Wednesday, January 23, 2019

PELTIER: NATHAN PHILLIPS & FAKE NEWS

Dear Supporters:

Peltier had been pushing “Fake News” long before it became catch phrase.

“But suddenly this beautiful and peaceful morning was cut short by the staccato sound of gunfire." (Fn.1) Totally Fake News…

The recent dustup in Washington D.C. at a March for Life rally, coinciding with an Indigenous Peoples March, involving students from Covington Catholic, a parochial high school in northern Kentucky, and the drumming and chanting of Omaha Tribe member and Native American activist Nathan Phillips led to the media circulation of a short video that presented a biased and out-of-context account of the incident. The video and accompanying narratives utterly condemned the students until the Fake News collapsed under its own weight when the whole, true story surfaced. 

What was missing was Phillips injecting himself into the students gathered waiting for a bus and getting into the face of one of the students and then later claiming that the students made reference to building a wall. 

Beyond the short viral clip there were roughly two hours of videos that provided the context of the students’ restrained behavior in response to the foul-mouthed racist taunting of members of Black Hebrew Israelites

The Left went berserk with malicious posts and tweets calling for expulsion and criticism of the school, many of which were deleted without explanation or apology, but even the Diocese of Covington was initially duped and offered a public condemnation of their own students. 

Viewing all the videos, the students should be commended for their restraint and not taking the bait from the racist BHI’s taunts and denigration of a black student or Phillips’ singling out one of the students for no apparent reason.  Were the students being set up to force a confrontation? It would appear so, but they didn’t allow that to happen. (Fn.2)

Phillips gave a number of interviews and was quoted providing a skewed version of Native American history, much like Peltier, blending in folklore and myth:

“This is indigenous land, you’re not supposed to have walls here. We never did for a millennia. We never had a prison; we always took care of our elders, took care of our children, always provided for them, taught them right from wrong. I wish I could see that energy… put that energy to making this country really, really great.”

No, there were no walls but anyone suggesting that this continent was a peaceful place before the Pilgrims landed and the settlers pushed westward needs to revisit that history. There are many examples of Indian on Indian violence and conquests. Some tribes were downright brutal and murderous to their native brethren, enslaving peaceful tribes and totally eliminating others.

Phillips, a long time follower of the Profit of Profits boasted in 1999 that he credited Peltier with his own presence at an earlier Washington D.C. demonstration. (Fn.3)

As for the Black Hebrew Israelitesa group described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group” comprised of “black supremacists,” Phillips should share with them that as horrible as the Trail of Tears was, many Cherokee brought with them to Oklahoma their own African slaves and that many Native Americans were slave owners. (Fn.4)

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Footnotes:
1) Prison Writings, Leonard Peltier, p.123; the first lie; and the Big Lie, “Mr. X did it.”
(Last accessed 1/22/19)
In its magazine, “Intelligence Report,” the Southern Poverty Law Center calls the Black Hebrew Israelites a hate group that is “becoming more militant.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center reports, "Around the country, thousands of men and women have joined black supremacist groups on the extremist fringe of the Hebrew Israelite movement, a black nationalist theology that dates to the 19th century."
Hebrew Israelites believe African-Americans are God's chosen people. The movement goes by several affiliated names. A Baltimore-based organization is affiliated with a central group in New York City that goes by the name of the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ. The sect is obsessed with hatred for whites and Jews. Baltimore is one of 29 local branches, according to the Southern Poverty Center.Native Americans and slave ownership: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-native-american-slaveholders-complicate-trail-tears-narrative-180968339/(Last accessed 1/22/19)

Sunday, January 13, 2019

PELTIER: PUBLIC CHARITY? PART 2, INUREMENT

Dear Supporters:

This may be the proverbial smoking gun (certainly, no pun intended) in Peltier’s decades long quest to fill his coffers ostensibly for charitable activities but are clearly to pad an alleged need to fund his flagging and arguably non-existent legal defense. 

