PELTIER: HEALTH, PRISON & MORE

Dear Supporters:

As of late messages from Peltier and his Committee have been infrequent. Nonetheless, recent statements relate to Peltier’s health and conditions at USP Coleman. 

Peltier is complaining (again) about having to have a cellmate, as if he has forgotten that he is a lifer doing consecutive sentences. Peltier is not entitled to special treatment (Footnote 1).

Peltier expressed marginal gratitude that his “medicine bundle” was returned and for the “new Sweat Lodge” for himself and other Native American inmates “to practice our religion.”

This raises an important question: As Peltier practices his religion is there any element of spiritual atonement for the brutal slaying of two already wounded and defenseless human beings?

Because Peltier has relied on feigned innocence for so many years the question remains: What will come of the day when he finally meets his Creator? At some point in time—probably in the not too distant future, Leonard Peltier will know whether he will see the proverbial happy hunting grounds or be banished to the Indian equivalent of hell. Peltier may be capable of lying to himself and others, but to the Creator is a entirely different matter. Without sincere atonement for his crimes it will likely be the latter. 

Only assuming for the moment it may be true, Peltier did raise an important issue regarding “closing the Elder and Medical care unit” and moving those inmates into “general population.” Elderly inmates and those in poor health are at greater risk from other violent and younger inmates. Nevertheless, managing the prison is up to the warden, not Peltier.

According to one message Peltier suffers from “prostate issues, aortic aneurysm, extreme arthritis in his hip and knee as well as spots on his lung and kidney.” Peltier has to realize that these are predictable ailments of the aging process. One also has to wonder if Peltier ever considers that Jack Coler and Ron Williams would have been willing to face aging problems rather than be brutally slaughtered by the cowards at Jumping Bull. 

Peltier has complained for decades, as he continues to do now, that he wants to be transferred to a facility closer to his home turf so family members can more easily visit. As usual, Peltier ignores, or has forgotten, why he may have landed in Florida in the first place (Fn 2).

Without any hint of irony as a result of Peltier’s murderous actions, Jack and Ron are closerto their families. Both are buried in cemeteries in Los Angeles. 

One recent message directed supporters to Peltier’s website so they can read the trial transcript and documents regarding his extradition from Canada. 

It is futile for Peltier supporters to read the trial transcript because he will never be re-tried and the analysis of the testimony and evidence presented has been thoroughly vetted by Peltier’s own attorneys during a lengthy appellate process. Those many attorneys have made countless efforts to challenge the government’s case, all to no avail. Peltierites—if they are indeed capable, need to review the entire appellate history in order to thoroughly understand Peltier’s conviction (Fn. 3).

As for Peltier’s extradition, Canadian authorities have spoken the final words. “As I have indicated above, I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.” (A. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, 10/12/99 (Fn.  4).

Peltier advised that they are now selling “hoodies” “to help continue the building (sic) Leonard’s legal fund for the trial in Tacoma, WA in early fall…” (Fn. 5).

It is curious that there was no mention of donations or merchandise purchases—nor for that matter any current reference on Peltier’s website—of being tax-deductible after all the fanfare over becoming a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization.* 

Wonder Why? (Fn. 6)

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

*Peltier’s March 18^thmessage pushing for more money for his defense fund is raffling off, of all things, a satchel. But again, there is no mention that the proceeds would be tax-deductible! It would be too much to expect Leonard to tell his supporters what actually happened. 

Footnotes:

1) Cellmate: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/02/peltier-wants-his-own-cell-again-some.html

2) Peltier shot in prison: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2011/08/peltier-shot-in-prisonbruce-smith.html

3) Court and appellate decisions: decisions: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/court.html

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

USDC Judge Heaney: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/01/peltier-judge-heaney-redux.html

4) Canadian letter: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/court.html

5) Washington State case: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2018/09/peltier-wins-and-loses-in-federal-court.html

6) Sales Tax (second half): http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/12/peltier-compassion-sales-tax.html

Public Charity Part 1: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/01/peltier-public-charity-part-1.html

Public Charity Part 2: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2019/01/peltier-public-charity-part-1.html

Money train: http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/11/peltier-florida-money-train.html

PELTIER: FATALLY FLAWED LIE

Dear Supporters:

Peltier must believe his followers are idiots.

Peltierites are either incapable of reading and understanding the history of Peltier’s conviction, dismissive of the truth, or have very short and selective memories.

On February 6,2018 Peltier sent a brief press release on the anniversary of his arrest in Canada. He offered three main points: 

            A fabrication of the government’s arguments for his conviction; the whining of an old man and his ailments and begging for Peltierites to fork over more cash; plus a few other worthless anecdotes. 

Lies are always with us and in certain circumstances acceptable, like little white lies (as when a man is asked, “Does this dress make me look fat?”). But when they are immoral or deceiving without remorse or regret, or worse yet justified with shallow pretense, they become the worst sort.

