PELTIER: A LIAR'S PATHOLOGY

Dear Supporters:

Reblogged from Rezinate:

https://rezinate.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/pathology-of-a-liar-redux/

"In the Spirit of Coler and Williams
Ed W.

As can be seen I originally blogged this in Feburary of ’13 and not much has changed. Peltier remains a pathological liar and hive members continue to ignore the facts and insist he is a martyr.

There’s an incremental diluting of the reasons to free him though – the emphasis is no longer that he is innocent, or that “X” did it, both claims proven to be unsustainable, now it is about  Peltier is old and on the verge of falling and not being able to get  up.

My response to that is others fell as the result of a bullet and they haven’t been able to get up for decades – no clemency, pardon, or “humanitarian” gesture is possible for them.

One could say they are in a sense political prisoners confined to a grave, the result of the politics of AIM – more specifically those of  it’s leadership.

A leadership that consisted of Dennis Banks, Russell Means, Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt, Carter Camp, and Leonard Crow Dog, plus an assortment of second tier flunkies.

All qualifying as “tugs” and “mad dog killers” as Peltier would put it.

Peltier is leaving himself an out, he’s steadfastly declared he would do it all again, but also would admit his role if “his” chiefs and elders told him so.

How convenient – admit the truth but portray it as questionable and only under advisement.

I can’t help but wonder who exactly are Peltier’s chiefs and elders?

Are they to be found in the AIM hierarchy? If so I’m kind of doubting they would risk opening such a can of worms, it could lead to a prisoner exchange – Peltier walks out and they walk in.

No, Peltier serves them best behind bars – as long as he remains there he is a red herring they can toss out to deflect attention away from themselves.

An added bonus is the possibility of a little revenue at times he can generate for them employing vehicles like the “walks” and “tribunals”.

Without Peltier they might have to contend with the murders of Annie Mae, Ray Robinson and his co-victims of WK2….and that’s the last thing they want.

Dino Butler was the first to go on record about “X”, he went so far as to characterize it as an effort to keep Peltier behind bars.

Yet inspite of this early admission the story was cultivated for years by “celebrities” and hapless supporters.

Who knows, maybe this dovetails with my contention that despite all the hoopla the leadership believes he actually does serve them better behind bars.

There are multiple genres in the film industry, from fantasy to action and even documentaries. A documentary, that was the way Incident at Oglala was promoted by Robert Redford.

A fact based recounting of the truth and events – problem is “X” was included for dramatic value and to raise doubts. I think it reasonable to assume some flagrant error, such a complete hoodwinking, would prompt a mea culpa from producers to narrator – yet that hasn’t happened, not so much as a whisper or rumor of remorse, nor admission of having been duped.

Maybe these documentarians and producers believe they’re too important, too big to fail to even consider such a thing …..if that’s the case no one should believe a damn thing they have to say about anything.

PATHOLOGY OF A LIAR
Posted by rezinate on February 16, 2013

https://rezinate.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/pathology-of-a-liar/

February 6, 1976

When Leonard Peltier was arrested in Alberta, Canada, he said that the FBI agents “who had come to arrest HIM” at Pine Ridge for jumping bail on a Wisconsin attempted murder indictment deserved to die. (They hadn’t some to arrest him, and didn’t even know he was there).

He also said if he had known the RCMP were coming to arrest him (they walked into the bedroom where he was still sleeping, and woke him up), he would have shot them “out of their shoes.”

Because the admissions, including the statement that he knew who executed the FBI agents, were made without an attorney present, they couldn’t be introduced as evidence at his trial. However, both statements were considered in his sentencing and subsequent parole hearings.

The above a copy paste from the Leonard Peltier Still Guilty- it speaks to a number of things. One being Peltier’s thug attitude, another being when Creator was passing out brains and Peltier was asked if he wanted one he thought the word was trains and said he would catch a later one.

Peltier’s good fortune that his statements couldn’t be introduced into evidence, but as is said they have a direct influence on his parole status.

Peltier, like all all thugs and wannabe tough guys wants to be seen as someone not to fool with, a dangerous person when it comes down to it-so he’s compelled by that and his own ignorance to make such statements-to boast in front of women about shooting people, or brag about being a “hero”, “warrior” and “laying down fire” at agents Williams and Coler as his own words state in the Just For Discussion blogs.

None of which adds any credibility to his claim that he is a political prisoner, that’s just an affected persona-kind of like the warrior, hero thing.

It’s also intended to divert attention from the troublesome comments he’s made, the lies he’s been caught in, and the fact that despite every effort to remediate his sentence Peltier and his team have laid an egg.

Doesn’t stop the propaganda though, or attempts to continue milking the cash cow that Peltier has become- but as awareness grows, so does a predictable contempt resulting from an increasing familiarity with the truth.

