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
Monday, February 7, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
New Year 2011...It's far from over...
Dear Supporters:
2010 ended with yet another example that Peltier’s criminal history is still being examined. The final chapter has yet to be written in the brutal slaying of Anna Mae Aquash at the hands of AIM members, although prosecutors are getting closer. Graham’s defense to the charges was to offer no defense at all. His conviction in South Dakota last December demonstrates that those involved in ordering her death have yet to be brought to justice. They know who they are and some are still out there; many of them hypocritically speaking on her behalf.
So this is one thing that Peltier can contemplate during the coming year, whether others, maybe even like Graham, will step forward and provide the sworn testimony needed to implicate him and others in her death.
Perhaps, it’s time for Peltier and the LPDOC to remove Anna Mae’s name from their website list of those allegedly “uninvestigated” deaths during the Reign of Terror…a reign for sure brought on by the criminal elements of the American Indian Movement, Peltier included.
Peltier and the LPDOC will continue their sham fundraising for legal issues which have long since been waived or lost during numerous appeals and watch as his ebbing support recedes to nothing.
Now that the holidays are over and we all face a New Year with some optimism for a recovering economy, an improved quality of life for all citizens and a saner world, please accept the very best for a healthy and happy New Year.
In the meantime and for this New Year and those to follow, our thoughts remain with the memories of Jack and Ron, their families, friends and former co-workers.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
2010 ended with yet another example that Peltier’s criminal history is still being examined. The final chapter has yet to be written in the brutal slaying of Anna Mae Aquash at the hands of AIM members, although prosecutors are getting closer. Graham’s defense to the charges was to offer no defense at all. His conviction in South Dakota last December demonstrates that those involved in ordering her death have yet to be brought to justice. They know who they are and some are still out there; many of them hypocritically speaking on her behalf.
So this is one thing that Peltier can contemplate during the coming year, whether others, maybe even like Graham, will step forward and provide the sworn testimony needed to implicate him and others in her death.
Perhaps, it’s time for Peltier and the LPDOC to remove Anna Mae’s name from their website list of those allegedly “uninvestigated” deaths during the Reign of Terror…a reign for sure brought on by the criminal elements of the American Indian Movement, Peltier included.
Peltier and the LPDOC will continue their sham fundraising for legal issues which have long since been waived or lost during numerous appeals and watch as his ebbing support recedes to nothing.
Now that the holidays are over and we all face a New Year with some optimism for a recovering economy, an improved quality of life for all citizens and a saner world, please accept the very best for a healthy and happy New Year.
In the meantime and for this New Year and those to follow, our thoughts remain with the memories of Jack and Ron, their families, friends and former co-workers.
“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
Sunday, December 5, 2010
PELTIER NEARS CLEMENCY...
Well, not quite. And before Leonard Peltier and the LPDOC get all giddy and start salivating over the President’s first pardons (December 3, 2010), let’s take a closer look at the list and compare them to Leonard’s crimes.
Of the nine, 77% had received probated sentences (in other words, no jail time) for crimes like illegal possession of government property, possession of cocaine, liquor violations, false statements, counterfeiting, and of all things, coin mutilation. Only two had received jail time (24 months for a military conviction) and a year-and-a-day for possession of cocaine and marijuana. Their average wait (spanning from as early as 1960 to 1999) was twenty-eight (28) years.
Within the backdrop of these pardons the President has received 3,389 new petitions and started 2010 with 4,716 pending petitions but denied 1,288 with another 842 being closed without any action taken (that’s about 2,000 if the LPDOC is keeping track).
What the list of recipients didn’t include was someone serving two life sentences (plus another seven consecutive years for an armed escape) who was convicted of murder and aiding and abetting in the brutal deaths of two federal agents, someone who has had more bites of the legal apple than possibly inmates on death row, twice reaching the U.S. Supreme court, and never having either his sentence or conviction overturned; someone who was the subject of sworn testimony (April, 2010) in federal court quoting him as saying one of the agents begged for his life but that he shot the---anyway, or in a public statement (February, 2010) announcing “And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.” (Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise for additional details.)
See the difference? These pardons, as they usually are, were granted to those who have served their sentences (as minor as some were), have reformed, and desired to have their debt to society removed and certain rights restored, like the right to vote, hold public office or own a firearm. Not a likely set of circumstances for Leonard Peltier.
