U.N. Rapporteur, Deuxième partie (Part Two)

Dear Supporters:

Waited patiently, to no avail, for a reply from U.N. Special Rapporteur, University of Arizona, Professor, James Anaya to the NPPA’s email and letter dated January 27, 2014 (see 1/27/14 blog below). The letter was in response to the January 24^th “Media Advisory/Press Release” and Prof. Anaya’s visit with Peltier at Coleman Penitentiary. (Footnote #1)

The “press release” incompletely quotes Prof. Anaya but referenced his 30 August 2012 “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, on the situation of indigenous peoples in the United States.” (The ‘Report’)

The latest “Director” of the newly reformed ILPDC quoting from the Report, pages 13 & 20, relates directly to Peltier. But, there’s even-money that Harry David Hill did not read beyond those two quotes or the entire fifty-page Report. But we did.

Prof. Anaya compiled an historical document reviewing dozens of reports, federal programs and information and allegations in summary form presented in Appendices I and II that comprised fully one-half of his Report (pp. 24-50), and by visiting seven States in eleven days between April 23 to May 4, 2012 to reach his conclusions presented in the first half of the Report.

Nothing new was presented in Prof. Anaya’s Report, analysis, and statistics reviewing the history of the treatment of Native Americans (and other indigenous cultures). He comes to conclusions that are commonly known and accepted by all who understand these historical perspectives.

Early on he mentions “Of course their (Native American tribes, Indian Nations) greatest contribution is in the vast expanses of land that they gave up, through treaty concessions and otherwise, without which the United States and its economic base would not exist.” This is a common theme that Prof. Anaya fails to, or avoids placing into its proper perspective. Of course these things happened, but contrary to the prevailing myth, before the Europeans entered the continent and under Manifest Destiny continued the push from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the North American continent was not a Valhalla as many are led to believe. Long before, and during the European colonial powers or the successor United States and the white man’s relentless quest for land and resources, there was trouble in paradise.

And for the vast stretches of the continent, who’s to say who owned what? Many tribes claimed rights and ownership of the same lands.

Anaya’s Report devotes considerable space, an entire section, to crimes against women.

While visiting and posing for smiling photos with Peltier at Coleman Penitentiary, did the good professor ever think to ask Peltier to clarify the details of when and why he stuck a gun in Anna Mae Aquash’s mouth trying to force her to admit she was an informant (or provocateur as they like to be labeled). Or why Peltier’s AIM comrades went with their unfounded suspicions anyway and put a bullet in the back of her head, dumping her body in a ditch? Or, how Peltier knew that Anna Mae was dead in December 1975 when her body wasn’t found until the next March? Was that part of the Anaya-Peltier hug fest in the visiting room? Obviously, not.

A challenging statistic offered in Anaya’s Report (p.11) is:

“Estimates are that nearly 80 per cent (sic) of the rapes of indigenous women are by non-indigenous men, many of who (sic) have made their way into indigenous communities but who are not presently subject to indigenous prosecuaorial authority because of their non-indigenous status. Congress has yet to pass key reforms in the Violence Against Women Act that would bolster tribes’ ability to prosecute these cases.”

Neither of the references Prof. Anaya offers (Steven W. Perry, Statistical Profile and U.S.D.O.J. Report) supports that conclusion. Although, Perry’s decade old study relating to “Victimization in Indian Country” indicates that “Violent victimization of American Indians, by race of offender and type of victimization, 1992-2001,” the “rape/sexual assault” statistic does approach 80%, but the findings do not account for or differentiate those crimes against Native American women by white offenders occurring on “Reservations” per se, or elsewhere. It does, however clarify that attempts were made to determine “…how many victimizations took place at those locations (Reservations or Indian lands). “From 2000 to 2002—0.5% of all reported violence—occurred on Indian reservations or Indian lands.” And that, “Victims could be of any race.” Not all Native Americans live on Reservations, nor are all residents on Reservations, Native American. So, Professor Anaya’s 80% conclusion is suspect and may be erroneous.

Although based apparently on a faulty assumption, Prof. Anaya’s point of allowing more tribal authority against anyone who commits a crime on a Reservation or tribal land is well taken.

Prof. Anaya’s support of Peltier is fatally flawed (Fn. 2). He has bought into the mythology that in some perverse way a free Peltier will see some level of reconciliation and some payback of the “historical” (white man’s) “debt.” A careful examination of the facts, adding to that Peltier’s own self-incriminating statements over the years since his conviction should be the topic of the professor’s next Report.