Peltier has pointed that gun at his own foot and loaded it with a bullet that has  “Inurement” written on it.

Peltier’s alleged charitable activities, and there have been many claims, when brought into the sunlight hardly stand up to scrutiny. (Footnote 1)

Based on years of myth and folklore Peltier has offered himself as the
warrior/victim, as a prophet of sorts for Native rights, but based on his continued cash-centric efforts has become more the prophet of profits.

Peltier has claimed many times that donations to his cause were tax-deductible (often removing, yet returning to the tax deductible mantra; however, there is an explanation for these on-and-off-again claims) but this time adding an extra layer that they are indeed legitimate and under the guise of a “Public Charity” with 501(c)3 status.

The Internal Revenue Service is very clear about the requirements for tax deductible activities of “E.O.” or Exempt Organizations and granting 501(c)3 status.

The Application for Recognition of Exemption, I.R.S. Form 1023, clearly states:

“Section 501(c)3 requires that your organizing document state your exempt purpose(s), such as charitable, religious, educational, and/or scientific purposes.”

I.R.S. regulations make it clear that:

Private Benefit and Inurement A public charity is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of private benefit to individuals or organizations. This restriction is to ensure that a tax- exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is more than incidental, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status. No part of an organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of an insider. An insider is a person who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization such as an officer, director or a key employee. This means that an organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to accrue to insiders.

And further:

If a public charity provides an economic benefit to any person who is able to exercise substantial influence over its affairs (that exceeds the value of any goods or services provided in consideration), the organization has engaged in an excess benefit transaction. (Emphasis added.)

There is no dispute that Leonard Peltier and his committee have more than a casual or symbiotic relationship. They are one in the same, mirror images with common links and goals. Peltier has made it clear that he is in charge and none of the committee’s public pronouncements and activities exist without his approval. Peltier is the insider. Without Peltier there would be no need for a committee as Peltier unquestionably exercises substantial influence over its affairs. There is an ongoing and lengthy history supporting this conclusion.

To further reveal this assertion in July 2016 the ILPDC publicly posted the following:

“There is only one Committee. The ILPDC is planning/managing the only official freedom campaign for Leonard Peltier (in concert with Leonard Peltier and his attorneys). You may see public or Internet-based fundraising efforts not endorsed or managed by the ILPDC. Beware. These are not approved actions and the fundraising isn’t being done on behalf of the Committee. Only credentialed chapters of the ILPDC and selected partners are authorized to raise funds in Leonard’s name. Therefore, we encourage donors to always ask for a fundraiser’s credentials and/or check with the ILPDC as to the legitimacy of any fundraising effort conducted by an individual or organization other than the ILPDC. Thank You.” (Emphasis added)

Yet, with the legal requirement that a 501(c)3 be established for charitable, religious, educational and/or scientific purposes the committee offers these notable public statements:

“There’s some good news on the Tax front as we received word from the IRS that we’ve received our 501c3 status! So, all of you that have been waiting to send your donations can use them as a tax right off (sic) –now is the time.”

“In addition, the timing couldn’t be better as we are struggling in our fundraising for the office and Leonard’s legal fund.” (8/31/18)

“This move forward will entail us requesting Leonard’s supporters to help make this a reality by contributing to Leonard’s legal fund. And we can let you know that we can send you a tax deduction for your donation as our 501(c)3 has after much struggle become a reality!”  (10/8/18)

It has been hectic here at the National Office, and I want to bring you all up to date on our needs for financial help. We need help on paying Leonard’s legal fees  for his transfer and his First Amendment case in Washington State. We are estimating that we will need to raise $5,000 by the end of 2018. For supporters that need a tax deduction we are a 501c3 organization and will happily send you a tax statement for 2018 tax year.  (11/20/18)

Mandated within the I.R.S. Form 1023 application is the “Required Provisions in Your Organizing Document.”

The application referenced that provision as being “Page 1 Article II Paragraph 1.”