This is a two-part canard:

Peltier claimed that the Assistant U.S. Attorney stated before the 8^thCircuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gerald Heaney:

“Your honor, we do not know who killed those agents. Further, we don’t know what participation if any Mr. Peltier had in it.”

--The first part, argued by Peltier in 1993, was thoroughly dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals as being “fatally flawed.” What AUSA Lynn Crooks actually said was:

“Well, undoubtedly it wouldn‘t but I have no doubt whatsoever that we still would have convicted him. I think the best precedent that one can point to is the recent murder of our two marshals. We have exactly the same kind of situation. But we can’t prove who shot those agents.”

Nevertheless, this has not precluded Peltier from repeating the same flawed and discredited premise. (Footnote 1) (Please read the footnotes.)

--Then Peltier comes up with something new, not merely misrepresenting AUSA Crooks’ actual statement, but totally manufactured and without an ounce of truth or credibility he provides the follow-up lie: 

            “Further, we don’t know what participation if any Mr. Peltier had in it.”

This damning statement does not come up in the trial or appellate record. It is false on its face and proof that Peltier will say just about anything to attempt to muddy the record and confuse his gullible supporters. If the Government made such a statement during the appellate process—after it had already convicted Peltier of murder and aiding and abetting—it could have resulted in a reversal of the conviction or possibly a new trial. Peltier’s latest claim has all the permanence of writing on water.

Since Peltier has never answered any of the NPPA letters, editorial essays and Blogs sent to him in the various federal recreational facilities, a polite email was sent to the ILPDC on February 10^th asking for a specific date and reference for this defective claim. Of course, there was no response because it was a fabricated lie and they are unable to support it.

Peltier adds, wrongly again, referencing a “…false affidavit the FBI manufactured about Myrtle Poor Bear being at Oglala on the day of the fire-fight. A fabricated document used to extradite me illegally from Canada in 1976.”

Wrong! The Canadian government did consider the Poor Bear affidavits and determined that Peltier was lawfully extradited:  “I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.”“…the circumstantial evidence, taken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges.”(Emphasis added). In other words, notwithstanding Poor Bear he was subject to extradition. Is that too difficult for Peltierites to comprehend?

(Please read the Canadian Minister of Justice’s letter responding to Peltier’s allegations of a wrongful extradition process that clearly refutes his allegations and claims – yet he continues to repeat them believing they make great folklore. Folklore they may be, but they’re simply and indisputably not true. Fn.2)

No small irony, and tucked away in the record was Peltier’s attorney’s opinion of Myrtle Poor Bear when they believed the government would call her as a witness. Peltier’s own attorney characterized her as a “witness whose mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.” (Fn.3)

Nice try! This is just another example of Peltier the warrior/victimtrying to have it both ways; alleging that Poor Bear was the reason he was extradited from Canada, but when it came to her testifying at his trial, threw her under the proverbial bus.

Peltier presents himself as a great native warrior, imprisoned for undertaking a noble cause, becoming sort of a prophet for his people, yet his constant pandering for cash makes him more like a prophet of profits.  And he continues to whine: He wants to spend time with his family, hug his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, wants compassion for his poor health and age, heart issues, prostate issues, ailments causing pain, arthritic hips and knees—he feels isolated from the world and that a day in prison is a lifetime. 

In response to that; Gee that is tough. Peltier should try the alternative—that of the two severely wounded men he then brutally murdered. Odds are he’d take the old man in prison route. Peltier didn’t give Jack Coler and Ron Williams any such option to hold their children or grandchildren and grow old gracefully.

Peltier adds another fairytale:

“I have been here too long. The beginning of my 43^rdyear plus over 20 years of good time credit, that makes 60+ years behind bars.” 

The convoluted math calculation aside, Peltier conveniently forgot why he’s in USP Coleman in the first place, a prison that’s just about as far away from his home turf as one can get and still remain in the continental United States. We can’t forget the shot—the wire incidentthat landed Peltier in solitary confinement at USP Lewisburg and that may have resulted in his transfer down south. Peltier has told us he’s spent over five years in solitary, which pretty much means he’s been far from a cooperative or ideal inmate. Lets also not forget the armed escape from Lompoc and the addititional seven-year consecutive sentence. (Fn.4)

Peltier also adds, in caps, “But I will say again I DID NOT KILL THOSE AGENTS.” All caps are the equivalent of yelling at someone. As an optional or alternative suggestion he can shout it from the USP Coleman rooftop for as long as he desires.

