On September 26th, in an impassioned, if somewhat pathetic plea, the LPDOC laid out their dire financial straits. “We need money, envelopes, paper, donations of any size, sponsor a delegate, make a monthly pledge,” they say in effect. In other words, they’re broke. At least, thank goodness they didn’t go down the “tax-deductible donations” road this time…perhaps they have learned a valuable lesson from the IRS…but no one at the LPDOC will admit to that. And it’s no wonder that this “grassroots organization” (and all the while we thought it was an International effort—Elsie are you still out there?), is dying on the vine. Over the past several years at least Native America and intelligent supporters are seeing through the fog of Peltier folklore.
This begging is nothing new and has been addressed by the NPPA too many times already with a major review going back to May, 2004 (please see Editorial Essay #24; Peltier Donations: Scam, Fraud?, in the NPPA Debate Continues Section).
That essay repeated a statement from one of the LPDC’s (predecessor of the LPDOC) leaders, Bob Free that;
“Transparency regarding accounting and donations will be posted on the web.”
Two points; it was obviously a problem within the organization, and of course, that never happened. Too many financial skeletons in the closet perhaps?
But we’ll up the ante from a previous offer (please see NPPA Blog dated September 6, 2010 below). The NPPA will donate $1,000 (up from the prior offer of $500) to Peltier and the LPDOC if they honor a commitment made to their supporters years ago:
Post on whoisleonardpeltier.info the following:
Peltier’s last five years (2006-2010) federal and state tax returns, and the federal and state tax returns for the LPDC (2005-2008) and the LPDOC’s returns for 2009 and 2010.
That’s all they have to do and a check for a grand will be in the mail. Promise.
But we know this is more than just problematic for Leonard and the Committee…what they don’t want supporters (either the die-hards or the well-healed) to know, is how much has been taken in, or more importantly, where has it gone?
As an aside, the September 26th message also stated “Leonard’s recent transfer to USP-Coleman in Florida has created sudden and unexpected increases in the cost of attorney travel.” Which is interesting, and silly, because, as we’ve understood over the years, the attorney’s working on Peltier’s behalf have done so, pro bono. And there is no reason for any attorney to travel to Coleman to speak with Peltier anyway (unless it’s just to meet the legend), because anything they would contrive as an issue is all a matter of record. Even pursing the FOIPA material can be handled from an attorney’s office and not Peltier’s prison cell. Besides, there’s still the U.S. Mail.
But let’s not stray too far from the fundamentals, from Peltier’s actual guilt and total lack of remorse for what happened at Jumping Bull, or even acceptance of any responsibility for that day.
The two most important sentences for Peltier supporters and detractors alike to contemplate over the past thirty-six years still remain;
“I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I looked at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile.”
(Of course that was the dead agent’s jacket Joe Stuntz was wearing when he was shot while shooting at responding agents and officers later that day. Please see Editorial Essay #54) Write Leonard and ask him to explain that one. And,
“I never thought my commitment would mean sacrificing like this, but I was willing to do so nonetheless. And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.”
(Please see Editorial Essay #52) It was “The right thing to do?” Instead of Leonard, write the President to demonstrate Peltier’s attitude towards his crimes and that he is not deserving of the slightest consideration for clemency.
Add to that the decade’s long lie that “Mr. X.” did it; if there’s any doubt about that, just watch the movie (http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html).
And then there’s what the jury had to consider; distilling down all the other evidence to that core testimony each juror needed to weigh truthfulness, and the degree of Peltier’s guilt or innocence. Those “Critical Witnesses,” taken as a whole, left little doubt then, as they do now. (Please see Editorial Essay #55.)
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
NPPA
Showing posts with label critical witnesses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical witnesses. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
"The Ten Points of Light"
Dear Supporters:
Peltier’s (the LPDOC’s) recent 2/1/11 newsletter “35 Years is (NOT) to Long” was interesting in part because they perhaps took some advice and posted the entire Peltier trial transcript on their website. But they did so at their own peril.
Aside from having the court decisions posted on the website from the beginning, the NPPA focused on the transcripts and provided a straightforward, unvarnished review of the “Critical Witnesses Against Peltier” (Editorial Essay #55: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical Anderson, Brown, Draper and Long Visitor), including direct and cross-examination and opening and closing arguments. These were the critical witnesses the jury had to weigh most heavily…testimony that placed Peltier at the scene of his crimes. Interested researchers are invited to review the transcripts and the summaries and decide for themselves.
Now included on Peltier’s website is an interesting and compelling legal discussion (The Ten Points of Light), but—only to the uninformed, because none of this is new and includes irrelevant, erroneous and out-of-context material within their highlighted references (the Wounded Knee trials and the 10th Circuit decision for example); none of which address Peltier’s actual guilt. Bringing up…yet again…for instance, the 10/2/75 teletype (ballistics report) without…yet again…presenting the rest of the facts; the three-day evidentiary hearing and subsequent appeal, or pointing out that Peltier had his own ballistics expert in the courtroom but chose—not—to call him as a witness. If that teletype was really so compelling…why didn’t their own witness attack it?