However, that section of the ILPDC By-Laws states the following:

Article II. Purposes 
The purposes for which the corporation is organized are: 

To bring together through intersecting learning circles the indigenous knowledge and traditions of the original inhabitants of North America with governing society procedures and practices. On this most heterogeneous of continents, with intertwined histories of its peoples evolving from all parts of the globe, the International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee will work to blend cultures and traditions through mutually respectful identification and acknowledgement of shared universal needs and values to help support and strengthen socially responsible and equitably administered democratic nations

Said organization is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations described under Section 501(c)(3) of the internal Revenue Code, corresponding section of any future federal tax code. (Emphasis added)

Sounds notable, even beneficent but also a bit conspicuous that nowhere in the By-Laws or on the Form 1023 does it state they are raising “tax deductible” donations for the legal fund of a convicted double murderer. 

It’s more likely than not that the I.R.S. would not have granted the 501(c)3 if the organizing document or the Form 1023 spelled out the apparent purpose of raising money for Peltier’s legal fund as their highly public pronouncements indicate.

That approved 501(c)3 would hardly serve a public interest but obviously a private one, that of Leonard Peltier, who without qualification has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization.

* * *

Fortunately, the I.R.S. has a process to report concerns regarding Exempt Organizations.

IRS.gov provides a Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form 13909 that requests certain information (Fn. 2):

Name of referred organization: International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, 116 W. Osborne Ave., Tampa, Florida, 33603.

Employer Identification number (EIN): 81-5117989.

Nature of violation: The Form 13909 provides a list of boxes that can be checked where appropriate.

Names of persons involved: Jean Roach (Chairperson), Gerri Timmons (Treasurer), Dan Battaglia, (Secretary), Stephanie Autumn (Director), Yvonne Swan (Director), Paulette Dauteuil (Co-Director)

Dates: The I.R.S. letter 947 approving public charity and 501(c)3 status for the ILPDC was dated August 22, 2018, however the Effective Date of Exemption was backdated to December 15, 2017. (Note the dates of the public fund raising notifications listed above.)

Submitter information: On the form the submitter information has a box that can be checked to not disclose the submitter’s identity.

* * *

The above is provided for background and informational purposes.

Supporters may take whatever action they feel appropriate concerning Peltier and the ILPDC’s 501(c)3 and whether it is appropriate for a convicted double murderer to be entitled to such tax exempt status.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Footnotes:
(2004-2007 and needs to be updated, however, the 501(c)3 issue is timely)

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

PELTIER: WANTS A TRANSFER

Dear Supporters:

The International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (ILPDC) is encouraging Peltier supporters to contact the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to support Peltier’s request to be transferred from USP Coleman, Florida to FCI Oxford, Wisconsin.

Peltier’s rationale for this request includes that he is approaching his seventy-fifth birthday, has been incarcerated for forty-four years, that FCI Oxford is 1,300 miles closer to his home and family, is closer to relative Native communities and for health reasons is in closer proximity to the Mayo Clinic and the Federal Medical Clinic in Rochester, MN.

That may all be true but absent from Peltier’s desire to be accommodated by the BOP is the undeniable fact that because of his brutal and murderous actions on June 26, 1975, Jack Coler and Ron Williams never made it out of their late twenties. 

Jack and Ron never made it any closer to their families than the California cemeteries where they are buried.  

Because of Peltier they never had the opportunity to spend productive lives with their loved ones. 

No Parole Peltier Association supporters are also encouraged to contact the BOP to express their own feelings as to whether Peltier should be entitled to any special consideration. Besides, he likely may already be in the elderly unit at USP Coleman receiving greater attention along with other older inmates. 