Perhaps, he can even add a few more barks at the moon in the process:

I LIED FOR YEARS ABOUT MY ONLY ALIBI THAT MR. X KILLED THE AGENTS. (Fn.5)

“AND REALLY, IF NECESSARY, I’D DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.”  (Fn.6)

“I DON’T REGRET ANY OF THIS FOR A MINUTE.” (Fn.7)

“I DID NOT WAKE UP ON THAT JUNE 26 PLANNING TO INJURE OR SHOOT FEDERAL AGENTS AND DID NOT GAIN ANYTHING FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE INCIDENT.” (Fn.8)* (Please understand the implication of Peltier admitting “participating in the event.”)

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

*Admittedly this would be a bit of a long shout.

Footnotes:

1) 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. Excerpt follows:

 --[Assistant United States Attorney] Crooks: Well, undoubtedly it wouldn‘t but I have no doubt whatsoever that we still would have convicted him. I think the best precedent that one can point to is the recent murder of our two marshals. We have exactly the same kind of situation. But we can’t prove who shot those agents.

--“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:”

--“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 their murder as an aider and abettor. (B) The government’s statement at the prior oral argument, upon which Peltier relies, was not a concession that the government had not proved that Peltier had not killed the agents personally, and that Peltier‘s conviction could be sustained only on an aiding and abetting theory. (C) The evidence allegedly supporting Peltier’s self-defense claim, which he claims was improperly excluded, was correctly rejected.” 

Further: “The record as a whole leaves no doubtthat the jury accepted the government’s theory that Peltier had personally killedthe two agents, after they were seriously wounded, by shooting them at point blank range with an AR-15 rifle.”(8^thCircuit; No. 02-1761, 12/18/02; Judges Hansen, “HEANEY” and Arnold: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/8circuit.pdf

2) Canadian extradition letter: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html

“As I indicated above, I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extraditedto the United States. In my opinion, given the test for committal for extradition referred to above, the circumstantial evidence presented at the extradition hearing, take alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges. My conclusions in this regard are consistent with the arguments made by Department of Justice counsel before both the Federal Court of Appealand the Supreme Court of Canada.

Furthermore, the third Poor Bear affidavit was consideredby the Federal Court of Appeal and the Minister of Justice before Mr. Peltier was extradited to the United States. Subsequently, further submissions respecting the third Poor Bear affidavit were made to the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the appellate courts in the United States. 

The record demonstrates that the case was fully considered by the courts and by the then Minister of Justice. There is no evidence that has come to lightsince then that would justify a conclusion that the decisions of the Canadian courts and Minister of Justice should be interfered with.” (10/12/99, emphasis added)

3) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html

4) Peltier ‘shot’ and transfer:

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2011/08/

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2011/09/

5) Mr. X the lie: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html

6) And really…http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#confessionThis admission is valid when considered within the context of how the statement was made.

7) Don’t regret…http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2014/09/peltier-update-broken-record-with.htmlThis admission is valid when considered within the context of how the statement was made.

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2014/12/peltier-we-will-too.html

8) From participating…http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/01/peltier-another-admission.htmlSee this blog for a full explanation. 

SA JACK R. COLER: 1947-1975 REST-IN-PEACE

Dear Supporters:

Husband, father, son, brother. Professional, dedicated, courageous. These are some of the words that come to mind when we remember Jack. 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 71^st  birthday. There is no way of knowing what these last decades of his life may have brought. But those who knew him could easily imagine a life rich in accomplishments and strong family ties. Retired from a long and productive Bureau career and with Jack’s commitment and dedication to law enforcement (former LAPD), he may have pursued another career as a Chief of Police. Or, with his sons and grandchildren continued his great 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, looking down, knows that we will continue to honor his memory and sacrifice in the line-of-duty.

That reverence and commitment has no expiration date.

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: 

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

Added recently to this tribute is a heartfelt song written and performed by retired Agent Fernando Candelario:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPnGLC4v6A

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

P.S.

On occasions of recognizing Jack’s and Ron’s birthdays, we don’t mention or comment on Peltier and the International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee propaganda machine. However, the ILPDC’s 12/29/17 Press Release raises issues that beg for a response. https://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/general/end-of-year-ilpdc-letter/

Note to Peltier attorney David Frankel:

You may want to advise your clients that claiming donations to Peltier to “…use it as a tax write off on your 2017 Tax Return,” is in violation of I.R.S. laws. Felonies? Peltier is not a charity case, not a 501(c)3 (and can never be one…nor legally launder money through a shill company as they have done in the past), nor be in a position where the implication is that, as an inmate, he is running a business to raise funds from the unsuspecting, now under the guise of a “Peltier legal trust fund,” (whatever that may be). We will watch closely to see how all this fits together. These are pieces of a puzzle Peltier does not want supporters or the public to see what the final picture really looks like. But most already know.

A new plan? Extradition, parole hearing, Habeas Corpus, investigators on the prowl?

The Canadian government spoke very clearly about Peltier’s legal extradition.

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html

The parole board has spoken; flopped for fifteen years in 2009, for the second time. They obviously acknowledge Peltier’s conviction and otherwise have no tolerance for his shallow and fabricated claims of innocence.