Referring to Peltier as an “activist and leader in the American Indian Movement,” describing the murder of Agents’ Coler and Williams’ as “…a clash on the Pine Ridge Reservation” clearly indicates that Professor Anaya needs more time for additional research on both the facts surrounding Peltier’s actions that day at Jumping Bull and the devastation wrought by AIM, an organization that contributed nothing, along with Peltier, to the betterment of Native America.

In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) Didn’t really expect a reply, nor not waiting or expecting one from Robert Redford. It’s so typical that supporters want to avoid any serious follow-up discussions. They make their emotional pleas and then move on to other matters. Healthy debate uncovering the precise details and facts only serve to remove the sheen from the Peltier folklore and that’s unacceptable to the diehards. Especially when those details come from Peltier’s own words.

2) Not an uncommon theme in the history of the Peltier matter.

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

PELTIER: The “witness” who was “not even actually there.”

Dear Supporters:

Leonard Peltier desperately needs a new campaign manager.

He now has one who is unable to get the facts straight.

In a 4/15/14 “Team Freedom” message entitled “Gaining Perspective,” Peltier Campaign Manager, Indigo Cantor, laments over Peltier’s health, incarceration, etc., and provides the following brilliance for all those wannbes and Peltier hangers-on (Footnote #1)

“Leonard remains in prison after years of proof backing his innocence, and stacks of evidence showing the trials were rigged, the testimony was false, the so called ‘witness’ was not even actually there, and in fact she had NEVER even met Leonard.”

Aside from certainly never reading the entire trial transcript or any of the many appellate decisions, the Campaign Manager is challenged to offer one shred of “proof” of Peltier’s feigned and alleged innocence. Beyond Peltier’s own statements establishing his guilt, begin here and at least read the testimony of those “critical witnesses against Peltier” (Fn.2).

But first, let’s clarify which “witness” Ms. Cantor is referring to. With the detail that this was one who had “NEVER even met Leonard,” then there’s one, and one person only she can be referring to; Myrtle Poor Bear.

This may come as a bit of a shock to Ms. Cantor, but why is it that she doesn’t know that Myrtle Poor Bear never testified against Peltier?

Another attempt at creating facts out of whole cloth or just a deliberate attempt to confuse the uninitiated, those too blind to see or too lazy to do their homework? Maybe a bit of each, or more likely just their everyday coAIMintelpro tactics. (Fn.3)

But can Ms. Cantor answer why Poor Bear never testified even though she was a subpoenaed witness?

Well, there’s a very simple answer; because Peltier’s own attorneys didn’t want her to. That’s right; Peltier’s side did not want her on the witness stand.

Matter of fact (since facts are those pesky little things that get in the way of Peltier myth and feigned innocence), at the beginning of the trial: “”Indeed, defense counsel, anticipating that she would be called as a witness for the government, described her in his opening statement as a “witness whose {F.2d 333} mental imbalance is so gross as to render her testimony unbelievable.”” (Fn. 4)

Did she seem credible in the beginning? Sure, listen to her in Redford’s Incident at Oglala. Were her affidavits used…as only part of the extradition process from Canada? Yes, and the Canadian government concluded, Peltier “…was lawfully extradited to the United States“ (Fn. 5).

Better still. Cantor should stay, along with Harry David Hill. Peltier’s latest sequel (and there have been many) of frustrated and confused “leaders” manifesting the continuing downhill (no pun intended…but if the moccasin fits…) slide of Peltier’s support base. The Department of Justice, the Attorney General and the President can recognize Peltier’s crimes and understand that a free Peltier will heal and accomplish nothing. Peltier, at once a self-proclaimed warrior and “a victim” serve only to show how much he has diminished a proud heritage that he has polluted for his own self-serving and egocentric purposes. Crazy Horse, if he’s watching the Peltier mess, must be disgusted that his name is being tainted by the likes of the coward of Jumping Bull.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

1) Not one to linger on subtleties, Indigo Cantor, the self-proclaimed tree hugging, social activist is recognized for her fortitude to take personal ownership of her words. For all too many years messages and “press releases” have been “launched into cyberspace by…” the LPDC, LPDOC, and International Peltier-whatever, with no one standing up to defend their support for Peltier; to put name to paper and show even the slightest amount of courage of their convictions. Ms. Cantor’s passion for Peltier the warrior-victim cannot be denied, however misplaced her facts may be, but she is applauded for standing up for the first time.

