The Leonard Peltier Concert - A Celebration of Evil

Driving home from a recent family vacation, I was alerted to the dashboard GPS, chirping away with a time-saving and toll-avoiding reroute. I immediately turned west, onto County Road 470, and headed across the sprawling swamplands of Florida gator country. There, to my surprise, conveniently located next door to the American Cement Company, Federal Penitentiary Coleman loomed in the distance, the home of convicted “cop-killer” Leonard Peltier.

Leonard Peltier, apprehended in 1976, recaptured in 1979

As I thought about the family time we had enjoyed, riding roller coasters and running on soccer fields, I was reminded of what Peltier took from the families of Jack Coler and Ron Williams; they will never have time with their loved ones; they will never see their children grow up, admire their sons’ career achievements, give their daughters away at the altar, celebrate anniversaries, or grow old with memories of thrill rides with their kids. That was all taken from them by the man who now lives and breathes at FP Coleman, a goofus-turned-activist who, even after 37 years behind bars, shows no remorse for his crimes. It has been all to his own demise. Inmate Peltier has created a private hell for himself, shunning the prospect of parole in favor of hollow fame. Spiritually and physically, he has nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, as trapped in his mind as he is in his cell, the ultimate straitjacket. Peltier’s supporters have helped him put it on. Known for issuing pronouncements parole boards find incriminating and disrespectful of the rule of law, his enablers merely encourage his intransigence and sociopathic claims of victimhood. Leonard, as they are quick to add when beginning their story of bravery, is one-quarter Native, and therefore, beyond reproach. (They have no idea that the other three quarters might be “hoodlum.”) Peltier’s diehards are tone deaf to the reality that parole boards do not generally view inmates who flout the law and make a mockery of justice as deserving of freedom, Native or not.

Peltier’s only relief comes from the false joy of bogus attributes and decrepit marketability as a Native American hero and, cough, a “human rights activist.” Borrowing a page from Native history, rife with examples of government swindles, broken treaties, and money wasted on bureaucrats, Peltier has learned how to stick it to his Indian brethren, diverting millions that could have alleviated genuine Indian hardship on the reservations to his defense fund scam. Not surprisingly, his handlers refuse to open their books and show where the money went, something that even a rabid supporter should find troubling. Rumor has it that much of the cash was doled out to “Friends of Peltier” and frivolous filings in a losing battle with the courts. For the record, Peltier’s appeals have been heard, analyzed, and disposed of in several published USDC decisions in two separate circuits. His legal arguments have been repeatedly and unanimously deemed “flawed.” In short, he is trounced every time his lawyers open their mouths.

Over the years, Peltier has also learned how to recruit low-information celebrities (Pamela Anderson comes to mind) and politicians who become part of the scam—-they learn to carry his water with buzz-words and phrases, spoken or sung on command. It should be noted that not all celebrities are mindless shills. Bono of U2 wisely distanced himself from Peltier’s lies after initially expressing support. The title track from the “How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb” album, “Vertigo,” started out as “Native Sun,” a tribute to the Indian who claimed he was railroaded into prison. Bono sensed that something was not quite right, and the official version of the tune carries no reference to Peltier. Hence, the final cut resonates and rocks with a lot more honesty than anything twanged by the few musicians who wail about injustices that befall convicted, remorseless cop-killers.

Defenders of truth, therefore, should take heart; Peltier’s popularity withers with each passing year as his most notable fans, entertainers, become almost as irrelevant. They are, today, fewer in number, less credible, and are mostly ignored. Every now and then, a few of them congregate in tired celebration of Peltier’s "accomplishments," endorsed with phony awards and accolades from duped celebrities and organizations that claim to faithfully advance Native American interests. Just a few weeks ago, I witnessed such a gathering at the Beacon Theater in New York City, at a musical tribute to the unrepentant killer himself, led by the enduring if not endearing Jackson Browne of 70’s fame. There is reminiscent fondness for Browne, still regarded as an able musician, if not an able murder investigator; celebrity comes with the freedom of public embarrassment with no lasting repercussion. When you’re famous, you can afford to be ignorant; your fans will still love you. That is one of the reasons the other celebrities in attendance, actors Danny Glover and Peter Coyote, that famous paragon of wisdom, Harry Belefonte, and the Doonesburyish character, Michael Moore, took to the stage with silly incantations and stupid human tricks. They were joined by Pete Seeger, Hurricane Carter, rapper Common, and a few other aging hangers-on and wided-eyed young recruits. Although such humanity should never be taken seriously, there comes a point where evil incarnate should not go unchallenged, even when packaged as feel-good charity. So I decided to challenge it.