Background information regarding the Peltier matter can be summarized from the following links or from the NPPA website. (Footnote 1)

Supporters can call, fax, email or write the BOP as listed below. (Fn.2)

Peltier should be shown as much mercy and consideration as he gave Jack Coler and Ron Williams, and that would be none.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Footnotes:

2)Leonard Peltier inmate #89637-132
Phone: 972-352-4400 
Fax: 972-352-4395
Address: Bureau of Prisons/Policy Correspondence, Grand Prairie Office Complex, 346 Marine Forces Drive, Grand Prairie, TX, 75051

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

PELTIER: A PUBLIC CHARITY? PART 1

Dear Supporters:

First, best to all for what was hopefully a great holiday season and for a healthy, happy and productive New Year.

Yes, as disturbing as it may sound, it is true that Leonard Peltier and his International Leonard Pletier Defense Committee (ILPDC) has been granted 501(c)3 status making donations—for the first time ever—legitimately tax deductible. 

No, that wasn’t a typo. Peltier’s August 22, 2018 letter from the IRS under Employer Identification Number 81-5117989 is listed as Leonard Pletier. Oops!

In a public release on August 31, 2018 the ILPDC excitedly announced they had some “good news on the tax front” and had received notice from the I.R.S. granting 501(c)3 status.

Upon hearing such great news one has to wonder how a convicted felon, someone serving consecutive life sentences for two brutal murders can become a public charity. (Omitted is a big  “?” at the end of that sentence.)

There should be no misunderstanding that over the years Leonard Peltier has made it abundantly clear that the actions, publications and press releases of the ILPDC (the former LPDOC and the previous LPDC) are not taken without his approval. Peltier and previous “committees” have criticized other websites that gave the appearance of speaking or fundraising on his behalf. Leonard Peltier is and owns the actions of the ILPDC.

To clarify that point, in July 2016 the ILPDC published this:

“There is only one Committee. The ILPDC is planning/managing the only official freedom campaign for Leonard Peltier (in concert with Leonard Peltier and his attorneys). You may see public or Internet-based fundraising efforts not endorsed or managed by the ILPDC. Beware. These are not approved actions and the fundraising isn’t being done on behalf of the Committee. Only credentialed chapters of the ILPDC and selected partners are authorized to raise funds in Leonard’s name. Therefore, we encourage donors to always ask for a fundraiser’s credentials and/or check with the ILPDC as to the legitimacy of any fundraising effort conducted by an individual or organization other than the ILPDC.
Thank You.”(Emphasis added)

On October 31st, searching for an answer to the 501(c)3 question, the email below was sent to contact@whoisleonardpeltier.info. The Halloween request was no joke or prank and was well within the bounds of the law and I.R.S. regulations and certainly not libelous to ask a straightforward legitimate and legal question. (Footnote 1) 

That evening a polite response was received from ILPDC Co-Director, Ms. Paulette Dauteuil who advised that she was travelling and would provide the requested application by the end of the following week (November 9th). 

On November 8th another polite email was received advising that the IRS Form 1023 was copied and would be placed in the mail that afternoon. However, Ms. Dauteuil requested a mailing address. One was provided along with a suggestion that an emailed scanned document would be acceptable.

Nothing arrived and during a November 16thphone call to the ILPDC Ms. Dauteuil, who was polite and courteous, said she had sent the form by certified mail and provided a USPO tracking number. However, a check of the tracking number indicated that the letter was sent but returned as “addressee unknown” and “return to sender.” 

This was a bit odd and after another email request was made to scan and email the document, on November 19tha copy of the ILPDC’s Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption was received.  The application was reviewed and found to be missing pertinent details. A follow-up email was sent requesting additional documentation that is part of the application process but was not included with the form itself. (Fn. 2)

On November 26th Ms. Dauteuil politely advised via email that she was working on “getting all the papers together and will get them to you as soon as possible.” Politeness aside for the moment considering that we are on diametrically opposite sides of the Peltier matter, these are now public records and the ILPDC is required by I.R.S. policy and regulation to respond to a records request.  

The “papers” didn’t arrive but instead an email on December 4th from Paulette advising that she “…sent a request to our attorney and they will send you the supplemental documents you requested.” 