2) http://noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#critical

3) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#unmasked

4) U.S. v. Peltier, September 14, 1978, Decided. Ibid. II.B.2.i.

     http://noparolepeltier.com/585.html

5) Previous blog dated April 20^th and http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html

 

14th ANNIVERSARY...No Parole Peltier Association

Dear Supporters:

April 30, 2014 marked fourteen years as the NPPA’s mission continues to honor the memory and sacrifice of Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams who were brutally murdered in the line of duty, and to dismantle the myth, folklore, fabrications and lies surrounding Peltier’s alleged claims of innocence.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Dear Mr. Redford; Re: Leonard Peltier

Edward Woods

P.O. Box 54667

Cincinnati, Ohio 45254-0667

April 20, 2014

Mr. Robert Redford

Sundance Institute

180 Varick Street, Suite 1330

New York, New York 10014

                                                                                              Re: Leonard Peltier

                                                                                                     CBC Interview
                                                                                                     April 4, 2014

Dear Mr. Redford:

It was with great interest that I listened to your recent CBC radio interview with Michael Enright.

I found it compelling for the many points raised regarding Leonard Peltier’s conviction and subsequent incarceration. Since his arrest on February 6, 1976, his trial in Fargo in 1977 and your visit with him at Marion in 1980, the facts surrounding his case have been lost or adulterated during thirty-eight years of evolving myth and folklore about who Leonard Peltier actually is, the details of June 26, 1975 and his subsequent conviction and appeals.

I would first like to address just one of the many areas you and Mr. Enright discussed,

“…that of illegality involved in his extradition.”

Please find enclosed a very telling document dated October 12, 1999 from the Canadian Minister of Justice to U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno. The review and details included are clear and concise, along with its conclusion that “…Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States.”

Since the radio interview emphasized your concern regarding the facts, I would hope that you would take the time to review the enclosed letter and perhaps respond so we can have a meaningful dialogue. There were many other points where the details are available and clarification necessary.

Sincerely,

Edw. Woods

Edward Woods

(See Minister of Justice letter at: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/canadaletter.html)

ROBERT REDFORD...RE PELTIER; TRANSCRIPT, April 4, 2014

TRANSCRIPT

Robert Redford

Radio Interview; April 4 2014

INTRODUCTION:

1) Commentary on Robert Redford’s interview is available on the No Parole Peltier Association blog available from the homepage, www.noparolepleltier.com.

2) What follows is the transcript of an interview of Robert Redford on April 4, 2014 with the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC podcast and Sirius XM Radio), narrated by Michael Enright.

3) The reference to the 1988 Redford film Incident at Oglala (copyright 1992 Miramax Films release) contains the follow advertising for the DVD version:

“A Murder. A mystery. A mockery of justice? What are the facts? And what is the truth?  In 1975, armed FBI agents illegally entered the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Gunfire erupted—a Native American and two FBI agents fell dead. After the largest manhunt in FBI history, three men were apprehended—only one, Leonard Peltier, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. This is his story.

From the very beginning, Peltier’s case has been dogged with controversy. Were the charges trumped up? Was the evidence falsified? Were witnesses pressured to change their testimony? Many people, including some of today’s greatest legal minds, believe that Peltier is an innocent man.

Twelve years ago, Robert Redford visited Leonard Peltier in prison. Today, after years of struggle with the FBI and the prison system, he and director Michael Apted (Gorillas in the Mist, Coal Miner’s Daughter) are able to present INCIDENT AT OGLALA—a riveting examination of the case and the real story of what may be one of the most outrageous abuses of justice in American history.”

* * *

CBC program entitled:  “Robert Redford on Leonard Peltier: Robert Redford discusses why he supports the release of imprisoned American Indian Movement leader Leonard Peltier. Peltier was illegally extradited from Canada in 1977 and was convicted of the murder of two FBI agents in what many call an unfair trial.

* * *

(Program begins with a voiceover excerpt of Dino Butler from the Redford produced and narrated film Incident at Oglala.)

Enright:   The story of what happened that day in 1975 when FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams were shot and killed on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, has been told. In the 1992 award-winning documentary Incident at Oglala, which was produced and narrated by Robert Redford, three men were charged in the killings and two men were found not guilty. Leonard Peltier, a leading member of the American Indian Movement was extradited from Canada in 1977 and was convicted of killing both Coler and Williams. He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. For 38 years he has been moved from prison to prison around the United States. He is currently in the high security Coleman Penitentiary in Florida.  He and his many supporters who have included Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Harry Bellefonte have always maintained that he was illegally extradited and convicted in an unfair trial. All of his legal appeals have been exhausted and he has been denied parole. His next parole hearing will not be until 2024 when he will be 79 years old. Leonard Peltier is in failing health. In a letter written in February he has said he wants to go home to die.