On a scale of 1 to 1,000, where these nine pardons rate as a “1,” Peltier’s name wouldn’t appear on the list of those deserving even a cursory review for consideration.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Of the nine, 77% had received probated sentences (in other words, no jail time) for crimes like illegal possession of government property, possession of cocaine, liquor violations, false statements, counterfeiting, and of all things, coin mutilation. Only two had received jail time (24 months for a military conviction) and a year-and-a-day for possession of cocaine and marijuana. Their average wait (spanning from as early as 1960 to 1999) was twenty-eight (28) years.
Within the backdrop of these pardons the President has received 3,389 new petitions and started 2010 with 4,716 pending petitions but denied 1,288 with another 842 being closed without any action taken (that’s about 2,000 if the LPDOC is keeping track).
What the list of recipients didn’t include was someone serving two life sentences (plus another seven consecutive years for an armed escape) who was convicted of murder and aiding and abetting in the brutal deaths of two federal agents, someone who has had more bites of the legal apple than possibly inmates on death row, twice reaching the U.S. Supreme court, and never having either his sentence or conviction overturned; someone who was the subject of sworn testimony (April, 2010) in federal court quoting him as saying one of the agents begged for his life but that he shot the---anyway, or in a public statement (February, 2010) announcing “And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do.” (Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise for additional details.)
See the difference? These pardons, as they usually are, were granted to those who have served their sentences (as minor as some were), have reformed, and desired to have their debt to society removed and certain rights restored, like the right to vote, hold public office or own a firearm. Not a likely set of circumstances for Leonard Peltier.
On a scale of 1 to 1,000, where these nine pardons rate as a “1,” Peltier’s name wouldn’t appear on the list of those deserving even a cursory review for consideration.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Saturday, November 6, 2010
LPDOC...Can't get the facts straight
Kudos to Delany Bruce in the LPDOC’s November 5, 2010 “Press Release” because she had the courage (unlike the rest at the LPDOC who hide behind a website), to put her name to the release. And yes, this is the same Delaney Bruce who just three years ago Peltier belittled and threatened, but she’s back.
(Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#delaney)
There are several, but especially two glaring errors in her reporting on the Peltier front:
“Native Americans have eagerly awaited a sign that the U.S. has listened to their concerns about the Peltier case, but were disappointed to see no mention of it in the U.S. report.”
Native Americans? This is hardly close to accurate. Peltier and the LPDOC have looked around and can certainly recognize—even if they are loath to admit it—that the overwhelming population of Native Americans have seen Peltier and the disruption caused by AIM as a thing of the past and something that contributed nothing their cause. Peltier’s popularity and support is almost non-existent and those outside of the U.S. (who typically only use Peltier to further their hatred of America…{Elsie are you still out there?}) are meaningless and have absolutely no say in what happens here.
Is there any wonder there was no mention of Peltier in the report?
Delaney (and Peltier supporters) need to do one thing in regard to the following statement…for once, please, read the trial transcript and get the facts straight:
She said: “With no evidence whatsoever, the FBI decided to ‘lock Peltier into the case’. Government officials presented false statements to a Canadian court to extradite Peltier to the U.S. where prosecutors went judge shopping and venue hopping to secure a conviction. In a racially charged courtroom, prosecutors lied to the judge, ignored court orders, and made inappropriate statements to the jury. They intentionally hid evidence of Peltier’s innocence and instead manufactured a ‘murder weapon’. As the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, ‘these facts are not disputed’.”
Peltier’s innocence? Remember, he wasn’t in Seattle that day.
(Please see: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise)
As for inappropriate statements to the Jury, please see the ones that defense attorneys Lowe and Taikeff made…some were outrageous. (There will be an NPPA editorial essay posted soon that will answer a number of these kinds of questions concerning the trial.)
Actually the correct quote was:
"Much of the government's behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed."
This comes from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 when Peltier filed a motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking immediate release on parole and challenged the record before the U.S. Parole Commission. This decision, also denied, was far beyond Peltier’s criminal appellate process that had long since been resolved against him.