Curious perhaps, but this isn’t a matter that requires an attorney, only the I.R.S. requirements for 501(c)3 organizations to provide publicly available documents within the required timeframe.

The Florida attorney, David A. Frankel responded cordially and by December 20th all the requested documents were received. 

In the meantime, it would appear that Leonard Peltier, convicted for the brutal murders of two already wounded human beings, and serving consecutive life sentences for those heinous crimes, has in fact received 501(c)3 status from the Internal Revenue Service.

To be continued.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Footnotes:
1) From:Ed Woods
Subject: ILPDC 501(c)3 Document Request
Date: October 31, 2018 at 9:16:30 AM EDT
To: clark peter ILPDC

Dear ILPDC:

IRS regulations require disclosure of 501(c)3 documentation as excerpted below from IRS.gov.

Please provide a .pdf copy of the ILPDC’s application (IRS form 1023) for the ILPDC’s 501(c)3 status.

Thank you in advance for providing a publicly available and required document.

“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

What does the disclosure law require a tax-exempt organization to do?
An exempt organization must provide a copy of covered tax documents to an individual who makes a written or in person request at the organization’s principal office. If the organization regularly maintains any regional or district offices having three or more employees, it must also respond to request submitted to any such office. Covered tax documents include, in general, the organization’s application for tax-exempt status and its annual returns for a period of three years beginning on the date the return is required to be filed. If the request is made in person, it must generally be honored on the day of the request; if it is written, then the organization generally has 30 days to respond. (November 30, 2018) (A request that is faxed, e-mailed or sent by private courier is considered a written request.) (Emphasis and date added)

The organization may want to charge reasonable copying costs and the actual cost of postage before providing the copies. The law permits this.  But the organization must provide timely notice of the approximate cost and acceptable form of payment within seven days of receipt of the request(November 7, 2018) Acceptable forms of payment must include cash and money order (for an in-person request) and certified check, money order and personal check or credit card, for a written request. (Emphasis and date added)

What does the IRS consider to be a reasonable charge for copying costs, which an exempt organization may charge for copies of tax documents covered by public disclosure requirements?
A tax-exempt organization may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies, which is generally defined as the amount charged by the IRS for providing copies. Under regulations, the IRS may not charge more for copies than the fees listed in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee schedule.  Although the FOIA fee schedule directs the IRS to provide the first 100 pages free to non-commercial users, the regulations allow the exempt organization to charge a fee for all copies. The FOIA schedule currently provides a charge of $.20 per page. (Emphasis added)
An organization may require payment before it provides copies, but must advise requesters of the total cost of the copies requested if adequate payment is not included with the request. The organization may also charge the actual postage costs it incurred to mail copies to the requester. (Emphasis added)

2) Email, November 22, 2018:

Paulette:  

I will not wish you a Happy Thanksgiving because I understand and appreciate that this is not a day for celebration by Native Americans. 

Thank you for the 1023 Application Form, however there are more documents and information associated with the 501(c)3 application that are part of the public records and request process for tax exempt organizations. Several sections that are marked “yes” require further details and explanations and are an integral element of the 501(c)3 application and are required for public inspection. 

Please provide copies (scanned and emailed would be acceptable and preferred) for the following application references:

1) Part II, 5: A copy of the Florida filed corporate by-laws.

2) Part III, 1: Location and purpose clause; "Article II Purpose." (Assuming this may be satisfied with the copy of the By-Laws, above.)

3) Part IV: Narrative Description of Your Activities: From form 1023; “…Using an attachment….it will be open for public inspection. Therefore, your narrative description of activities should be thorough and accurate.”      Please provide this narrative as provided with the 1023 application.

4) Part V, 2b: This question was answered “Yes.” According to the Form, “If ‘Yes’ identify the individuals and describe the business relationship with each of your officers, directors, or trustees.” Please provide the answer to this question as provided with the 1023 Form.