Robert Redford is in New York this morning. Mr. Redford, welcome to the program.

Redford: My pleasure, thank you.

Enright: This concern about Mr. Peltier’s health, you know he has diabetes, he’s had prostate problems, can you tell us anything now about the state of his physical health?

Redford: No, I think you’ve just underlined it pretty well, I think over time, I think the incarceration, the stress of that, the confinement of that, I don’t think that’s good for anybody’s health. I can tell you this, that I visited him in 1980 shortly after he was incarcerated…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: When I visited…well first of all my, um, my personal history of this…let me be...starting with the fact that for many, many years since I was quite young, I’ve been interested in Indian history and Indian affairs, so I think that leads into this…

Enright: Right.

Redford: This happened, I was obviously, I was pre…predisposed to be interested in it. Now, I had just made a film in 1979 called Brubaker, about a warden. And what I heard was, I heard about the incident at Oglala, and I’d heard a lot about it…ah, and what came to me was, if you could get to this prison, the security prison in Illinois…um, the word is that he’d been transferred to this prison, but his life was in danger…

Enright: Right.

Redford: There were people who would like to see him taken out. And his life was in danger in prison. And he’s so deeply confining, he’s so much down in the bottom of the barrel so to speak inside the jail. Maybe if you drew attention to him being there, it might save his life. Now that’s how it was presented to me, whether that was true or not, I don’t know. But because of the possibility, I said yes, I’ll go. So I went to Illinois in 1980…

Enright: This is in Marion.

Redford: Marion.

Redford: …and I went there to see him and I remember the feeling I had, and I can only project that onto what he must feeling after 38 years, and that is, as you go into a prison and they slam doors behind you get deeper, deeper into this confined area. And it gets pretty spooky…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …because you realize that for each door that slams that you’re further away from freedom. And so when I finally got to see him, apparently I was told I was the first person that could see him live, even his own family has not been allowed to see him…he had to be…there was a glass…was a glass thing that separated them…

Enright: Really?

Redford: And so, maybe they were trying to put on their best behavior, I don’t know,  the prison, I don’t know, but I remember the feeling I had when I went to see him. And he looked at me and there was something so forlorn…now mind you this was only a few years after he had been imprisoned so he was still in reasonable health. He had a bad eye, I remember that.

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: Um, but he was in reasonable health, and he was mixed in terms of his optimism, he was hopefully optimistic, but also realistic at the same time. So we talked. I felt, obviously, I was trying to be neutral in my feelings about him…because I thought that…I didn’t want to be taken in by anything…

Enright: Right.

Redford: I did feel that, um, of course there’s going to be desperation to a person in prison trying to get the word out and maybe use another person to get it out, I appreciate that. But I came out of it very sympathetic to him and I felt that he did not receive a fair trial and the other two that were involved in the same incident went to trial and were acquitted. And I think that that leads us to another area here and I think that is this whole business that involves the FBI.

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: The FBI, cause I was told, I got pretty involved in exploring this and interviewing people and going to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, speaking to people there and it was pretty clear that the FBI has very strong feelings about an eye-for-an-eye. So these two agents had been murdered, somebody had to pay. And the question is who, and is he really guilty? Well, that’s never been truly established. But I think the FBI were being pretty determined that somebody had to pay for this. So somebody was going to pay for this, no matter what. That’s the impression I had then…I think I still have.

Enright: That’s what I don’t understand, the due process went right off the rails in this. In the Fargo trial, for example, the jury was not allowed to hear about other cases where the FBI had tampered with evidence and with witnesses and so on.

Redford: Well, there you have it, in other words, I, looking at this…if you can take a bird’s eye view of this and look at the whole picture you begin to see it’s a sketchy situation…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …and it does point a finger at the FBI and the fact that they would withhold something or not want certain records, no want certain people’s voices to be heard. Points again to the business of fairness.

Enright: But even at, even at the appellate hearing for Leonard Peltier. The U.S. Attorney himself, after going through the case, said, I’m quoting now, “We do not know who shot the agents.”

Redford: Right.

Enright: But that’s an extraordinary exculpatory statement, isn’t it?

Redford: Well it is, I mean, absolutely, so why is he being in prison?

Enright: Yeah..

Redford: They don’t know, then why is he in prison. Look, I made the documentary because I wanted to present the facts and let the audience make up their own minds. I was not advocating his innocence…

Enright: Right.