With the intent to inform the uninformed, educate the uneducated, and expose the eminently exposable, I and a volunteer dove into the snake pit of stupidity. We went in under the radar, posing as sycophantic clones bearing gifts. Our purpose was not to agitate, but to enlighten. We wanted to get people to think, to reason, to help them spot a fake who takes advantage of their good graces. Thinking is an activity sorely missing from the conversation, ever since Peter Matthiessen’s naivete launched a cottage industry of dog-whistled, bleeding souls, transforming cold-blooded murder into an activity of worldwide acclaim and Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

Under the marquee, with the help of my young assistant, we offered truthful information to all passersby, under the assumption that the truth still matters. Our handouts, titled truthfully enough, “Freedom for Leonard Peltier,” were sealed with a yellow sticker, symbolic of the great pretender’s cowardice. Our idea seemed to take off. We watched as our three-column missives sailed into the Beacon. We asked a young performer if she might deliver some to the stage; she said she would. We can imagine the entertaining outcome: “Uh, Mr. Glover, here’s something you might find interesting…. Mr. Browne, here’s one for you.” No one suspected or asked who I was, although one attendee broke the seal and read… and read. He stared and stared with an expression that morphed from curiosity to consternation, to bewilderment. He never said a word. This is what happens when a Peltierite is inoculated with facts; the initial twinge of discomfort subsides as rational thought flows through the brain. We dispensed dozens of truth-lets, and a pile landed on the front seat of the colorfully painted Oglala Sioux bus, parked just outside the theater. That undoubtedly made for a very long ride back to Pine Ridge. Our night of reverse indoctrination went off without a hitch as ticket buyers gladly accepted our free event “brochure.” Even the usually foul-mouthed and oafish Silent Bear (real name Mark Holtzman, no Indian blood), the self-appointed chief of security, had the good sense to walk right by us, more likely, agog with the chance to appear on a real stage with real performers; having special access from the Beacon hotel was a rare treat for somebody who is used to being shown the door.

The handouts, mind you, were entirely factual and relevant, but with a twist: we simply restated what other people have said and done, ostensibly on Peltier’s behalf. This seemed like a simple yet powerful way to remove the blinders, especially since their words and deeds have done nothing but destroy Peltier’s chances for freedom. One by one, I listed these people, and recalled what they said and did, and how they have merely encouraged Peltier to carry on his grand deception, and thereby guarantee his life-long incarceration. With a little help from his friends, Leonard’s next appearance at a starless parole board won't be until 2024, the year he turns 80 years-old. It is not so far-fetched an idea that with each strum of Browne’s guitar in a song about his favorite convict, another day is added to his sentence. Convicted killers are allowed just so many bites at the apple, and then, it seems, they throw away the key. The people who have the actual authority to grant freedom for Leonard Peltier, the courts, the parole boards, the government prosecutors, are not singing. They are immune to the kool-aide by virtue of the facts, as best they can determine them, and a sense of duty, to protect the public from an unrepentant offender who said he would do it again if given the chance. And they’re wise to Peltier’s sob story about being the victim; unlike Holtzman, they don’t like being played for fools.

As I watched the blissfully unaware patrons file into the old landmark on Broadway, I sort of understood why the facts are frequently pushed aside. The myths are easy to digest when they fit one’s political template and validate one’s doctrinaire beliefs. Popular culture accounts for much of the illiteracy. The lies of Matthiessen’s, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, the related inventions of Robert Redford’s film, "Incident at Oglala," and the fraudulent reporting from the likes of Peter Worthington (Toronto Sun) have all contributed to the resilience of what may be the greatest fraud perpetrated against Indian Country in the last 40 years. True, most Peltier admirers are whites and wannabes, but the damage his falsified legacy has brought to Native history is incalculable. Hollywood’s well known saddle-bag of dysfunction honoring criminals pales in comparison to the contamination Peltier's rot-gut history has brought to the annals of the Native American Experience. No sinister government program could be as cleverly fiendish, undermining and perverting the legacy of authentic Indian warriors with the fibs of a chubby faker whose only real warrior skill is not missing from close range.

They called it the “Bring Leonard Peltier Home Concert” and of course it did no such thing. Like Peltier’s claimed achievements, it was so much hot air, set to music. When promoting a fantasy, the show is all that matters. This was just the latest publicized celebration of Peltier’s evil, complete with bogus intonations of bravery. While the Jackson Brownes of the world strum away, oblivious to the legal history of the murders, fellow activists fall in line; they all have a role to play. Peter Coyote later sits with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, reciting lie after lie in the old story of an aw-shucks “Injun” who just wants to go home. Harry Belefonte, we learn, was rapper Common’s font of wisdom for the night. (Does anyone really believe that facilitated Common's common sense?) And Amy Goodman scores an “exclusive” interview with the famous, shameless inmate, during which she raises not one question about his changing stories or incredible alibis, proving once again that Goodman and her organization are in the day-to-day business of political obfuscation, with no real interest in truthful reporting.