5) Part VI, 1a: This question was answered “yes.” Please provide details related to “past, present, and planned activities,” and, “describe each program that provides goods, services, or funds to individuals” as provided with the 1023 application. 

6) Part VIII, 10: The answer to this question was “yes.” “If ‘Yes', explain. Describe who owns or will own any copyrights, patents, or trademarks, whether fees are or will be charged, how the fees are determined, and how any items are or will be produced, distributed, and marketed.” 
Please provide the answer to this question as provided with the 1023 Form.

7) Part VIII, 11: The answer to this question was “yes” and the form stated, “If ‘Yes,’ describe each type of contribution, any conditions imposed by the donor on the contribution, and any agreements with the donor regarding the contribution.” Please provide the answer to this question as provided with the 1023 Form. 

8) Part VIII, 22: The answer to this question was “yes,” and “If 'Yes,' complete Schedule H.” Please provide a copy of the Schedule H details provided with this 1023 application form.

9) Schedule G, 2a: The answer to this question was “yes.” Schedule G states, “If ‘yes’ explain the relationship with the other organization that resulted in your creation.” Please provide the answer to this question as provided on the 1023 Form. 

10) Paulette, you signed the application as the Co-Executive Director yet are not listed in Part V of Officers, Directors or Trustees. Was this missed while scanning the document?

Thank you.

Regards,
“In the Spirit of Coler and Williams”
Ed

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

PELTIER: UPDATE

Dear Supporters:

Things have been fairly quiet on the Peltier front. No major recent announcements from the "Committee" except for one item that will be addressed in time.

For all, the best for a safe and blessed holiday season and good health and happiness for the New Year.

"In the Spirit of Coler and Williams"
Ed


Sunday, October 14, 2018

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 8thCircuit 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 10th 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 evidencetaken 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 43rdyear 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:
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.”(8thCircuit; 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)
4) Peltier ‘shot’ and transfer:
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.
8) From participating…http://wwwnoparolepeltiercom-justice.blogspot.com/2017/01/peltier-another-admission.htmlSee this blog for a full explanation. 

Thursday, October 4, 2018

PELTIER: COMPASSIONATE RELEASE? PART 1

Dear Supporters:

In recent years Leonard Peltier and his “committee” (it’s difficult to know what to call it because they keep altering the name) has moaned about seeking a compassionate release mainly due to his age—74—and health issues relating to recent bypass surgery, prostate issues and arthritis in his hips and knees.

In simple terms, Peltier is getting old and facing the normal aging process that all of us—to one extent or another—will undeniably face, until the end.

Compassionate release: 

The relevant statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4205(g) was repealed in 1987 but remains the controlling law for inmates whose offenses occurred prior to that time. Peltier was convicted of brutally murdering two FBI Agents in 1975 and this is the standard he must meet. (Footnote 1)

As an inmate, Peltier may make the request personally to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), through the Warden, USP Coleman, or through “another person.” Peltier may use his most recent attorney, David Frankel. 

On March 19, 2018 Peltier announced that he was awaiting his BOP medical records and if not received would be filing “a motion on April 4thto get the records,” all for the purpose of a Reduction in Sentence(RIS). (If filed, this motion may be a matter of public record in the U.S. District Court and subject to review and comment.) 

Peltier must articulate the extraordinaryor compelling circumstances that warrant RIS consideration.

Peltier would have to provide proposed release plans including where he will reside (that’s been pretty well established, or claimed previously, to be on the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota), how he will support himself (perhaps more “tax-deductible” donations, selling more artwork or perhaps speaking fees), and since the request will involve Peltier’s health, how and where he will receive medical treatment and pay for that treatment. (Perhaps from an AIM sympathetic doctor or Medicaid, for which he would be eligible, even as a convicted felon.)