Redford: …as much as, because I don’t know. I don’t have that right to know. I wasn’t there. I felt that was going to be my contribution to the situation. I didn’t realize at the time it would take so much to get true information out and that’s made me very sad. And that at one time, you know what was disappointing about then President Clinton. I really felt that he was not gonna to get a fair trial, it was just going to happen…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …with the FBI involved and whatever the FBI’s involvement with our government…whatever that connection was probably would not permit him a fair trial. So I thought well then the only thing is to hope for a pardon, because I think he deserved that. And we went to Clinton and said look when you get to run for the pardoning time this is a clear case of…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …a guy’s been there so long and he’s suffering, this would be a good reason for pardon.  And when he chose not to pardon him, and pardoned Marc Rich.

Enright: The industrialist, yeah.

Redford: That tells you a whole lot, maybe it tells you stuff you don’t’ want to know. But, I thought that was such an incredible blow. So I think that Leonard had a pretty rough time of it and I feel sorry about that. So what do we do about this, what do we do about the fact…well we, there’s nothing I can do. But what does one do in the interest of fairness, in the interest of justice, and the interest of our government, commitment to justice? What do we do about evidence piling up over and over and over again that his man was not treated fairly? That this was not a fair trial, there was ever…even some illegality involved in his extradition. What does one do about that?  No a whole lot you can do as a citizen except try to raise a voice to it, draw attention to it. I’ve been to congress, I’ve been to lobby, and I’ve tried a lot of things. Obviously, there’s something very stuck here, really deeply stuck.

Enright: Tell me what the opposition of this group called the retired FBI agents association, they seem to be quite prominent every time a situation comes up where Leonard Peltier applies for parole or commutation or something, these ex-FBI agents swing into action.

Redford: Well, I mean, that I think that you can look at that as some kind of a club, I think it’s a club of very…there’s an ideology connected to that and they’re going to stick that no matter what. They’re going to stick to their case, their cause, which is their own organization even though their retired, they’re going to stick to that because loyalists to the cause, they’re loyalists to the organization. Even if facts dictate otherwise they’re going to stick to their, their story. I think that’s what we’re seeing probably.

Enright: What was your initial reaction, I mean, I’m imagining that you must have gone through a series of responses to what you learned as you learned it. Did you, were you angry, were you frustrated, what went through your head with all this?

Redford: What went through my head was first is what is the situation, what was the reality here, what are we really dealing with and that had to be supported by facts. So, the question first was to get as many facts as you could and once I got those facts it led me to believe that there was an unfairness here, and that was maybe there was something I could do to help that get turned around. And so, as I started to work on it and wasn’t really getting anywhere, there was frustration. And that frustration I think led to finally to anger when I realized that there’s just, life is, life is not fair and…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …whether we like it or not it just isn’t and this is one of the instances that no matter what did, no mater how you tried, things were not going to be fair here and that left me angry.

Enright:  What comes through in the documentary, among many other elements, is that Pine Ridge was a very violent place in those days.

Redford: Oh God, there were drive-by shootings, they were happening all the time. It was a very, very violent place. And it was a violent time because you had the traditional Native Americans clashing with the more modernized, you know the Americanized Native Americans…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …and there was a clash there, historical, almost tribal, and then there was there was just the fact that you had alcohol, you had, there’s just a whole lot of problems of deprivation and poverty on the Ridge…of course, I go back in history and I think my, my support of Native Americans and their culture goes back to the very beginning of, I think what we call Manifest Destiny, when we, in the interest of taking whatever we could back in the 1800s, in the interest of taking whatever we could by whatever means…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …and then, and then, deserving to own it, we created Manifest Destiny which pretty well wiped out that whole culture, and I, I think there’s a lot of value in that culture, so I’ve always felt that way and I’ve always felt very sympathetic to the cause of them fighting this injustice.

Enright: What was the reaction, immediate and latterly after the Incident at Oglala came out?

Redford: I remember that we weren’t getting much traction. I tried to screen it at various places. It wasn’t getting a whole lot of traction so I thought that well maybe we can use the Sundance Festival…

Enright: Right.

Redford: …to promote it because at that time the festival was only about four or five years old and it was still kind of struggling along but it was getting some traction and because it was creating a platform for new work to be seen, I wanted to push documentaries. Because I always felt that documentaries were very, very powerful and they were essentially kinda like long form journalism and then I thought that had value. So, I was pushing documentaries and when we did this film, I decided well maybe we could put this documentary in the festival and that…

Enright: Right.

Redford: …and maybe that exposure will help it along. I did that, but I’m not sure it did. I remember going there, announcing it and kind of presenting it, but I’m not sure. Had it been a public outcry, had there been a rolling out outcry, where the populace had such a strong voice it would force government into action…

Enright: Uh, um…

Redford: …it would have happened by now, I think it just never, I’m afraid that the situation and the documentary never really got to that point of traction where it created a kind of ah, a uproar to create a movement to free him, yet individuals like the one’s you’ve mentioned, but I’m not sure there was enough to create a movement…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …for justice.