Back at the Beacon, far removed from the minds of the happy attendees, the reality of two young men, cut down in the prime of their lives, their faces shattered, left unrecognizable by point-blank fire, is all but forgotten. Of no consequence, that the courts determined only three men were physically present at the murder scene, within a narrow window of opportunity, and that one of them bragged about committing the murders, the same shooter seen running from the FBI cars carrying the murder weapon, and the same volatile fugitive who aspired to be Dennis Banks’ bodyguard. Of no concern to the theater dwellers, the evidence that shows the relatively inexperienced lawmen were virtually ambushed on the afternoon of June 26, 1975, caught exposed in an open meadow when Peltier opened fire. And how odd is it that a thug’s most dedicated fans appear oblivious to his own admissions, about taking up a firing position behind an old elm tree, where over a hundred shell casings were found, each one matching his assault rifle, as well the single casing left behind in the madness, or his pulled-teeth confession to CNN’s Mark Potter that he did in fact approach the wounded and disarmed lawmen at the critical moment (which explains why one of the casings was found in agent Coler's bureau car). Or the big one, Peltier’s sworn excuse that a mysterious Mr. X was the executioner, a whopper that even Mike Kuzma, Peltier’s lawyer, has blown out of the water. Then there's Peltier's boast about shooting Ron Williams as he sat pleading for his life, bellowed in Anna Mae Aquash's presence, evidently giving Banks another reason to get rid of her.

Peltier’s role in the murder of a fellow American Indian Movement (AIM) member is never, ever, ever mentioned at his freedom rallies. In the summer of ’75, Anna Mae survived Leonard’s gun-in-the-mouth interrogation, only to undergo several more. A few months later, she was sentenced to death by Leonard’s boss, AIM founder Banks, another Indian “hero” regaled by ignorant liberals. Banks convinced himself that Anna Mae worked for the same organization looking for Peltier at the time, the FBI. What Banks and several AIM members never realized is that Anna Mae was far more loyal to the Movement then any of the AIM members who conspired against her; she was never an informant. As it turned out, they were the real traitors to the cause, and still are.

Peltier fans evidently believe that he was the only AIM member of the inner circle not involved in murder and mayhem in the 1970s. He was, they gush, one of Anna Mae's good friends, even though Peltier himself admits crossing the border from his Canadian hideout to the US where he reportedly made contact with Banks. This was the period, November to December, 1975, when Banks presided over Anna Mae’s death sentence and subsequent cover-up. We are supposed to believe that the virtuous Mexican-looking part-Indian lug who followed Banks’ every command knew nothing, heard nothing. Not that it matters to the “peace and freedom” crowd, but Anna Mae was also shot in the head at point-blank range. Her executioners, AIM lieutenants at the time, have joined Peltier behind bars.

Since freedom is something Peltier will never experience, absent clemency (“not gonna happen” I’m told), another name seems appropriate for that special night of staged perversion. How about the “Running On Empty Concert”? Too obvious. The “Dying Legends Concert’? Too close to home. What about, the “Concert for Kuzma”? Yes, that seems to hit the mark. We saw him entering the theater, late, with a you-know-what-kind of grin on his face. No wonder--inmate Peltier’s lawyer, it appears, might be finally reimbursed for billable hours. Kuzma had to be the happiest guy in the crowd; the gas receipts alone could be substantial. Unbeknownst to the show-goers, Kuzma could pocket some of the proceeds, estimated at around $20,000 in blood money. Surely, Kuzma knows or least suspects that his client is guilty as hell. Perhaps ingratiating himself with the Buffalo Chapter of Far Left Loons sufficiently soothes his troubled conscience. Kuzma was one of the stars of our brochure. Here it is, along with, ahem, a link to a very informative web site!

Leonard Peltier, winner of several human rights awards, was convicted in 1977 of aiding and abetting the murders of FBI agents Ron Williams and Jack Coler. Co-defendants Robert Robideau and Dean Butler, tried separately, were found innocent by reason of self-defense. Since Leonard’s conviction, questions persist as to the fairness of his trial and whether or not Leonard received competent legal counsel. There’s also the matter of Leonard’s closest supporters–-have they really acted in his best interest, or have they put up barriers to parole? Consider:

Robert Robideau: Forced Leonard into admitting that he approached the wounded agents during the critical moment. (1999 CNN interview)

Dean Butler: Destroyed Leonard’s only alibi, Mr. X, claiming it was a made-up story.

Mike Kuzma: Leonard’s attorney says the Mr. X story was concocted and states that President Obama (Leonard’s best chance for Executive Clemency) is a “big disappointment.” Kuzma has also said former counsel Eric Seitz was “ill-prepared” to represent Leonard at his most recent parole hearing and that presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton “in no way” will help Leonard gain his freedom.