Please note some little details that Ms. Bruce, Peltier and the LPDOC seem to deliberately ignore…the reason they do this has to be obvious to even the most ardent supporter:
"Previous federal court decisions provided the (Parole) Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agent Coler and Williams." And further, "While Mr. Peltier, asserts 'the Commission identified no plausible evidence that [he] shot the agents after they were incapacitated, this statement is simply not true. The evidence linking Mr. Peltier to these crimes is enumerated above. The most damning evidence, the .223 shell casing found in Agent Coler's trunk, may be more equivocal after the surfacing of the October 2nd teletype, but it has not been 'ruled out,' as Mr. Peltier contends. There is no direct evidence that Mr. Peltier shot the agents because no one testified they saw him pull the trigger. But as we stated above, and restate here, the body of circumstantial evidence underlying the Commission's decision is sufficient for the purpose of rational basis review." (Emphasis added)
(See the entire decision here: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/tenth_circuit.html)
Lastly, everyone should have realized that Peltier’s latest claims of some legal revelations in his case had but one purpose; to lull the unsuspecting into thinking he has some legal remedies. He doesn’t. All the claims were either waived at trial or have been litigated and appealed to death. So the real purpose is to continue the scam…collect more money from the unwary…and Peltier, the LPDOC (and the former LPDC) have yet to come clean about their finances. Folks are being duped, but maybe they don’t really care.
(Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#fraud)
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
(Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#delaney)
There are several, but especially two glaring errors in her reporting on the Peltier front:
“Native Americans have eagerly awaited a sign that the U.S. has listened to their concerns about the Peltier case, but were disappointed to see no mention of it in the U.S. report.”
Native Americans? This is hardly close to accurate. Peltier and the LPDOC have looked around and can certainly recognize—even if they are loath to admit it—that the overwhelming population of Native Americans have seen Peltier and the disruption caused by AIM as a thing of the past and something that contributed nothing their cause. Peltier’s popularity and support is almost non-existent and those outside of the U.S. (who typically only use Peltier to further their hatred of America…{Elsie are you still out there?}) are meaningless and have absolutely no say in what happens here.
Is there any wonder there was no mention of Peltier in the report?
Delaney (and Peltier supporters) need to do one thing in regard to the following statement…for once, please, read the trial transcript and get the facts straight:
She said: “With no evidence whatsoever, the FBI decided to ‘lock Peltier into the case’. Government officials presented false statements to a Canadian court to extradite Peltier to the U.S. where prosecutors went judge shopping and venue hopping to secure a conviction. In a racially charged courtroom, prosecutors lied to the judge, ignored court orders, and made inappropriate statements to the jury. They intentionally hid evidence of Peltier’s innocence and instead manufactured a ‘murder weapon’. As the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, ‘these facts are not disputed’.”
Peltier’s innocence? Remember, he wasn’t in Seattle that day.
(Please see: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#concise)
As for inappropriate statements to the Jury, please see the ones that defense attorneys Lowe and Taikeff made…some were outrageous. (There will be an NPPA editorial essay posted soon that will answer a number of these kinds of questions concerning the trial.)
Actually the correct quote was:
"Much of the government's behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed."
This comes from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 when Peltier filed a motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking immediate release on parole and challenged the record before the U.S. Parole Commission. This decision, also denied, was far beyond Peltier’s criminal appellate process that had long since been resolved against him.
Please note some little details that Ms. Bruce, Peltier and the LPDOC seem to deliberately ignore…the reason they do this has to be obvious to even the most ardent supporter:
"Previous federal court decisions provided the (Parole) Commission with ample facts to support its conviction that Peltier personally shot Agent Coler and Williams." And further, "While Mr. Peltier, asserts 'the Commission identified no plausible evidence that [he] shot the agents after they were incapacitated, this statement is simply not true. The evidence linking Mr. Peltier to these crimes is enumerated above. The most damning evidence, the .223 shell casing found in Agent Coler's trunk, may be more equivocal after the surfacing of the October 2nd teletype, but it has not been 'ruled out,' as Mr. Peltier contends. There is no direct evidence that Mr. Peltier shot the agents because no one testified they saw him pull the trigger. But as we stated above, and restate here, the body of circumstantial evidence underlying the Commission's decision is sufficient for the purpose of rational basis review." (Emphasis added)
(See the entire decision here: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/tenth_circuit.html)
Lastly, everyone should have realized that Peltier’s latest claims of some legal revelations in his case had but one purpose; to lull the unsuspecting into thinking he has some legal remedies. He doesn’t. All the claims were either waived at trial or have been litigated and appealed to death. So the real purpose is to continue the scam…collect more money from the unwary…and Peltier, the LPDOC (and the former LPDC) have yet to come clean about their finances. Folks are being duped, but maybe they don’t really care.