Enright: My guest this morning is Robert Redford, he is in New York, we’re talking a about Leonard Peltier. Let me ask you just a couple of quick questions. The man is going to be 70 next year. Is it the government’s intention, do you think, to keep him in prison until he dies?

Redford: Based on evidence, so far, that yes I believe that, I believe that business of an eye-for-an-eye still holds, and I think I was told in fact, over time that’s probably what was going to happen, that he would never get a fair trial, he was going to stay there, they were not gonna, they would make sure that he would not get out. I was told that, now that does not make it true…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …I just remember being told that by a number of people at the time. And it certainly looks that way.

Enright: Up to now President Obama has signed 52 pardons and commuted one sentence. Have representations been made to the President and are you hopeful that he might pardon Leonard Peltier?

Redford: I don’t know whether other representations have been made but certainly I’m hopeful. I was disappointed in Clinton, and I’m hopeful for Obama to see it differently and see the injustice here. Yeah, I’m very, very hopeful and I will raise my voice in whatever way I can. Not so much whether innocence or guilt but…

Enright: Yeah.

Redford: …fair trial. And for that reason, because he’s done his time, he’s paid his dues. I think he deserves a pardon.

Enright: What have you learned, let me ask you finally, what have you learned about due process, the Constitution, the American criminal justice system, aboriginals?

Redford: What I guess I’ve learned, is it, we got the constitution. That’s all we’ve got and it’s the strongest (unintelligible), and we should adhere to it and make sure certain people don’t try to change it. I know there’s been some talk about certain justices wanting to reorder it or redefine it, so I hope not. I think that would be a big mistake. It’s the only thing we got that leads us towards fairness, but there’s always going to be unfairness, I mean that’s just the way it is. But because we have this law, we have this document that gives us a chance for fairness I think we have to do whatever we can to uphold it.

Enright: Mr. Redford it’s a pleasure to meet you on the radio sir, thank you.

Redford: Thank you.

Enright: Robert Redford, narrative and produced the 1992 documentary, Incident at Oglala, this morning he was in his Sundance offices in New York. You’re listening to the Sunday edition of Across Canada on CBC Radio One and across North American on Sirius XM radio. My name is Michael Enright.

* * *

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

PELTIER & PETER MATTHIESSEN

Dear Supporters:

Peltier’s latest yelp from Coleman is a pathetic eulogy to the man who wrote the “Peltier New Age Bible,” In the Spirit of Crazy Horse. Crazy Horse himself must be rolling over in his grave that Peltier, at once the victim and would-be warrior, AIM gofer, thug, bodyguard, and gun-in-her-mouth, Jumping Bull coward, is diminishing his real bravery and storied heritage.

(Mathiessen’s reporting, having the opportunity for a multitude of firsthand interviews of those involved in the American Indian Movement and the participants, particularly Peltier himself,  in the murders of Agents Coler and Williams  has proven to be a valuable resource and quoted extensively in NPPA Editorial Essays.)

Our condolences to the Matthiessen family and a passing respect for some of Peter Matthiessen’s more notable accomplishments (Peltier support notwithstanding), but it’s impossible to pass on Peltier’s ignorance and skewed facts that beg for a response.

In his April 6^th prison memo Peltier, referring to retired FBI Agent Dave Price’s libel suit against Matthiessen and ITSOCH, states, “Yes, he told me they threatened his career and even his very life,” and, “When that did not work, they threatened his life and the lives of his family.”  Really? Threatened his life?

Matthiessen, who eventually won the suit, and had every opportunity at that point to further his story, and even in the later 1992 Penguin Books edition (which included an ‘afterword’ by Matthiessen attorney Martin Garbus), and further “Notes” from Matthiessen himself, never talks of threats against his or his family’s lives. This would have been the perfect opportunity to take another poke at the FBI and Agent Price, but he did not. Which begs the question whether this is just another in a long string of Peltier fabrications (lies in reality).