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

Habeas Corpus generally has to be predicated on newly discovered evidence. Good luck there for the forth or fifth time, along with other failed renewed appeals; rule 35’s and 2255’s. Many, well seasoned and dedicated attorneys have been through every word of the Peltier case and have, unsuccessfully, made no headway. (Except for the October 1984 Evidentiary (ballistics) hearing that was further held against Peltier by the 8^th Circuit….Hon. Judge Gerald Heaney: “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: although the defense had its own ballistic expert, it offered no contrary evidence.” http://www.noparolepeltier.com/800.html:

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/court.html

Investigators: Please feel free to have any one of them contact me. I would be more than happy to provide them meaningful documentation. Lord knows they could use it. Curious though, according to you, “The committee has retained the services of two investigators...” “Retained” implies, at least, payment for services, yet Peltier still has a pending judgment but at the same time claims indigency. Seems to raise a conflict here, money for questionable pursuits but not legitimate legal debts. But Peltier is entitled to an appeal, again.

You advise Peltierites that, “These efforts will require your financial support.” (There’s the money again.) Peltier, now with his attorney’s urgency, is always on the come as they say. Certainly billable hours do accumulate, and apparently every penny counts.

PELTIER: JAMES REYNOLDS, PART III, DANCING ON GRAVES

Dear Supporters:

What follows is a review of the NPPA letter sent to former United States Attorney James Reynolds on 11/6/17 along with a brief telephone call on 11/27/17. To be clear at the outset, Mr. Reynolds is entitled to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech, as are we to challenge his questionable public statements.

The text of the telephone call is set forth below (Footnote #1).

By way of background and as a follow-up to the previous NPPA blog, Mr. Reynolds was sent a letter on November 6^th asking specific questions concerning his public statements in an undated letter to President Obama and an interview with the New York Daily News. (Fn. 2).

The NPPA letter offered Mr. Reynolds the opportunity to respond to the following questions: (Fn. 3)

-His justification for believing that justice is served with Peltier only serving 20 ½ years, each, for the brutal murder of two already severely wounded FBI Agents.

-To clarify the critical statement to the New York Daily News that “we may have shaved a few corner(s) here and there” regarding Peltier’s conviction and appeals, and as a result, impugning the reputation of at least former United States Attorney Evan Hultman.

Reynolds should answer these questions for the following reasons:

1) “Reynolds claims to have ‘directed Hultman’s handling of the appeal of Leonard Peltier.’ 

Statement of Lynn E. Crooks, Retired Assistant United States Attorney, North Dakota.

"This claim is a gross misstatement of the record.  The trial record being in Fargo, ND it was only logical that I be given primary responsibility for assigning and coordinating research projects with other members of the trial team and then preparing the first drafts of the Government’s responses to the murderer’s arguments.  In doing so I had numerous conversations with Mr. Hultman and all other members of the trial team, as well as my own United States Attorney.  Other than small stylish changes there were no substantial changes that I can recall being made to the agreed upon drafts which were prepared in this fashion.  I had no conversations of any kind with Mr. Reynolds.  To the best of my knowledge he contributed nothing what-so-ever to what went into the final brief on Direct Appeal or into any of the subsequent government briefs resisting Peltier’s numerous attempts to obtain Post Conviction Relief.”  (Emphasis added)

2) On December 7,  2017 former United States Attorney Evan Hultman was contacted and advised of the content of Reynolds’ letter and media interview. Because of a critical family matter Mr. Hultman advised that he would formally respond when able. However, his initial reaction concerning Reynolds was extremely negative.

3) Reynolds’ letter to President Obama appears as a “Press Release” on the Peltier website. (Fn. 4)  (Reynolds provides his claimed authority to speak in favor of clemency as the former U.S. Attorney who allegedly “directed” the handling of Peltier’s appeals).

4) On the Internet, Peltier supporters have quoted Reynolds’ New York Daily News statement that “we may have shaved a few corner(s) here and there.” 

5) Reynolds public statements to the media may provide the new Peltier legal team with an avenue to pursue regarding Peltier’s conviction and failed appeals.

* * *

We only have Mr. Reynolds public statements to hint at his motivation to become a shill for the Peltier camp. At what point he decided to support Peltier is unknown. Perhaps he ignored, forgot, or wasn’t knowledgeable of the voluminous legal proceedings and documentation in the Peltier case, but then conceivably became enamored and then sucked into the murk of Peltier myth and folklore.

However, Reynolds did take that step perhaps understanding he was going against his own conscience, best judgment, and fidelity to his former position and colleagues by stating  “I know I’m going against company policy, as they say.”