Bruce Ellison: Former legal counsel and named co-conspirator in the 1975 murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, thus raising questions about conflicts of interest in representing Leonard. Both Leonard and Ellison have been accused of interrogating Anna Mae, after which American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders ordered her execution.

Peter Matthiessen: Former member of the CIA, authored many falsified, defamatory, and incriminating statements in his book, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, such as placing Leonard at the crime scene during the critical moment by quoting him: “I seen Joe when he pulled [Coler’s FBI jacket] out of the [FBI car] trunk and put it on, and he gave me a smile.”

Ramsey Clark: Privately admitted that he believes Leonard is guilty but defended him by saying that this is how the game is played, adding, “…you know how it is.”

Judge Gerald Heaney: Although supportive of Leonard’s legal battle, repeatedly upheld his conviction (thus ensuring Leonard would need to qualify for parole), affirmed the ballistics evidence, and authored opinions in support of findings such as: “The two witnesses testified outside the presence of the jury that after their testimony at trial, they had been threatened by Peltier himself that if they did not return to court and testify that their earlier testimony had been induced by F.B.I. threats, their lives would be in danger.”

Robert Redford: Prominently featured the Mr. X story in his documentary, "Incident at Oglala," and relies on Ellison’s questionable tactics as a legitimate legal defense, has been called “a great entertainer, but a terrible murder investigator.”

Dennis Banks: Although organizing events on Leonard’s behalf, refuses to admit that it was he, not Leonard, who fired on the Oregon State patrolman in November 1975 during an attempted arrest. Banks, implicated in the murder of Anna Mae, has remained silent on Leonard’s alleged involvement in her murder.

Bill Means: Questionable alliances and motives, implicated in the murder of Anna Mae Aquash by his brother, Russell Means, who said on camera, “Vernon Bellecourt made the phone call to the house on Rosebud, which... is my brother’s house… and Clyde Bellecourt took the call from Vernon and then issued the order for her death, her murder.”

In short, Leonard has received poor legal advice, support, and counsel from many who have ulterior motives and conflicts of interest. Actions supposedly meant to help Leonard gain his freedom have only succeeded in guaranteeing his life-long incarceration. Why is that? Why have they allowed Leonard to languish in prison for crimes they say he was not involved in, and yet fail to speak up for him when it does not serve their own legal and personal interests? If parole is the only option, why do they continually destroy its chances for success? Perhaps Leonard’s friends are not as interested in securing his freedom as they claim. From the DOJ policy statement on parole: “…the U.S. Parole Commission may grant parole if (a) the inmate has substantially observed the rules of the institution; (b) release would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for the law; and (c) release would not jeopardize the public welfare.”

Successive parole boards have found that parole for Leonard would potentially violate all three conditions. For more information, see whoareleonardsfriends.com.





americanindianmafia.com
outskirtspress.com/americanindianmafia

-->

View From the Inside: The Anna Mae Aquash Trial or Candy, Anyone?

Earlier this month, the unraveling continued in the Pennington County Courthouse concerning the AIM-led cabal that condemned Anna Mae Pictou Aquash to death in 1975. Before he seated the jury, Judge Jack Delaney opened with the words, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to begin this trial. It will proceed in this manner.” The judge spelled out how he expected us, the spectators and the families, to behave, and the strict prohibition against the mere possession of an electronic device. So much for the cell phone; I would have to run to the car if I needed it, then rush back so I wouldn’t lose my seat. For the third time since 2004, I had a close-up view of justice in this long overdue murder case, of feeling the emotional ups and downs, and of hearing guilty people lie in the continuing saga of conspiracy on display.

After 35 years, the man accused of actually pulling the trigger of the gun placed to the back of Anna Mae’s head was sitting a few feet away from me, on the other side of the courtroom railing. Defendant John Boy Graham appeared confident that his lawyer, John Murphy, would lay the ground work for a successful defense. In his opening statement, Murphy told the jury that there was “no evidence linking my client to the crime.” But over the course of the seven-day trial, the jury would hear plenty of evidence linking his client to the crime. Really, all the prosecution had to do was let the jury hear about Anna Mae’s final hours, and how John Boy, in the wee hours of December 12, 1975, allegedly shot Anna Mae in the head before pushing her over a 30-foot cliff near Wanblee, South Dakota. Graham faced two counts of aiding and abetting the murder; one as the result of kidnapping Anna Mae and the other as an accessory to pre-meditated murder.

Much of the testimony was rehash from the Arlo Looking Cloud trial of February 2004 and Richard Marshall’s trial of April, 2010. In fact, both men took the stand. It appeared Arlo told the truth and Richard committed perjury, presumably on the advice of counsel, about the murder weapon Marshall says he did not provide. Arlo testified that he was standing a few feet away when Graham pulled the trigger. Following the obligatory testimony from federal investigators concerning the crime scene, former AIM members told how they learned what happened to Anna Mae. Many of them, armed with coached testimony, walked a fine line between implicating others and implicating themselves.