This claim, another without foundation or proof, must be filed away with Peltier’s proven lie of  Mr. X as the alleged killer of Agents Coler and Williams. Lest we not forget Peltier in Redford’s Incident at Oglala facing the camera, “This story is true.” Well, it wasn’t true according to co-conspirator Dino Butler and of late, by Peltier’s own attorney, and neither is this one. (Footnote #1)

Isn’t it ironic that the final decision in the slander suit from August 9, 1979 (as attorney Garbus reports) was authored by none other than Federal Judge Gerald Heaney, the same judge who in May 1985 ruled against Peltier—on the law—subsequent to the three-day “ballistics hearing.”  Life sometimes does have its little twists. (Fn, #2)

But Judge Heaney’s civil suit decision did point to a greater reality, that authors and journalists have a right to report statements no matter how “hostile” or “disreputable” their sources may be.  And AIM, from top to bottom with its sordid history falls squarely within that category.  (Fn. #3)

Aside from the fact that even when Matthiessen himself doubted his sources, like his suspicion of Bob Robideau and the entire Mr. X fiasco (Fn. #4), he did end his tome with a very telling postscript, perhaps in some manner awkwardly trying to unbalance his bias towards the AIM gangsters and Peltier in particular.  Matthiessen  made one profoundly significant suggestion (ITSOCH, p. 601):

 “For a concise summation of the federal case in United States v. Peltier, the reader is directed to the findings of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, September 14, 1978…”

And in that regard Peter Matthiessen and the No Parole Peltier Association are in absolute harmony. This is something that the NPPA has been encouraging since it’s inception nearly fourteen years ago (April 30, 2000). Prominent on the home page this message remains:

IMPORTANT NOTE: It is critically important for any concerned reader and researcher to review the Court Decisions regarding Peltier's conviction and appeals. It is within those decisions that each and every issue and allegation raised by Peltier, and repeated by the LPDC, has been addressed and resolved.

Thank you Peter Matthiessen. Rest in Peace.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

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

http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2012/12/peltier-kuzma-closes-circle-much-more.html
http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2012/12/peltier-kuzma-part-ii-and-clemency.html

 2) http://noparolepeltier.com/609.html

 http://noparolepeltier.com/800.html

 3) http://rezinate.wordpress.com/

http://americanindianmafia.com/

4) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/interview.html For a painstakingly vivid example of Matthiessen’s naiveté on the entire Peltier matter see ITSOCH, pp. 576-584. Forget not also that Matthiessen was on Peltier’s payroll when researching and writing ITSOCH which allowed him broad access to Peltier and AIM members and may have skewed many of his conclusions.  It should not be overlooked that ITSOCH was described as “…utterly unconvincing—indeed sophomoric—when he (Matthiessen) pleads the legal innocence of individual Indian criminals.” “…(and) not only fails to convince; he (Matthiessen) makes a strong case for Mr. Peltier’s guilt.” (See; Placing “In the Sprit of Crazy Horse in Perspective;” quote from Alan M. Dershowitz, The New York Times, book review, March 8, 1983; http://noparolepeltier.com/response.html#4

PELTIER: SLINGING TWO MESSAGES: And, where's Mr. X?

Dear Supporters:

Peltier rambles on about magazine articles he’s read in the prison TV room equating his confinement and condition to that of the environment, a world order against indigenous peoples and messages of making one’s life count for something. (Footnote #1). Peltier has to do this because he’s offering propaganda to two different audiences. On the one hand those who have little knowledge of who or what Peltier really is but that must be convinced, as he has convinced himself, that all the folklore, bolstered by years of myths and lies are true. He offers himself as the sacrificial lamb for those persecuted minorities that the uninformed are compelled to amend for all the wrongs of the past. You know, Peltier the victim.

Then there’s the other message for those who actually believe Peltier made some meaningful contribution during his otherwise wasted life. This is where he makes again a real-time confession for those who would follow him, no matter what, and over any cliff.

“I want to tell you sincerely this is not an easy place to be. It is a terrible place to be, but when I chose to answer the call along with other Native People, many of us took a vow to stand up even unto death if necessary. Some were shot and killed and their lives were taken immediately. My life has been taken one day at a time. But if I had to do it all over again I would still choose to stand up for my people and your people and our future generations to protect our freedoms and our mother Earth, and in doing that I am honored that you remember me.

Genuinely honest and truthful people never have to say they are being “sincere,” but let’s take him at face value, again, as he plays the role for that other group of dwindling supporters; Peltier the warrior. 