Every one of the Ten-points-of-Light have been analyzed and explained in detail over the past decade by the NPPA, but just for another example, how about point #3? Number three begins ““The first appeal of Peltier’s conviction occurred in 1977 before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Donald Ross stated: “But can’t you see…that what happened happened in such a way that it gives some credence…” and #3 continues…
However, the first appeal to the 8th Circuit was rendered in 1978 (585 F.2nd 314, 1978 U.S. App. Decision, September 14, 1978, Decided {read the entire decision here: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html}).
But would it come as a surprise that the alleged quote from the LPDOC’s Point #3, does not appear in that decision? It shouldn’t, and doesn’t…Peltier and the LPDOC are wont to continue the folklore. Whether they are deliberately disingenuous remains to be seen…but they have a track record that the myth is more important than the truth. The real record speaks for itself, and any oral arguments before the courts are the prelude to the ultimate and final published court decisions.
Would it come as another surprise that this very decision stated “Secondly, the direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…” (I.B.4).
It shouldn’t.
Notice too that the LPDOC has a habit of not taking ownership of its work product…presented, unsigned by amorphous, phantom and ill-informed authors hiding behind the LPDOC. Apparently they have little pride in their efforts.
Please utilize the NPPA search feature to remove the out-of-context spin…don’t take either side’s version…explore and make an informed decision based on the record, because here again, it is not just a curious but deliberate omission of facts by Peltier and the LPDOC. The legal issues have been litigated to death…there are no other avenues to pursue…they have been either waived or decided against Peltier’s interests…try as they may to manufacture more. If they expect the further FOIPA results to magically produce “a smoking gun” (certainly no pun intended), they are mistaken.
So, posting the trail transcripts (which is a good move) creates a problem for Peltier. For those die-hards the transcripts are irrelevant because they wouldn’t read them anyway (they would prefer the LPDOC CliffsNotes version), but for those who want to know what really happened during the trial and have the energy to critically review a fairly large volume of material, they would ultimately agree with the jury’s verdict.
But, of course, re-litigating is just an exercise because Peltier’s guilt is beyond any doubt. Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise, and include the footnotes as well because those concerned are encouraged to research all the facts http://www.noparolepeltier.com/footnotes.pdf.
Re-litigating, or pretending that this is a viable option is just another way for Peltier to further demean an otherwise proud First American heritage. The vast majority of Native Americans see Peltier and AIM for what they really were, a genuine setback for native rights. That’s another reason why Peltier’s popularity has long since ebbed and he is in a constant mode of continuing to scam people that he’s in it for “his people.”
If Peltier had some courage he would not be afraid to post the finances, link to the NPPA and stop kicking this writer off the LPDOC mail list. The NPPA maintains three large lists, one of them certainly has a number of Peltier supporters, and that’s a good thing as well because no one has ever been removed from those lists. Besides, really, wouldn’t you think there are NPPA supporters on Peltier’s list and they forward the LPDOC material along anyway? But it’s a matter of principle…sorely lacking in the Peltier camp. So, LPDOC and Peltier, show some backbone and the strength of your own convictions (e.g. rhetoric) and come clean about the money you’ve taken in over the years and where it went and provide a link to the other side of the story…that’s what the NPPA did for your side almost eleven years ago.
The LPDOC’s Ten Points of Light—try as they may to create a diversion from the factual history of Peltier’s conviction—ignore the unquestioned basis of his continued actual and factual guilt. If there’s any doubt about that, just contact Mr. X. http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html
Peltier now finds himself in the absurd position of the dog who, having caught the car he was so frantically chasing, has no idea what to do with it—so he looks around guiltily and then slinks away while he diminishes a proud Native American heritage in the process.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Peltier’s (the LPDOC’s) recent 2/1/11 newsletter “35 Years is (NOT) to Long” was interesting in part because they perhaps took some advice and posted the entire Peltier trial transcript on their website. But they did so at their own peril.
Aside from having the court decisions posted on the website from the beginning, the NPPA focused on the transcripts and provided a straightforward, unvarnished review of the “Critical Witnesses Against Peltier” (Editorial Essay #55: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical Anderson, Brown, Draper and Long Visitor), including direct and cross-examination and opening and closing arguments. These were the critical witnesses the jury had to weigh most heavily…testimony that placed Peltier at the scene of his crimes. Interested researchers are invited to review the transcripts and the summaries and decide for themselves.