Troy Lynn Yellow Wood, for example, forgot to mention that she provided the rope used to tie Anna Mae’s hands. She recalled, however, as did several follow-on witnesses, that John Boy, Arlo and mother hen Theda Clarke marched Anna Mae out the rear of Troy Lynn’s Denver apartment not long after Corky Gonzalez drew his finger across his throat. A dozen or so onlookers watched as a young woman with her hands bound was led away and loaded into the back of Theda’s red Ford Pinto hatchback. Not one of them called the police, not then or later when they learned how Anna Mae died. Today, each of these witnesses will tell you that they were Anna Mae’s friend.

On the third day, Friday, Judge Delaney ruled that witness Ka-Mook Ecoffey, the former common-law wife of AIM founder Dennis Banks, would not be allowed to tell the jury what convicted killer Leonard Peltier told her and Anna Mae about his role in the murder of two FBI Agents. This undoubtedly came as a disappointment to the prosecution. In his opening statement, US Attorney Marty Jackley (deputized by the state of South Dakota), had said that Peltier admitted murdering FBI Agent Ron Williams. This was one of the reasons Anna Mae posed a threat to those who thought she was an informant; she knew too much. Peltier’s boast might have been the last straw for Anna Mae’s accusers; now they had to get rid of her. As Jackley put it, “She now had seriously incriminating evidence against Leonard Peltier.” Late on Friday, however, Judge Delaney reversed himself and informed the attorneys he would allow Ka-Mook to say the words she had already mentioned under oath at the first two trials: “The mother---er was begging for his life, but I shot him anyway.”

Over the weekend, I was invited to a book signing at the Prairie Edge bookstore and museum, and then to a short trip to the Crazy Horse memorial. There in the gift shop, we found two stacks of American Indian Mafia, prophetically surrounding Russell Means’ Where White Men Fear To Tread. Since Russ and his AIM buddies were nowhere to been seen during the trial, perhaps they are the ones who are fearful now. They should fear, for their freedom. Justice will have its say. On Sunday, I was invited to a predawn ceremony atop the cliff where Anna Mae was left to die. It was deadly cold, much like that night when, as Arlo says, Anna Mae was still moving at the bottom of the ravine. Justice must prevail.

People often ask why it took so long to begin indicting those responsible. Another way of asking the question might be: How did the AIM leaders and their lawyers keep the troops in line all these years? Well, for starters, as one the members later recalled, “No one ever crossed Russell or Dennis.” The agreed-upon story, first aired in Peter Matthiessen’s somewhat farcical, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, was that the FBI was behind the murder. Former AIM legal aid Candy Hamilton likes to tell this story. In fact, she carried that chum bucket into the courtroom.

On the witness stand, Candy crowed that the FBI and their Agent David Price, one of the investigators who worked on the case, were perhaps more likely suspects than say, Dennis Banks, Russell Means, Clyde Bellecourt, Dave Hill, Bill Means, Ted Means, Lorelie DeCora Means, Madonna Gilbert, Angie Begay, Tom Poor Bear, Charlie Abourezk, Ken Tilsen, or the Pinto trio who simply followed orders. This would be the same Candy Hamilton who had fairly frequent contact with several of those involved; the same Candy Hamilton who forgot to mention that she saw AIM attorney Bruce Ellison waving a piece of paper and claiming it was proof that Anna Mae was a traitor. And later, when it was obvious that Anna Mae had been murdered by Candy’s associates, she showed no interest in contacting law enforcement. Candy says she didn’t know who to trust. Seriously? Was Candy really suggesting that her AIM pals conspired with the people trying to solve the murder? Gosh, I guess everyone was against Anna Mae, except Candy of course.

For the most part, Candy’s story fell on deaf ears. At one time, the “FBI did it” theory had more legs. Today, after so many revelations of AIM complicity, the old saw has dulled. And as I put it to the Rapid City Journal, which gave Candy’s cackling a headline, the wheel of justice looks momentarily, then plows right through the nonsense. Hamilton’s story is still embraced by many of the people involved in the conspiracy, however. Along with a long list of complaints about his extradition from Canada, poor John Boy wanted it known that he also believed the FBI was somehow complicit in the murder he stood accused of committing. You see, Graham’s story was that he dropped Anna Mae off at a friend’s house, not off a cliff.

On the sixth day of the trial, the government rested its case. Now it was up to counselor Murphy to undo the damage from ten witnesses, each of whom had tied his client to the kidnapping and subsequent ride into the wilderness. The next morning, when Judge Delaney asked him if he was ready to call his first witness, Murphy responded, “Judge, the defense rests.” Graham’s defender was perhaps acknowledging that he had no earthly idea how to present evidence that would bolster his client’s story about an AIM safe house where supposedly Anna Mae was let go.