The message here is not subtle and we’ve seen it before. Previously it would appear to have been a slip of the forked tongue but his message is unmistakable (Footnote #2). Peltier took a “vow” and of critical import to all those who see the charlatan for what he really is, that he would “do it all over again.” Let’s ask Anna Mae’s Aquash’s daughters if Peltier was being the “warrior” when he stuck a gun in their mother’s mouth forcing her to admit she was an informant (history has proven she was not). Was that part of the “vow” that Peltier clings to? Or that day at Jumping Bull? He knew he was a fugitive but also that FBI Agents Coler and Williams were looking for someone else, Jimmy Eagle, but that did not stop him and some of the “many of us” from brutally attacking and severely wounding the agents. That Agent Williams tried to surrender made no difference (Footnote #3). That Peltier admitted during his escape, (to the same Anna Mae who was later a victim of AIM paranoia; shot in the head and left in a ditch), that “the … … begged for his life but I shot him anyway.” Brave? Heroic? A warrior? Peltier’s next action, with the others, was to stand over the dead agents, steal their weapons and see the smile from Joe Stuntz when he stole Agent Coler’s FBI jacket from the trunk of the Bureau vehicle. Peltier’s next brave response; “We gotta get out of here.” Peltier and the rest of the cowards of Jumping Bull fled. But, of course, this is all tilted against the string of phony alibis, beginning with the infamous Mr. X and red pickup truck.

Peltier endeavors to address two audiences:

The globally uninformed, mostly European anti-America types (Peltier never sees how much he has been used by many of these groups for their own purposes), those progressive bands who literally don’t have a dog in this fight because they are being misled and disabused that in some perverse fashion Peltier represents all those indigenous cultures. They are incapable of seeing him for what he is, a cold-blooded murderer.

The other faction, the diehards, the sycophants, the wannabes, the users and abusers of the latest cultural fad hang on enjoying some vicarious thrill at inmate #89637-132’s expense. One inescapable reality is that the older generation Native America understands the damage Peltier and AIM did to their collective recent history.

Postscript: Mr. X, the movie: Incident at Oglala, what happened?

The NPPA has beaten this topic like a cheap drum for many years. Peltier’s first and longest standing phony alibi was that someone they knew (Mr. X) killed the agents and drove off in the infamous red pickup. We would point to the many years of airing the cameo appearance of the hooded killer in Redford’s mythumentary “Incident at Oglala” where Robideau, in great detail, describes what happened and in the next scene Peltier preens “This story is true but I can’t and will not say anything about it” (Footnote #4). Yet they (the LPDC, LPDOC, etc.) played the film ad nauseam like it really portrayed Peltier’s innocence.

Yet, under another new leadership, Redford’s masterpiece is gone. Vanished in a cloud of…oops, what happened here? A Google search for “Leonard Peltier” lists many references. The first is Wikipedia (largely inaccurate and slanted and not worth the effort to correct), then freeleonard.org (dated now, but courtesy of former Peltier supporter, Attorney Michael Kuzma, who was able to put the final nail in the Mr. X. coffin (Footnote #5), then third, The NoParolePeltierAssociation.com  website, and then fourth, according to a footnote on leonardpeltier.info “There is only one official website for Leonard Peltier and his freedom campaign, and this is it, join the fight.”

Have to assume then that all the other supporting websites and references are persona non grata, a glaring example of how many over the years have come, and gone, as most realized they attached their good will and fortune to a fraudulent falling star (and let’s not even revisit the “charitable donations” scams).

In any case, on leaonardpeltier.info, a search for “Incident” turned up windows that when clicked on presented the viewer, not with the film, but with this tidbit:

“This video contains content from Lionsgate and Miramax, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.”

“Your country?” The United States of America? This is a big deal.

For years they (Peltier’s morphing inner circle) have been playing and touting the film (warts, flaws and all) like it was the Peltier Bible come to the silver screen.  

This has to be a terrible blow to Peltier and the entourage to be dissed by the Hollywood crowd, no doubt accompanied with attorney letters calling for them to “cease and desist.” Not to worry though, the DVD is still available on Amazon (only one left at last check) and illegally in various corners of the Internet. (Maybe more letters to Lionsgate and Miramax are in order so they can further protect their copyright.)

The point is the film stands as a conspicuous illustration of the lies surrounding Peltier and his discredited alibi. No one can or will ever remove the Mr. X segments from the film, nor will Matthiessen (who had his own strong doubts about Robideau and this story), remove it from “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,” and certainly future filmmaking efforts will leave the Mr. X/red pickup out completely, not coincidentally like Peltier did in his own book, “Prison Writings.”

As Peltier said in this latest Spring Statement, “I am honored that you remember me.”

But don’t flatter yourself to be honored Leonard because there are many more who will and do remember…

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”

Ed Woods

Footnotes:

 1) http://www.leonardpeltier.info/spring_statement_from_leonard_peltier

2) http://www.noparolepeltier.com/debate.html#confession

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

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

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

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

5) See NPPA Blog 12/5/12