(Please see http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#fraud)
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Saturday, October 23, 2010
"I was railroaded, victimized," "I'm innocent"
In Leonard’s September 6th statement it’s almost as if he’s calling his loyal supporters idiots. He must think that because even the most ardent follower…those who won’t be sidetracked or confused by the facts…can’t read. However, if they read just 10% of the legal history of this case they’d start asking Peltier some serious questions. But that’s not likely to happen and just how Peltier wants it…follow me he says, I was railroaded, I’m innocent, I was victimized. Drinking the full-dose Cool Aid, laced with all the mythology and folklore, is exactly what he wants his supporters to do…but don’t ask too many questions…and definitely don’t seek those pesky details. Just follow Peltier blindly into the forest.
“Staggering Constitutional violations?” (Peltier’s October 16, 2010 meeting with his “team of lawyers,” his “dream team” must have been quite a gathering.) Hardly. If there was one, let alone many, he still wouldn’t be sitting in Lewisburg. To think that at this stage there would be a legitimate basis for any procedural legal action is inane. But then that goes along with the grand Peltier plot that the entire government and the judiciary, right up to the U.S. Supreme court conspired, as he put’s it, to convict the last Indian standing for the brutal deaths of two FBI agents. Gee then, it must have been Mr. X.
And everyone knows Leonard lied about that little matter. (http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html)
“But I was in Seattle that day.”
No, Leonard didn’t really say that, but for argument sake (again…) let’s repeat the twenty-seven (27) most important words—one single sentence—from the thousands of pages relating to this case: “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.” (ITOSH p.552; See also July 12, 2010 blog for a further explanation and http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#finished)
If those twenty-seven words were changed to: “I thought those agents were after me. I panicked and started shooting and other’s helped. But I had to kill them because dead men make poor witnesses,” their meaning and significance would not be any different.
“As a young man, all I wanted to do was make a positive difference in People’s lives.” He made a difference for sure, but Leonard came very late (about two years earlier) to the “movement” and any pretense of support for his “people.” Prior to that he was just getting by, and “When I was younger,” Leonard says, “I thought it was a lot of fun running around like that, shaking off all those wives. Now I’m older, I realize I hurt a lot of those women, and I feel very bad about it, I really do. I think about them all the time now, especially the ones that had my kids.” (ITSOCH p.533) Then he turned to murder and hijacked an otherwise proud native tradition.
If Leonard believes all this rhetoric…and he does…and because he’s no fool and is milking the only thing that has kept any light shinning on him (although the bright light has faded to a dim bulb) he needs to stand up and become the warrior he’s claimed to be…to use a colloquialism, he needs to find a backbone.
Stand up and show your remaining supporters where the money has gone (post yours and the LPDOC/LPDC’s tax returns), and if you’re not terrified about showing the whole story, link to the No Parole Peltier Association (NPPA) website.
If you won’t do that, then you remain the same coward you and the others were at Jumping Bull.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
“Staggering Constitutional violations?” (Peltier’s October 16, 2010 meeting with his “team of lawyers,” his “dream team” must have been quite a gathering.) Hardly. If there was one, let alone many, he still wouldn’t be sitting in Lewisburg. To think that at this stage there would be a legitimate basis for any procedural legal action is inane. But then that goes along with the grand Peltier plot that the entire government and the judiciary, right up to the U.S. Supreme court conspired, as he put’s it, to convict the last Indian standing for the brutal deaths of two FBI agents. Gee then, it must have been Mr. X.
And everyone knows Leonard lied about that little matter. (http://www.noparolepeltier.com/lie.html)
“But I was in Seattle that day.”
No, Leonard didn’t really say that, but for argument sake (again…) let’s repeat the twenty-seven (27) most important words—one single sentence—from the thousands of pages relating to this case: “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.” (ITOSH p.552; See also July 12, 2010 blog for a further explanation and http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#finished)
If those twenty-seven words were changed to: “I thought those agents were after me. I panicked and started shooting and other’s helped. But I had to kill them because dead men make poor witnesses,” their meaning and significance would not be any different.