Reynolds public statements called into question Peltier’s conviction and appeals by suggesting, “corners” were “shaved” and by doing so, assailed the integrity and reputation of the federal prosecutors, and by implication, himself as well. Which brings us back to the initial premise: If Reynolds had any information of this sort, where has he been for the past twenty-five or so years and why did it take him this long to crawl out of the woodwork? Peltier had other clemency and parole opportunities, but by all accounts, Reynolds remained mute.

Reynolds public position for Peltier can be viewed in two ways: supporting clemency (commutation of sentence) and the issue of Peltier’s guilt or innocence.

Claiming that it’s a matter of Peltier’s age and time served rings hollow.

Reynolds commented that, “But at this point, we’ve got 40 years on him, 40 pounds of flesh, maybe it’s time to let him go ... I don’t think keeping him in there will make society a better place."

Forty pounds may be a little generous and perhaps it is possible that the bloated figure I sat next to at Lewisburg Penitentiary in 2009 may no longer be a physical threat, but then there’s the matter of justice and society is always better served when justice is the final outcome. (Fn.5)

As for Peltier’s age and health, perhaps Mr. Reynolds should consider the alternative. Facing, as we all must, the inevitable challenges of aging, with Reynolds now approaching his 79^th year, or, at age twenty-eight being critically wounded and then having his face blown off? Doubtful Reynolds would choose the latter.

Calling into question the handling of Peltier’s conviction and appeals, by implication and inference, could suggest that Reynolds may also support Peltier’s spurious claims over the years. A few for instance:

            “I can’t believe that the FBI intended the deaths of their own agents…they didn’t even have a warrant for his arrest—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.” A lie! (Fn. 6)

“There were dozens, maybe hundreds, of FBI, local lawmen, GOONs, and white vigilantes out there, suddenly appearing within minutes as if from out of nowhere…” A Lie! (Fn. 7)

            “I fired a few shots above their heads, not trying to hit anything or anyone…” A lie! (Fn. 8)

            “I didn’t see their agents die, had no hand in it, would have done anything to stop it had I only known in time…” A Lie! (Fn. 9)

            “…(Law enforcement) had been gathering in the area for a planned paramilitary assault on the Pine Ridge reservation…This raid had obviously been preplanned. Maybe they figured they could come in and finish us off after the two agents had drawn our fire, giving them the excuse they needed.” A lie! (Fn. 10)

            “This story is true.” (Peltier’s only alibi, that the phantom Mr. X killed the agents and drove off in the infamous red pickup.) A Lie! (Fn.11)

            And there is so much more.

* * *

Mr. Reynolds ended our brief telephone conversation with:

“Well you’re an interloper in this whole thing, dancing on these guy’s graves and I don’t think it’s very appropriate.”

Interloper? Apparently Mr. Reynolds doesn’t understand the meaning of the term.

By definition an interloper is a person who becomes involved in a place or situation where they are not wanted or are considered not to belong.

Reynolds alleged personal involvement in the Peltier case—as questionable as it may be—is at least a quarter century in the past. Where has he been concerning Peltier since the early 1980s and did he harbor any affirmative feelings towards Peltier when he allegedly had the opportunity and authority to say so? Reynolds, an interloper, now materializes at this point in time.

Here’s the difference: This writer was in the FBI for nearly three decades and after meeting Jack Coler’s youngest son and witnessing all the misinformation Peltier had posted on the Internet and in the public domain—that was unchallenged up to that point—something had to be done. Peltier’s denigration of the memory and sacrifice of two young Agents brutally murdered in the line of duty—for which he was convicted—prompted taking up the cause to honor their memory.

As fellow Agents, whom I never met, challenging and exposing Peltier’s years of fabrications and outright lies, Mr. Reynolds, is “appropriate.”

No, Mr. Reynolds, their memory here has been sustained. However, it is more telling that someone in your previous position and who publicly supported clemency for a convicted brutal double murderer, makes you the one who is dancing on these guy’s graves.

And for the record, so perhaps you will remember, their names are,

Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

P.S.

Mr. Reynolds, take a few moments and meet Jack and Ron:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozhEumzwgKA&t=12s

“Remembering FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams”

Video produced by the Society of Former Agents of the FBI

Footnotes:

1) Telephone conversation on November 27, 2017:

James Reynolds (JR):  Hello.

Ed Woods (EW): James?

JR: Yeah.

EW: Hi, this is Ed Woods, I wrote you a letter on November sixth regarding Leonard Peltier and I just wanted to make sure you received it.

JR: I did.

EW: OK, would you care to make any responses to the questions I raised?

JR: No.

EW: Well, you took a pretty strong stance for clemency for Peltier with your letter and your interview with the Daily News, so are you in a position to back up some of the claims that you made?

JR: I’m not going to discuss it with you; I don’t know why I should.

EW: Well, I think you should because as a former U.S. Attorney…

JR: Well you’re an interloper in this whole thing, dancing on these guy’s graves and I don’t think it’s very appropriate.

EW: Hello?