Graham’s supporters might have wondered why he himself didn’t take the stand. Graham would have presumably told the jury all about that house somewhere on the Pine Ridge reservation and how, after talking it over with Arlo and Theda, he emancipated Anna Mae. Poor girl must have run into some bad luck that night. Some safe house, huh? The jury never heard Graham’s description of the building that otherwise had no address, no physical description, no identifying characteristics, no owner, no chain of title, no utility bills, no tax receipts, no records of any kind. Maybe the reason Graham was kept off the stand is that he simply couldn’t remember where this house of safety was, who was living there, or if it had running water and a welcome mat.

No defense was supposedly no problem, but how to explain it to the ignorant masses? Once again, it was the Rapid City Journal to the rescue. Quoting an expert on such matters, attorney Robert Van Norman, the Journal explained that defense witnesses might not hold up too well on cross-examination, that is, if the defense had any witnesses worth calling. Perhaps Murphy thought better about putting AIM supporter and Graham defender David Seals on the stand, the one person who might have endorsed Graham’s safe house story. But then, on cross-examination, the prosecution would have had the chance to question Seals about his abduction by aliens, a story he also swears is true. Maybe Van Norman has a point.

For some of us in the courtroom, Graham’s fate was foretold by his victim, observed during Arlo’s rather damning testimony. It began with a knock on the courtroom back door. When the bailiff answered, there was no one there. A few moments later, the projector came on, casting a white beam on the wall. I was sitting a few feet away from it when this happened, and no one touched the darn thing. The prosecutors had been using it to show evidentiary photographs and perhaps now it was showing the light of truth. And then, in the middle of Arlo’s testimony, Judge Delaney’s landline phone began ringing, and he could not turn it off. Perhaps this was Anna Mae’s way of saying that the jury should believe Arlo. Apparently, they did.

After closing arguments on Thursday, the case went to the jury. The last thing the jury heard was state prosecutor Rod Oswald telling them that Graham’s safe house idea was just plain stupid. The end came in a few tension-filled moments. Late in the afternoon, after being hung on one of the charges, the jury came back with a 1 and 1; not guilty on the pre-meditation count, guilty on the kidnapping and accessory to murder. Either one was a fatal defeat for the defense, and for the others involved. By taking his client to state court, Murphy may have blundered, perhaps thinking he would have an easier time raising reasonable doubt under state statute. Graham will get life and fare worse than the parole-eligible Arlo Looking Cloud, convicted in 2004 of aiding and abetting the murder. Because, under state sentencing rules, Graham’s life sentence comes wrapped in a no-parole blanket. Graham will live the rest of his life behind bars, forever wondering if he should have cooperated with investigators.

Leonard Peltier likewise cannot be happy about the verdict, or about what was said of him. Witness Yellow Wood had offered that Anna Mae was first interrogated by Peltier some six months before her death. After he put a gun in Anna Mae’s mouth, Yellow Wood testified that Peltier laughed it off, saying that he wanted to “…hear it from the horse’s mouth.” With each new revelation, it becomes clearer that Peltier was in consultation with Dennis Banks over the fate of Anna Mae. And like Banks, Peltier has a problem answering a question, as posed by Anna Mae’s daughter, Denise: “I’m interested to know how Peltier knew my mother was dead in December when her unidentified body wasn’t found until February 24, and our family wasn’t informed that my mother was dead until March 5?” A very good question, given Peltier’s admissions:.

“I wasn’t running to Canada just to hide. I spend most of my time in the United States.”

“I think it was around that December when I heard that Anna Mae was dead. I was in that jail over there in Canada right around whenever they exposed who she really was and what she died from, but I believe I didn’t hear about it until December.”

And then there’s Peltier’s mistaken belief that the two young investigators he shot to death were looking for him:

“I can’t tell the system I was shooting at their police officers that were trying to arrest me…”

If Graham flips, perhaps he will clarify all the above. There were, after all, a lot of people involved in Anna Mae’s thoroughly pre-meditated murder. As Graham was quoted as saying when he was fighting extradition from his native Canada, “When everything comes out, I’ll have a lot of people to go with me.” Candy, anyone?.

Marshall Trial, Part II – Winners and Losers

It took the jury less than two hours to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to find Dick Marshall guilty of aiding and abetting the 1975 murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. Marshall stood accused of providing the never-recovered .38 special used to shoot the victim in the head, an increasingly difficult charge to prove once defense counselor Dana Hanna raised the possibility that any one of the three alleged killers, Theda, Arlo, or John Boy, could have been packing their own heat. Indeed, much of the testimony revolved around whether or not Dick and his then-wife, Cleo, took possession of the murder note, “Take care of the baggage.” Given the many shortcomings in this second courtroom attempt to bring justice to Anna Mae, the easily-confused jury might have been more convinced that the Marshalls kept note paper rather than guns, let alone the gun.