Peltier could be given RIS consideration if he has been diagnosed with a terminal, incurable disease and his life expectancy is eighteen (18) months or less. It is possible that Peltier may have a terminal and incurable condition, in a manner of speaking, but not one that would limit his life expectancy to eighteen months or less. Its possible Peltier could live another ten or twenty years, in or out of USP Coleman.

If Peltier had a debilitating medical condition that is incurable and progressive and from which he will not recover, a RIS could be considered if he is completely disabled, meaning he cannot continue any self-care and is totally confined to a bed or chair, or confined to a bed or chair for more than 50% of his waking hours.

Remember though, the infamous Mafia Don, John Gotti, while serving a life sentence was diagnosed with throat cancer, underwent surgery, but died in 2002 in a federal prison hospital facility in Springfield, Missouri.

Peltier has complained about not being able to get around like he used to, but according to him and the “committee” he’s doing quite well with his ability to continue his prison artwork. By this measure, he is not disabled or debilitated. Although sitting and painting is not a strenuous activity, it does require fine motor skills and cognitive focusing on details. 

If Peltier demonstrated any cognitive deficits, like Alzheimer’s or traumatic brain injury, he could be considered for a RIS. 

Nevertheless, Peltier is lucid, vocal and sometimes articulate in his repeated claims of innocence and being an alleged political prisoner. Although his facts have been challenged in the public domain, he has demonstrated fairly reasonable intellectual skills, both in his press releases and interviews. 

However, there are major obstacles Peltier must navigate for any consideration of a compassionate release:

Nature and circumstances of his offense: Contrary to Peltier’s claims, there are no secrets here. His conviction has arguably received more critical attention and reviews than inmates on death row. (Fn.2)

To list but just a few from the many appellate decisions:

“The direct and circumstantial evidence of Peltier’s guilt was strong…” “…Peltier’s contention of manufactured evidence are far from convincing.” 
[Direct Appeal; 8th Circuit, 9/14/78] 

The record as a whole leaves no doubt that the jury acceptedthe government’s theory that Peltier had personally killed the two agents, after they were seriously wounded, by shooting them at point blank range with an AR-15 rifle.” [Rule 35 Motion, 8th Circuit, 12/18/02]

“I believe he got a fair trial, not a perfect trial, but a fair trial.” [8th Circuit Court Judge Gerald Heaney; 1991, “60 Minutes” segment]

Criminal history: Although petty in the early days, being convicted of the brutal slaying of two already wounded FBI Agents (by Peltier and other AIM members) trapped in a crossfire in an open field is just about all the criminal history the Warden at USP Coleman or the BOP need consider. Although, there was the armed escape from Lompoc—where guards were shot at—and for which Peltier still owes an additional seven consecutive years. 

The victims: Jack Coler’s widow, his children who may have little or no remembrance of their father, his grandchildren, along with Ron Williams who would likely have married, had children and perhaps grandchildren, would all have much to offer regarding the trauma and suffering they have endured over these many years. Add to that Jack and Ron’s many friends and fellow Agents who have never forgotten Peltier’s criminal acts nor his unrepentant public statements that have only worsened the pain they feel.

Institutional adjustment & Disciplinary infractions: Not the best inmate track record here. By Peltier’s own admission, in his latest clemency petition, he acknowledged spending over five years in solitary confinement. 

Personal history from the Pre-sentence Report: This is not a public record so only Peltier and his attorneys know what it may contain.

The length of sentence and amount of time served. This factor is considered with respect to the proximity to a release date

There is no release date. Peltier was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences but has claimed, Under the laws I was indicted with, a life term was seven years.” (November 2015)

That’s an example of the Peltier Paradox at work; it sounds reasonable. Two consecutive life sentences would then equal fourteen years, and he’s done that almost three times. The math seems right but the premise is fatally flawed. (Fn.3)

Peltier has been challenged to produce any evidence that a life sentence in 1977, when he was convicted in Fargo, was seven years. Life sentences were typically, on average—when an inmate would be eligiblefor parole—twenty-five years. So on that basis, that’s fifty plus seven (Lompoc) or sometime in 2034.