Now included on Peltier’s website is an interesting and compelling legal discussion (The Ten Points of Light), but—only to the uninformed, because none of this is new and includes irrelevant, erroneous and out-of-context material within their highlighted references (the Wounded Knee trials and the 10th Circuit decision for example); none of which address Peltier’s actual guilt. Bringing up…yet again…for instance, the 10/2/75 teletype (ballistics report) without…yet again…presenting the rest of the facts; the three-day evidentiary hearing and subsequent appeal, or pointing out that Peltier had his own ballistics expert in the courtroom but chose—not—to call him as a witness. If that teletype was really so compelling…why didn’t their own witness attack it?
Every one of the Ten-points-of-Light have been analyzed and explained in detail over the past decade by the NPPA, but just for another example, how about point #3? Number three begins ““The first appeal of Peltier’s conviction occurred in 1977 before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Donald Ross stated: “But can’t you see…that what happened happened in such a way that it gives some credence…” and #3 continues…
However, the first appeal to the 8th Circuit was rendered in 1978 (585 F.2nd 314, 1978 U.S. App. Decision, September 14, 1978, Decided {read the entire decision here: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html}).
But would it come as a surprise that the alleged quote from the LPDOC’s Point #3, does not appear in that decision? It shouldn’t, and doesn’t…Peltier and the LPDOC are wont to continue the folklore. Whether they are deliberately disingenuous remains to be seen…but they have a track record that the myth is more important than the truth. The real record speaks for itself, and any oral arguments before the courts are the prelude to the ultimate and final published court decisions.
Would it come as another surprise that this very decision stated “Secondly, the direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…” (I.B.4).
It shouldn’t.
Notice too that the LPDOC has a habit of not taking ownership of its work product…presented, unsigned by amorphous, phantom and ill-informed authors hiding behind the LPDOC. Apparently they have little pride in their efforts.
Please utilize the NPPA search feature to remove the out-of-context spin…don’t take either side’s version…explore and make an informed decision based on the record, because here again, it is not just a curious but deliberate omission of facts by Peltier and the LPDOC. The legal issues have been litigated to death…there are no other avenues to pursue…they have been either waived or decided against Peltier’s interests…try as they may to manufacture more. If they expect the further FOIPA results to magically produce “a smoking gun” (certainly no pun intended), they are mistaken.
So, posting the trail transcripts (which is a good move) creates a problem for Peltier. For those die-hards the transcripts are irrelevant because they wouldn’t read them anyway (they would prefer the LPDOC CliffsNotes version), but for those who want to know what really happened during the trial and have the energy to critically review a fairly large volume of material, they would ultimately agree with the jury’s verdict.
But, of course, re-litigating is just an exercise because Peltier’s guilt is beyond any doubt. Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise, and include the footnotes as well because those concerned are encouraged to research all the facts http://www.noparolepeltier.com/footnotes.pdf.
Re-litigating, or pretending that this is a viable option is just another way for Peltier to further demean an otherwise proud First American heritage. The vast majority of Native Americans see Peltier and AIM for what they really were, a genuine setback for native rights. That’s another reason why Peltier’s popularity has long since ebbed and he is in a constant mode of continuing to scam people that he’s in it for “his people.”
If Peltier had some courage he would not be afraid to post the finances, link to the NPPA and stop kicking this writer off the LPDOC mail list. The NPPA maintains three large lists, one of them certainly has a number of Peltier supporters, and that’s a good thing as well because no one has ever been removed from those lists. Besides, really, wouldn’t you think there are NPPA supporters on Peltier’s list and they forward the LPDOC material along anyway? But it’s a matter of principle…sorely lacking in the Peltier camp. So, LPDOC and Peltier, show some backbone and the strength of your own convictions (e.g. rhetoric) and come clean about the money you’ve taken in over the years and where it went and provide a link to the other side of the story…that’s what the NPPA did for your side almost eleven years ago.
The LPDOC’s Ten Points of Light—try as they may to create a diversion from the factual history of Peltier’s conviction—ignore the unquestioned basis of his continued actual and factual guilt. If there’s any doubt about that, just contact Mr. X. http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html
Peltier now finds himself in the absurd position of the dog who, having caught the car he was so frantically chasing, has no idea what to do with it—so he looks around guiltily and then slinks away while he diminishes a proud Native American heritage in the process.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Thursday, December 23, 2010
CRITICAL WITNESSES AGAINST PELTIER
Dear Supporters:
All the best for the holidays and a healthy and happy New Year.
Please see the latest Editorial Essay #55. Introduction follows:
http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical
The purpose of this editorial essay is to provide a detailed summary of the critical witnesses against Peltier; those who placed him at the scene of the crime. (There will be no discussion concerning Peltier’s actual guilt, which has been extensively covered elsewhere and is beyond any doubt.) The witnesses are presented in the order of appearance at trial and the complete transcripts (approximately 493 pages) are available and linked as follows: Michael Anderson, Wilford Draper, Norman Brown and Angie Long Visitor.