(From notes taken during the conversation and transcribed immediately thereafter.)

2) New York Daily News interview, Tuesday January 3, 2017.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ex-u-s-attorney-backs-leonard-peltier-bid-clemency-article-1.2933475 (Last accessed 12/4/17)

3) http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/12/james-reynolds-part-ii-letters-public.html

4) https://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/download/legalpressrelease20170103.pdf?x47847

(Press release with Reynolds’ letter; Last accessed 12/4/17: Peltier’s then attorneys Marty Garbus and Cindy Dunne offer the typically skewed version of the Peltier case, but two things stand out; for a not so apparent reason, while quoting James Reynolds, they make no mention of the elephant in the room (shaved a few corners…), and then they dredge up very tired old news about 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Heaney. Judge Heaney did offer his opinion about freeing Peltier, but they would dare not tell the rest of the Heaney story; http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/10/peltier-heaney-factor.html

5) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#paroledenied

6) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/timing.html Ron Williams calling for assistance on the FBI radio: 

Footnotes 6 through 10, quotes taken from Peltier’s autobiography Prison Writings, with additional references.

7) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/timing.html

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html (Paragraph 4)

8) Peltier admits for the first time in a televised 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft that he fired “at” the Agents. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc9ofu (Last accessed 12/3/17)

9) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/judge.pdf Peltier’s conviction and review and details regarding Judge Heaney. http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html (Direct Appeal: note the names of Evan L. Hultman and Lynn E. Crooks)

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#amazon, Peltier’s alibis.

10) The fallacy of a preplanned raid. The “Sanctioned Memo:”

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

11) The lie of Mr. X: Quote from Peltier in the film Incident at Oglala.

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/movie.html

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/interview.html

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html

(Note: To all the loyal NPPA supporters, thank you, and even the Peltier supporters who are on the NPPA emails lists, best to all for a healthy and Happy New Year. )

PELTIER: "I am a reporter...

…for the Watertown Public Opinion in Watertown, South Dakota.” read the email received on January 30, 2015 from, Jennifer Thomas, Special Feature Reporter, (jenniferthomas@thepublicopinion.com) that continued with;

“I am currently working on a story regarding Leonard Peltier and his supporters' current calls for amnesty. I have received statements and interview commitments from Friends of Peltier and Amnesty International Reps, but would like to fairly report on all sides, offering readers enough information to form their own opinion on the case.  The article is currently scheduled to run next week marking the anniversary of his arrest and subsequent extradition from Canada. Is there any way I could receive a statement on the case from a representative of your organization or arrange for a brief phone interview?” 

I politely declined the phone interview but provided a couple of links for reference and an offer to answer any questions, provide additional references, and pointed out that there was a lot of folklore surrounding the Peltier matter, but that the facts are out there.

There was no reply but I did follow up with two more emails and several more references on Peltier issues making the point that without specific details readers would not be able to make an informed decision regarding Peltier’s guilt. I pointed out the recorded fabrications (lies), on film, in Redford’s, Incident at Oglala, from Bob Robideau and Peltier himself, a YouTube compilation of Peltier’s ever-changing version of the facts and his inability to provide consistent answers to very simple questions. I sent a link to the letter from the Canadian Government that put to rest Peltier’s claims of an unlawful extradition.

I did receive a reply on February 2^nd from Ms. Thomas thanking me for my time and information and that it would be useful in writing her article.

At that point I believed that if she had explored the NPPA website and reviewed the material I’d forwarded, that perhaps she would write a balanced article that would “fairly report on all sides.”

I did though find it unusual, considering, not a complicated case but one with a long history, that she didn’t have at least one follow-up question.

The article “Special Report: Leonard Peltier at 70,” appeared several days later and was far less than expected, and a disappointment. It rehashed points that would have been easily disproven, and, in sum, portrayed Peltier as a victim and a martyr, adding as well, insult to injury, claiming Peltier’s alleged humanitarian efforts (a complete and provable sham*), and also lamenting his age and poor health**.

Jack Coler and Ron Williams, given the option, would willingly trade Peltier’s infirmities for the cold-blooded deaths they suffered in 1975.

I contacted the editor, Roger Whittle (rogerwhitle@thepublicopinion.com) for an opportunity of a rebuttal. He then provided the Letter-to-the-Editor policy, one of which was that it had to be 300 words or less. Easier said than done.

I sat down and within about fifteen minutes typed what I considered a concise reply to Ms. Thomas’s special report, until I realized it exceeded 600 words.

Some seventy-plus editorial essays, nearly fifteen years of involvement honoring the sacrifice of two young FBI agents, dealing with all manner of attacks, a law suit, threats of lawsuits and outrageous slander from Peltier fringe elements, and to say it all in 300 words seemed impossible. Over two hours later, after a series of what felt like endless edits, the response was finished and forwarded to Mr. Whittle, who replied and said it would be printed in Saturday’s, 2/14/15, edition***.

