http://noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critic (Sanctioned memo review)

http://noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical (Critical witnesses review)