Also included for reference are the government and defense summations and the government’s rebuttal.
During the course of Peltier’s five-week trial (Fargo, North Dakota, March-April 1977 before U.S. District Court Judge Paul Benson) there were many witnesses who provided sworn testimony regarding the investigation into the murders of Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams (Reservation Murders, or RESMURS) that occurred on the Jumping Bull property, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota on June 26, 1975.
The government’s evidence and testimony against Peltier covered a great many more details to support the elements of the charges against him, however, in this author’s opinion, the most critical evidence against Peltier was—in a manner of speaking—his own people, other Native Americans at Jumping Bull that day who helped provide the jury with a sense of the agents’ final moments.
Certainly, the government presented other significant evidence in addition to testimony from both sides that either supported or refuted statements made by the critical witnesses.
Peltier’s defense team had but one mission; to create within the jury’s mind that the government had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Peltier was afforded the presumption of innocence and the defense had to impeach those government witnesses who presented the most damaging testimony. Most of the critical witnesses were hostile (not totally cooperative to one side or the other, or sometimes both), and as noted below, some of the exchanges between the attorneys were contentious.
The jury was the trier of fact and it is not known what weight they ascribed to the testimony of each witness and whether the government or defense arguments to otherwise bolster or destroy the witnesses credibility was successful or not. But, in either instance, a few fundamental facts remained for the jurors to individually and collectively consider as they reached a unanimous decision concerning Peltier’s guilt.
However, in the end, the jury had to wade through a mire of often-conflicting testimony to determine the truth, as they perceived it. Sometimes those perceptions are indefinable, merely faint expressions or glimmers of truth or untruth, which they may not be able to articulate or explain but still provide a conscious recognition from each witness of the events of that day.
The jury’s decision, of course, along with the conduct and presentation of the government’s case and Peltier’s sentencing, led to numerous appeals so that every facet of the trial was ultimately analyzed in painstaking detail. The results of that voluminous and intense appellate review validated the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury’s decision was final, but in the spirit of continuing debate it is now up to concerned readers to make their own judgment based on this review of the critical witnesses against Peltier.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
NPPA-Founder
All the best for the holidays and a healthy and happy New Year.
Please see the latest Editorial Essay #55. Introduction follows:
http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical
The purpose of this editorial essay is to provide a detailed summary of the critical witnesses against Peltier; those who placed him at the scene of the crime. (There will be no discussion concerning Peltier’s actual guilt, which has been extensively covered elsewhere and is beyond any doubt.) The witnesses are presented in the order of appearance at trial and the complete transcripts (approximately 493 pages) are available and linked as follows: Michael Anderson, Wilford Draper, Norman Brown and Angie Long Visitor.
Also included for reference are the government and defense summations and the government’s rebuttal.
During the course of Peltier’s five-week trial (Fargo, North Dakota, March-April 1977 before U.S. District Court Judge Paul Benson) there were many witnesses who provided sworn testimony regarding the investigation into the murders of Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams (Reservation Murders, or RESMURS) that occurred on the Jumping Bull property, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota on June 26, 1975.
The government’s evidence and testimony against Peltier covered a great many more details to support the elements of the charges against him, however, in this author’s opinion, the most critical evidence against Peltier was—in a manner of speaking—his own people, other Native Americans at Jumping Bull that day who helped provide the jury with a sense of the agents’ final moments.
Certainly, the government presented other significant evidence in addition to testimony from both sides that either supported or refuted statements made by the critical witnesses.
Peltier’s defense team had but one mission; to create within the jury’s mind that the government had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Peltier was afforded the presumption of innocence and the defense had to impeach those government witnesses who presented the most damaging testimony. Most of the critical witnesses were hostile (not totally cooperative to one side or the other, or sometimes both), and as noted below, some of the exchanges between the attorneys were contentious.
The jury was the trier of fact and it is not known what weight they ascribed to the testimony of each witness and whether the government or defense arguments to otherwise bolster or destroy the witnesses credibility was successful or not. But, in either instance, a few fundamental facts remained for the jurors to individually and collectively consider as they reached a unanimous decision concerning Peltier’s guilt.
However, in the end, the jury had to wade through a mire of often-conflicting testimony to determine the truth, as they perceived it. Sometimes those perceptions are indefinable, merely faint expressions or glimmers of truth or untruth, which they may not be able to articulate or explain but still provide a conscious recognition from each witness of the events of that day.
The jury’s decision, of course, along with the conduct and presentation of the government’s case and Peltier’s sentencing, led to numerous appeals so that every facet of the trial was ultimately analyzed in painstaking detail. The results of that voluminous and intense appellate review validated the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury’s decision was final, but in the spirit of continuing debate it is now up to concerned readers to make their own judgment based on this review of the critical witnesses against Peltier.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
NPPA-Founder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