Peltier would have one and all believe he’s going down swinging-truth is he’s just down period-he’s tried desperately to cast himself as one of the big dogs, but the reality is the only place for him is on the porch, or more appropriately as is the case his prison cell.

We are told now that Peltier’s current legal team are Bravado Boys from Buffalo- I don’t know about all that, but bravado has been a mainstay of the act Peltier has engaged in.

For his legal team to admit that the Mr. X mystery shooter was concocted sounds more like a whimper to me than bravado-but then there probably wasn’t much choice as the lie had been thoroughly discredited for years.

This being the case something new, something immediate had to be presented to fill the void that was created, divert attention, and hopefully not allow people the time to actually think and say -Hey, wait a minute, X is a lie? Then what else have they been lying about?

No that wouldn’t do at all-but one thing for sure, LPDOC knows their audience and how to play them. And dropping the Mr.X bomb was like the Friday night weekend White House news drop-the intent,the hope is, that in being the weekend people will be distracted while engaging in other things.

The example of this diversion? Frank DeLuca/Blackhorse and now Theda Nelson Clark-the timing of these hoped for distractions immediate in nature, and necessary.

That isn’t to say though neither should be looked at, and both for a multitude of reasons should be-among those reasons would be Theda’s role in the abduction murder of Annie and DeLuca’s homeboy status with Peltier and eerily comparable history one might liken to Dave Hill’s-you know that not going to be prosecuted for services rendered, the good of the public, etc etc.

That could also explain the reason why those AIM leader “patriots” seem to avoid prosecution, so maybe the same look, the same interest given to DeLuca and Clark should be given to them as well. But that’s apparently too much to hope for.

This Friday night drive by news drop worked to a degree though as we haven’t seen it picked up by the mainstream media, or journalists like Rickert. Now If I were a journalist, especially one of ours, this admittal would have been front page news for me, and I would have been in LPDOCs face about it- I would have emblazoned it across the front page in bold type challenging people to think about it and consider the implications.

But I’m not a journalist, and make no claim or pretense that I am, so I just do what others do, peck away at the keyboard pointing out what I believe to be flagrantly obvious and in doing so know that some will agree while others will not.

There’s a Shakespearian quote as follows:

“Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?”

I don’t consider myself noble in any sense of the word-I consider the truth to be, and I believe there is a great ignobility in the way AIM and the Peltierites have gone about attempting to bury it-such efforts should be seen for the sea of troubles they’ve created and opposed.

Having once been a Peltier supporter I know the mechanics of their denials, the lengths they will go to deny a truth and create or support a lie.They’ll throw anything and everything against the wall hoping something will stick while they apply liberal coats of Teflon to their boy.

He’s not a “tug”, not ” a mad dog killer”- he’s a “political prisoner” whose been “wronged”, because as they would have you believe he wasn’t just a “dumb as dirt” low level grunt, he was a “leader” of AIM, respected by one and all, and whose opinion was not only highly regarded but sought after.

He personally presented some huge threat to the U.S., to it’s very continuation and existence-a prophet and seer come to free the nations-a regular Wovoka with a variation-his dance included sticking a gun in a woman’s mouth to interrogate her, shooting mortally wounded men in the face at pointblank range, and not hesitating to run and abandon women, pregnant or not, than to face the music he had created.

A real role model huh, somebody you’d want your children to grow up like? In furtherance of that be sure to send some money to his “bravado” fund.

“Especially in this system, I can’t tell the system I was shooting at their police officers that WERE TRYING TO ARREST ME. They’ll hold that against me. I’VE GOT BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT STUFF. ( Caps mine).

Yet Peltier has said he wasn’t shooting at them-that “nobody was shot, hit, hurt, killed”, in the direction he was shooting-he has also gone on to say he was “laying down fire”.

“I think it was around that December when I heard that Anna Mae was dead. I was in that jail over there in Canada right around whenever they exposed who she really was and what she died from, but I believe I didn’t hear about it until December. When people say that she tried to contact me, that’s a lie. If she’d have tried to contact me then she would have been with me, and there’s no doubt in my mind because the Indian people knew where I was; certain people knew where I was at. “

The problem with this statement is that he wasn’t in jail in Canada until February of the following year-1976. And by his own admission that he was in and out of the country the question arises was he around in December of ’75? And if so what was he doing and who was he in contact with?

He doesn’t seem to know which side to come down on- as though confused by Trudell’s statement that Banks told him prior to Annie’s body being identified that it was her, and the Banks line of he neither knows or ever knew anything about anything related to her murder. Lends credibility to the dumb as dirt moniker.

More than obvious Peltier is an inveterate liar, a pathological one incapable of even keeping the lies straight. It’s as though this liars pathology were a contagion, as it apparently infected the entire AIM leadership, a large number of their supporters, the Peltierites, and LPDOC itself.

The truth is the cure for that, but a vaccine many refuse to avail themselves of, depending instead on those “natural” remedies offered at the AIM LPDOC clinic

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