When the trial moved to the deliberation room on Thursday, it was clear that things were not going as well as hoped in a controversy that pitted one tribal clan against another. In a case where the word of one convicted killer, Arlo Looking Cloud, challenged the word of another convicted killer, Dick Marshall, identifying the good guy and the bad guy was admittedly problematic. The jury's body language said it all: they just weren’t getting it. Even if the facts had been presented in a meaningful and clear manner, it would have been an uphill battle to “prove it” to jury members who said they spend their free time watching CSI shows on TV.

For the casual observer, it seemed unfair that virtually all the evidence that would have made the case a slam-dunk was deemed prejudicial and was thrown out. Short of a major turnaround - a surprise witness or an effective closing statement, both equally unlikely - the odds were against the government overcoming the threshold of reasonable doubt and reasonable conclusions. Interminable cross examinations involving testimony having little or nothing to do with the case, and a strategy tied to a pile of hearsay evidence, all pointed to a hung jury as the best possible outcome.

From the start, government prosecutors had their hands tied, sort of like the victim’s, just before Arlo and John Boy Graham (to be tried in July) dragged her to a cliff near Wanblee, South Dakota and ended her life. Not only did the government need to show evidence that Dick and his ex-wife kept guns in their house, prosecutors needed to convert the only person convicted of aiding and abetting the murder, Arlo, into a credible star-witness. This was a hurdle made even higher by the sweeping evidence the jury was not allowed to hear. For openers, there was the unmentioned minor cache of weaponry taken from the Marshall household when Dick went on trial for the 1975 murder of Martin Montileaux. In fact, Dick was awaiting trial in that case when he briefly held Anna Mae against her will in his living room. The jury was not allowed to hear how Dick had put a gun to Montileaux’s neck, a few months earlier, and had pulled the trigger as AIM leader Russell Means stood by and watched. The jury was not allowed to hear how Dick later confessed to the crime, or about possible reasons Dick was bound to do Russell’s bidding as body guard and enforcer. How about first-hand evidence of the state of fear that still exists on the reservation should anyone publicly mention several AIM murders yet to be adjudicated, or even investigated?

Understandably, the jury had trouble believing Arlo’s testimony that he is not as afraid of prison gangs as he is of Russell’s people, and of what they might do to any one of hundreds of Arlo’s family members. The all-white jury had no concept of having approximately 500 relatives on the reservation, as Arlo truthfully testified, or the threat from those who may yet seek revenge from anyone testifying against an aging but still menacing AIM crime machine, with a long history of preying on reservation Indians.

Still, there were small signs of progress in the hunt for Anna Mae’s killers. One of the key government witnesses, journalist Serle Chapman, provided emotional and compelling testimony about how AIM lawyers Ken Tilsen and Bruce Ellison tried to con him into believing that anyone who viewed photographs of the victim could have easily recognized the face as Anna Mae’s. Eventually, Chapman saw through the ruse and demanded to see the photographs. This was when, as he recalled on the witness stand, Chapman sensed that not only were AIM lawyers misleading him, they were doing so to shield their own involvement in the murder conspiracy.

For over thirty years, Ellison has led efforts to cover up his questioning of Anna Mae as she sat tied up in his Rapid City office a few days before his friends conspired against her. In 2001, Ellison famously decried reservation murders, such as Anna Mae’s, in front of a UN Human Rights Commission in another farce where AIM lawyers alleged FBI involvement in AIM murders. Ellison’s claim that Anna Mae’s badly decomposed body was easily identifiable is also one of several planted stories passed on to Peter Matthiessen, author of the highly falsified yet critically acclaimed, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse. Matthiessen has been stuck defending a long series of lies designed to exonerate his book’s main subject, Leonard Peltier, another convicted AIM killer. In both the Anna Mae murder and the Peltier murders of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams, Matthiessen’s story attempts to implicate and blame the FBI in a vast conspiracy of shady characters and mining company executives. Today it seems almost comical that Matthiessen credits Ellison and Peltier for helping him write a book the media once described as “meticulously researched.”

Although Marshall got off, his trial revealed a bit more of the truth in a growing movement of outrage against AIM lawyers and a hoped-for backlash. Arlo’s testimony, you may recall, outed Rapid City counselor Charlie Abourezk for his role in the murder. Senator James Abourezk’s son rounds out the trifecta of legal expertise that still provides pro bono cover-up and explains why achieving justice for Anna Mae has been long in coming. As was the case in the razing of Wounded Knee village in 1973 and the legal defense that followed, when the lawyers are involved in the crime, it becomes that much more difficult to win the courtroom battle. The rules are designed to protect the innocent, not highlight guilty officers of the court who manipulate rules of evidence to help themselves avoid jail time.