Peltier’s current age: 74, Date of Birth, September 14, 1944.

Peltier’s age at time of sentencing: 33

Would Peltier’s release minimize the severity of the offense?  Being released before the completion of his sentence, after being convicted of the brutal slaying of two already severely wounded human beings, woulddiminish the severity of the offense, especially if it is based on the simple fact that Peltier is getting long in the tooth.

When reviewing RIS requests, these factors are neither exclusivenor weighted. These factors should be considered to assess whether the RIS request presents particularly extraordinaryand compellingcircumstances:

On June 26, 1975 Peltier was a strong and healthy individual, his position as an AIM bodyguard can attest to that and there is nothing extraordinaryor compellingregarding facing the predictable challenges of the aging process. Around him today there are, no doubt, elderly inmates and lifers who are experiencing similar issues.

 The BOP will consider whether Peltier’s release would pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community: Although Peltier is elderly he is still capable of inflicting injury if he so intended. The BOP would have to determine, based on his criminal history and conduct as an inmate whether Peltier still poses a threat. Peltier detractors and the victims’ families would doubtless concur that he could still pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.

Peltier does notmeet the general criteria for “elderly inmates with medical conditions,” or the intentof the RIS process. For example: 

Peltier is over 65, has served over ten years of his sentence, has arguably served at least 50% of his sentence, but not 75%, and did not exhibit these health related issues when he was sentenced. Peltier does exhibit medical conditions related to the aging process but not to the extent that deteriorating mental or physical health would substantially diminishhis ability to function in a correctional facility. Nonetheless, Peltier has had many years adjusting to his surroundings. Conventional treatments of his conditions, albeit not at the speed or frequency that Peltier demands, would not limit either sustaining him or an improvement of his conditions. After all, he did have bypass surgery when it was needed as well as other medical procedures over the years. Prison medical care may not be as focused or intensive as, let’s say, Johns Hopkins, but it is provided to the prison population under long-established BOP guidelines. 

            It was not surprising that within the RIS guidelines there was no requirement for an admission of guilt or a show of remorse for his crimes. That’s because this relates to other issues beyond—although certainly considered in the RIS process—his actual conviction. Likewise, this is not about the four decades of myth and folklore that has been the bedrock of the Peltier persona. 

As an aside, although permitted to exercise his first amendment right to do so, many people would find it to be patently offensive—bordering on the obscene—should Peltier be released and make money by giving speeches about that infamous day. This would be viewed as Peltier profiting from the brutal murders of the Agents and would be offensive to hundreds of thousands of those in law enforcement. 

And what can we say about Jack Coler and Ron Williams? 

Peltier laments his expected age-related infirmities but there would be little debate, that if, let’s say on June 25, 1975—the day before—Jack and Ron were asked if they would prefer to be severely wounded and then shot in the face and murdered the very next day.  Given the option they unquestionably would have been willing to face heart, prostate or arthritis issues as they would now, today, be 71 years of age. Would they have agreed to not have a full life with their families, children and grandchildren, being able to look back on successful careers and a happy and peaceful retirement? The obvious answer does not need to be stated. 

Leonard Peltier, under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4205(g), as he may seek a Reduction of Sentence, should be shown as much compassion as he gave Jack Coler and Ron Williams. And that would be none.

“In the Sprit of Coler and Williams”
Ed Woods

Footnotes
1) Federal rules for compassionate release:
Direct appeal for conviction:http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html
2) Peltier complains about government documents that have not been released under the Freedom of Information Act and has received additional material this year. There is absolute certainty that there is not a memo stating that Peltier is innocent or was in Seattle or someplace else other than Jumping Bull that infamous day. The record of his conviction has been repeatedly sustained despite the collective efforts of a gaggleof attorneys. 
3) On the related matter of “fatally flawed:” http://www.noparolepeltier.com/997.html