* * *

Letter to the Editor, The Public Opinion, February 11, 2015

Response to “Special Report: Leonard Peltier at 70”

Unfortunately, The Public Opinion (TPO) article was factually inaccurate and regretfully repeated many issues that have long been discredited. The answers to those lingering allegations are available at www.noparolepeltier.com

A truly innocent person would have no difficulty reciting the facts, yet Peltier’s versions have changed repeatedly.

Peltier’s own public statements have proven his guilt beyond all doubt:

“I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and he gave me a smile.” (ITSOCH p.552) With two dead and mutilated agents at their feet Peltier and the others steal their weapons. The “Joe,” was Joe Stuntz, who was killed that day as he and others fired upon responding law enforcement. There was an investigation and it was a justifiable shooting. Simple premise, shoot at police and they’re going to shoot back.

During Peltier’s escape with other AIM members from Pine Ridge he bragged about what happened at the agent’s vehicles. This came out in sworn testimony at another murder trial in 2004; “He (Peltier) said the (Obscene Expletive) was begging for his life, but I shot him anyway.” The TPO article failed to paint a fair picture of the devastation wrought by AIM.

"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." (2/6/10) Two wounded, then brutally slain agents. Peltier is both unrepentant and remorseless.

“I don’t regret any of this for a minute.” (8/28/14) No regrets?

The only thing Peltier has is to keep the myth alive, and unfortunately the TPO article just perpetuates the folklore and failed to provide concrete solutions upon which readers can make informed judgments.

* * *

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

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

** A hard copy of the article, along with the initial email to Ms. Thomas and Mr. Whittle, was sent to Peltier at USP Coleman, as are all updates and blogs from the No Parole Peltier Association. This has been standard practice for over a decade when it became apparent that Peltier’s network leadership, which has changed a number of times, was not sharing everything with him, specifically, the criticisms and attacks on his feigned and alleged innocence and destroying the myth and folklore: In other words, the truth. Also included with each mailing is an autographed copy of Peltier’s FBI wanted poster. Autographed by me, as promised years ago, to dispel the myth that the aiding and abetting charge against Peltier was somehow magically, and later, inserted into the case. Highlighted with a yellow marker on FBI Identification Order #4681 is the date of “November 25, 1975” and, “charging Peltier with murder – first degree, killing two Federal Officers in the performance of their duties and aiding and abetting.” Also highlighted in yellow are two of Peltier’s known aliases, John Yellow Robe, and Leonard Williams; the irony not being missed either by Peltier or anyone paying even the slightest attention.

*** The letter may have appeared in TPO, but I haven’t seen it and perhaps it doesn’t matter all that much. Not certain what kind of attention TPO gets and would imagine that most in South Dakota, whether Native American or not, have already made up their minds, one way or the other, regarding the American Indian Movement and Leonard Peltier. This blog will be posted and also forwarded to right around 5,000 recipients, so at least the response to Ms. Thomas’s “Special Report” will get some attention.

PELTIER: IT'S NOT ABOUT MASCOTS

Dear Supporters:

Before U.S.P. Coleman inmate #89637-132 gets too excited and giddy that his name was mentioned in a Huffington blog, let’s examine what the author, Jack Healy, didn’t say and why he’s selected the wrong person to promote his cause. (Footnote #1)

With all due respect to Mr. Healy’s lifelong quest for human rights, and notwithstanding his apparent disdain and bias towards the U.S. government, he has fallen prey, become a victim himself, to the perpetual mountain of myths, folklore, lies and fabrications that have festered around Peltier for the past four decades. His energy and intellect are woefully misplaced and promoting the myth, not the reality.

Most, and certainly not this writer, would argue against or fail to recognize the crippling history against First Americans. We can neither deny nor ignore what happened and that, as Mr. Healy points out (excluding the casino-rich tribes), the majority of Native Americans need and deserve our respect and support, not just for the injustices of the past but the condition many still find themselves in today. Pine Ridge being a glaring and shameful example. (Fn. 2)

But Mr. Healy calls for clemency for Peltier as if that would somehow heal the wounds and correct those historic wrongs. He could be no further from the truth and the heart of the matter as he shamefully references the deaths of FBI Agents Coler and Williams.

Mr. Healy alludes to Peltier’s trial and “…many legal flaws…” At least Mr. Healy didn’t pander the usual Peltier tripe of “Constitutional violations.” This case has been scrutinized perhaps to a greater extent than death-row inmates. “Legal flaws” may be a euphemistic pretense for Mr. Healy but he cannot ignore the scores of attorneys who have torn apart every crevice of his conviction, and except for one (ballistics) hearing (for which Peltier’s attorneys offered no contrary evidence, even though they had their own expert in the courtroom), Peltier’s conviction and sentence has withstood the legal test of time and never altered. Perhaps, Mr. Healey should invest the time and energy to understand the details of this case and not the mythology pandered by Peltier and his sycophants. (Fn. 3)

Without an ongoing dialogue—that this writer would welcome—there is no way of knowing exactly how much of the Peltier fables Mr. Healy has accepted as fact, but for illustration sake let’s assume he has accepted at least a good portion and provide just a handful of explicit examples to keep the record straight.