“As a young man, all I wanted to do was make a positive difference in People’s lives.” He made a difference for sure, but Leonard came very late (about two years earlier) to the “movement” and any pretense of support for his “people.” Prior to that he was just getting by, and “When I was younger,” Leonard says, “I thought it was a lot of fun running around like that, shaking off all those wives. Now I’m older, I realize I hurt a lot of those women, and I feel very bad about it, I really do. I think about them all the time now, especially the ones that had my kids.” (ITSOCH p.533) Then he turned to murder and hijacked an otherwise proud native tradition.
If Leonard believes all this rhetoric…and he does…and because he’s no fool and is milking the only thing that has kept any light shinning on him (although the bright light has faded to a dim bulb) he needs to stand up and become the warrior he’s claimed to be…to use a colloquialism, he needs to find a backbone.
Stand up and show your remaining supporters where the money has gone (post yours and the LPDOC/LPDC’s tax returns), and if you’re not terrified about showing the whole story, link to the No Parole Peltier Association (NPPA) website.
If you won’t do that, then you remain the same coward you and the others were at Jumping Bull.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods
Sunday, October 3, 2010
A "Dog-Dare" for Leonard Peltier: Where's the link?
A “dog dare” for Leonard Peltier
For the moment, to add just a slight measure of humor to an otherwise deadly serious situation, and to borrow an old Navy expression, this will be another shot across the bow for Leonard and the ever-changing stalwarts of the LPDOC. (Can we remember the LPDC and it’s multiple reincarnations and self-destruction? Sure, see Editorial Essays #18, #19, #20, #31, #34, #38, and #41. #41 relates to Peltier’s criticism of Delaney Bruce to “Cease and Desist,” yet, she is back again…)
Trying not to sound like a broken record (but that’s redundant in the Peltier argument because all they do is repeat the same false information…but that’s another story), this challenge has been launched to Peltier and his inner circle in the past, and ignored, but this time it’s very serious and directed not just at the LPDOC but any of the remaining Peltier supporters out in the field.
You’ve all heard and seen it before:
Since its inception on April 30, 2000 (that’s ten years and six months ago if anyone’s counting), there has been a link on the No Parole Peltier Association home page to Peltier’s website.
The message, repeated here for clarity, reads:
*For the concerned reader and researcher, the LPDOC can be found at www.whoisleonardpeltier.info. The FBI’s review of the case can be found at http://minneapolis.fbi.gov/history_peltier.htm. (It’s noted that Darelle (Dino) Butler has not been listed as a director/advisor of the LPDC or LPDOC).
The (*) asterisk was from the very first sentence on the home page directing readers to the link to the then LPDC, and now the LPDOC.
The link has been updated a number of times as it changed over the years, which shouldn’t be too surprising. The NPPA link, however, has remained, along with its message, consistent.
So there it is, from the very beginning asking anyone interested in the Peltier matter to go and see what Peltier and his network had to say and for them to come to their own informed decision about which side was presenting the accurate and factual history.
On this side of the fence there’s nothing to hide; matter of fact, from the inception of the NPPA all the relevant and critical court decisions were posted so people could read what happened for themselves, to review the real legal history of this case and not the out-of-context excerpts spun by Leonard and others.
So now we need to ask Leonard one very simple and straight forward question.
Let’s also ask Vivian Mendoza, Pamela Bravo, Jean Ann Day, Betty Ann Solano, Delaney Bruce, Peter and Barbara Clarke, John Gallagher, Arthur Miller, Lakoda and Kassandra Robideau (Regional organizers of the “International-Pacific Region which includes Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands [including Hawaii]) (Really, that’s quite impressive!), and all the TBA’s (the yet to be named, To Be Announced, phantom organizers):
What do you have to hide?
If, as you claim, Peltier is innocent, was railroaded because somebody had to pay for killing those two agents and there was a political agenda to dismantle the American Indian Movement, etc., etc., etc., then why hide half the story?
To make the point crystal clear let’s borrow a scene from the iconic modern American film classic, A Christmas Story, set in circa 1940 Cleveland, Ohio where there’s a schoolyard standoff between Schwartz, who’s daring Flick to stick his tongue to a metal pole on a cold winter’s day, while the other kids watch.
Lenny: Are you kidding, put a link on my website to the NPPA? That’s dumb!
Eddie: That’s cause you know you’ll lose whatever supporters you have left.
Lenny: You’re full of it!
Eddie: Oh yeah?
Lenny: Yeah!
Eddie: Well I double-DOG-dare ya!
(Narrator: “NOW it was serious. A double-dog dare. What else was there but a “triple dare you”? And then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.”)
Eddie: I TRIPLE–dog-dare ya!
(Narrator: “Eddie created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!”)
Well, Leonard, there it is, just as plain and simple as can be. If, and that’s a mighty big “IF” you want to salvage your dwindling support, then show some backbone and don’t be afraid to link to the NPPA. Really, what do you have to lose? If your message is the right one then you’re way ahead and will gain more supporters, otherwise you’re still the same coward you were at Jumping Bull.
So, I triple-dog-dare-you.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Eddie
For the moment, to add just a slight measure of humor to an otherwise deadly serious situation, and to borrow an old Navy expression, this will be another shot across the bow for Leonard and the ever-changing stalwarts of the LPDOC. (Can we remember the LPDC and it’s multiple reincarnations and self-destruction? Sure, see Editorial Essays #18, #19, #20, #31, #34, #38, and #41. #41 relates to Peltier’s criticism of Delaney Bruce to “Cease and Desist,” yet, she is back again…)
Trying not to sound like a broken record (but that’s redundant in the Peltier argument because all they do is repeat the same false information…but that’s another story), this challenge has been launched to Peltier and his inner circle in the past, and ignored, but this time it’s very serious and directed not just at the LPDOC but any of the remaining Peltier supporters out in the field.
You’ve all heard and seen it before:
Since its inception on April 30, 2000 (that’s ten years and six months ago if anyone’s counting), there has been a link on the No Parole Peltier Association home page to Peltier’s website.
The message, repeated here for clarity, reads:
*For the concerned reader and researcher, the LPDOC can be found at www.whoisleonardpeltier.info. The FBI’s review of the case can be found at http://minneapolis.fbi.gov/history_peltier.htm. (It’s noted that Darelle (Dino) Butler has not been listed as a director/advisor of the LPDC or LPDOC).
The (*) asterisk was from the very first sentence on the home page directing readers to the link to the then LPDC, and now the LPDOC.
The link has been updated a number of times as it changed over the years, which shouldn’t be too surprising. The NPPA link, however, has remained, along with its message, consistent.
So there it is, from the very beginning asking anyone interested in the Peltier matter to go and see what Peltier and his network had to say and for them to come to their own informed decision about which side was presenting the accurate and factual history.
On this side of the fence there’s nothing to hide; matter of fact, from the inception of the NPPA all the relevant and critical court decisions were posted so people could read what happened for themselves, to review the real legal history of this case and not the out-of-context excerpts spun by Leonard and others.
So now we need to ask Leonard one very simple and straight forward question.
Let’s also ask Vivian Mendoza, Pamela Bravo, Jean Ann Day, Betty Ann Solano, Delaney Bruce, Peter and Barbara Clarke, John Gallagher, Arthur Miller, Lakoda and Kassandra Robideau (Regional organizers of the “International-Pacific Region which includes Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands [including Hawaii]) (Really, that’s quite impressive!), and all the TBA’s (the yet to be named, To Be Announced, phantom organizers):
What do you have to hide?
If, as you claim, Peltier is innocent, was railroaded because somebody had to pay for killing those two agents and there was a political agenda to dismantle the American Indian Movement, etc., etc., etc., then why hide half the story?
To make the point crystal clear let’s borrow a scene from the iconic modern American film classic, A Christmas Story, set in circa 1940 Cleveland, Ohio where there’s a schoolyard standoff between Schwartz, who’s daring Flick to stick his tongue to a metal pole on a cold winter’s day, while the other kids watch.
Lenny: Are you kidding, put a link on my website to the NPPA? That’s dumb!
Eddie: That’s cause you know you’ll lose whatever supporters you have left.
Lenny: You’re full of it!
Eddie: Oh yeah?
Lenny: Yeah!
Eddie: Well I double-DOG-dare ya!
(Narrator: “NOW it was serious. A double-dog dare. What else was there but a “triple dare you”? And then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.”)
Eddie: I TRIPLE–dog-dare ya!
(Narrator: “Eddie created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!”)
Well, Leonard, there it is, just as plain and simple as can be. If, and that’s a mighty big “IF” you want to salvage your dwindling support, then show some backbone and don’t be afraid to link to the NPPA. Really, what do you have to lose? If your message is the right one then you’re way ahead and will gain more supporters, otherwise you’re still the same coward you were at Jumping Bull.
So, I triple-dog-dare-you.
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Eddie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