For example, Mr. Healy wrongly states “…even his extradition to the United States from Canada was based on premises that were actively manipulated by the federal authorities.” There were challenges and questions regarding the use of the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits, however, that was not the only justification for Peltier’s extradition. Perhaps simply reading the crucial October 12, 1999 letter (a full twenty-four years--after--the murder of the agents) from the Minister of Justice to U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno where it states, “As I indicated above, I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the united States” will clarify the misinformation from the Peltier camp and spouted by Mr. Healy. (Fn. 4) 

Sophomorically referencing the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the Black Panther Party (BPP) as “…dissident groups in the United States,” as Mr. Healy does, is to ignore the reality of the destruction and chaos these groups caused. They were never simply social protesters but gangland style thugs who left a wake of social disruption and sometimes murder in their wake. Ask the widows of the police officers that fell victim to the BPP and research the destruction, under the guise of Native Rights, that AIM befell on Wounded Knee II, destroying a village and terrifying the innocent residents. Ask too, the family of Perry Ray Robinson, an AIM victim, whether AIM was just a “dissident group.” Dig further as well into the other AIM related bodies still hidden and buried in the hills surrounding that leveled hamlet (Fn. 5)

Mr. Healy does not comprehend that a truly innocent person need not offer a list of alibis, contradictory at their core, to push his feigned innocence on the non-believers. His fabrications have been as transparent as glass, starting with the twenty-year-lie that someone they all knew, Mr. X., killed the agents. So pervasive was this falsehood that his biographer (Matthiessen; who admittedly didn’t really believe it from the beginning but ran with it anyway), to Redford who bought into it but didn’t have the courage to admit he was duped, but finally even his own attorney publicly admitted it. This cannot be brushed aside because it is a glaring example of the fissure, a widening crack, in Peltier’s “I did it for my people,” vacant character.

The list is endless but focusing on the recent admissions of guilt, how can anyone be accommodating to, or ignore someone who says, “And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do. (February 6, 2010),” and “I don’t regret any of it for one minute. (September 12, 2014).”

Mr. Healy frames the Incident at Oglala as “…a shooting left two federal agents dead.”  Really, a shooting? Check the facts…Agents Coler and Williams were wantonly attacked, ambushed would be a better word, by a superior and violent force of AIM thugs. Outgunned and outnumbered they were first mortally wounded. There’s no doubt about how the incident started, we have Ron Williams’ own voice overheard by several people describing what was about to happen. That was the first part, but this is the scene within which Mr. Healy must frame his call for using Peltier in “a new era of peace.”

“I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I look at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile.” (Fn. 6)

So here’s Peltier, with two dead and mutilated federal agents at his feet as he accepts a smile from one of the other AIM shooters who’s stealing Jack Coler’s FBI jacket.

This is Mr. Healy’s cause célèbre for peace and healing and his way to “honor the memory of Agents Williams and Coler?”

Mr. Healy rhetorically asks “What does it mean for the families of FBI Agents Williams and Coler who died on the Pine Ridge Reservation?”

To accept Mr. Healy’s premise, to free Peltier, would be to dishonor their memory, their bravery and in a greater sense suggest—in real terms—that they died in vain.

Peltier is a panderer of his own heritage, he has adulterated and stolen all that is good about Native American history and culture and hides behind it like a thief in the night, or in this case a coward of Jumping Bull. Peltier is the last person to represent even a hint of reconciliation, for past wrongs against Native Americans, or the slightest hint of repentance for his own murderous actions that day at Pine Ridge.

Mr. Healy asks “What might we undo?” Perhaps we can undo a lot, but we cannot undo June 26, 1975.

The term “redskin” may be offensive but mascots are a whole other issue, and this isn’t about mascots. It’s about cold-blooded murder and an unrepentant sociopath who must continue to serve his sentence and pay his debt to society, no matter how that end may come.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-healey/without-reservations-supp_b_5835422.html (last accessed 9/23/14)

2) http://noparolepeltier.com/pine.html

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

4) http://noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html Further, “In my opinion, given the test for committal for extradition referred to above, the circumstantial evidence presented at the extradition hearing, taken alone, constituted sufficient evidence to justify Mr. Peltier’s committal on the two murder charges.” (Please read the entire letter.)

5) http://rezinate.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/under-dogs/

   http://americanindianmafia.com/

6) Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse; The story of Leonard Peltier and the FBI’s war on the American Indian Movement. (Penguin Books, 1992) 552.