Still, there is hope. Justice seekers look forward to future trials and the possibility of testimony regarding attorney Ken Tilsen, who says his office records from the period of Anna Mae’s interrogations and death have mysteriously disappeared, and who claims a mild stroke prevents him from remembering much else from those days. In a remarkable irony, Tilsen was recently given a lifetime achievement award by the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I am sure his family members are proud of his achievements in the area of “lifetime” accomplishments and defending people’s “civil liberties.” But I doubt Anna Mae’s daughter Denise, who spent much of the trial in tears, believes Tilsen is deserving of anything but swift justice with regard to her mother’s civil liberties.

Tales From the Courtroom: Arlo Takes the Fall, Once Again

It has been several years since I last entered the mahogany-lined courtroom on the third floor of the Federal Court Building in Rapid City, South Dakota. That trial, in February 2004, ended in door-opening justice. Despite a hazy murder timeline and a sometimes confused jury, Arlo Looking Cloud was found guilty of aiding and abetting the 1975 execution murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders mistakenly believed that Anna Mae was an FBI informant. Her punishment, allegedly sanctioned by AIM founder Dennis Banks, was death. Arlo’s conviction shed light on a murder conspiracy that involved at least 20 people, several of whom had testified in an effort to remove themselves from the line of fire. I remember seeing AIM leader Russell Means, sitting about four rows back on the right half of the courtroom. When Judge Piersol called for a recess, I watched a tall white man with a ponytail stand up and look around towards Russell. Figuring him for an Indian wannabe, I followed his eyes. He looked right at Russell, rolled his eyes and half-smiled as if to say, so far so good, pal. As it turned out, it was a good outcome for some, judging by the six-year lag in courtroom trials.

.

Now, in the year 2010, we’re back in the same courtroom with the same judge. Judge Piersol walks softly (and is sometimes difficult to hear) but carries a big gavel, as when he threatened to clear the courtroom if he hears another cell phone. One notable difference this time around: the big fish are nowhere to be found. However, the same AIM underlings are testifying, and once again demonstrating an acquired skill of prevarication under oath. And getting away with it quite nicely. There was Candy Hamilton, gaunt and stern-looking, staring intently, telling the same old story of being surrounded by Anna Mae’s killers but not having a clue as to what was about to happen. Same for Troy Lynn Yellow Wood, still unable to summon any remorse for hosting Anna Mae’s abduction party. And Cleo Gates, the ex-wife of the accused, Richard Vine Marshall, saying they never kept a gun in their house during the most violent period in AIM history. The defendant sits expressionless next to his baldheaded defender, Dana Hanna, who is ready to pounce on any perceived inequity shown towards his client. At issue is whether or not Marshall, Russell Means’s former bodyguard, provided the murder weapon used to shoot Anna Mae in the head at close range. Marshall had already served time and admitted guilt for doing one for Russ, a fact the jury was not supposed to hear. Marshall’s 1977 murder sentence was commuted after he admitted fatally shooting Martin Montileaux in a barroom bathroom in 1975, the same year the AIM leadership condemned Anna Mae. Rumor has it that Montileaux was threatening to go public with information about secret AIM murders dating back to the Wounded Knee takeover in 1973. Standing next to Marshall when he shot Montileaux in the neck was his boss, Russell Means. Tried separately, Means was found not guilty.

Unlike many victims from the 1970s, the legacy of AIM leaders getting away with it is alive and well. Even at the time of the first trial, we knew Arlo’s conviction would become a hollow victory if the others did not follow him. You see, he was supposed to take the fall for his AIM leaders and their lying enablers. So far, so good. As is usually the case when adjudicating AIM violence, the real culprits slip through their escape hatch, to the waiting arms of semi-ignorant supporters, political opportunists, and Hollywood Lefties.

So now we’re faced with a similar dilemma in the courtroom: a confused jury, several co-conspirators committing perjury, and another uncertain outcome. And to make matters worse for the prosecution, Arlo has now become their star witness. Worse because Arlo had to explain changes to his story, twists that have kept the jurors awake. One was Arlo’s justification for previously not mentioning the stop at the Marshall residence for fear of what Russell’s hit man might have done to Arlo’s many reservation relatives. It was not until 2008 that Arlo changed his story to include the stop in Allen, South Dakota, and the house where Cleo said her husband did not keep a gun of any description. Unfortunately, I think the jury buys it. If they only knew how poorly Arlo has been served by previous defense counsel, that is, until a conscientious attorney by the name of Barry Bachrach decided to help Arlo, rather than help him roll over. Bachrach used to be Leonard Peltier’s attorney, until he saw the light and was bothered by a conscience that would not let him represent an unrepentant killer who has bilked millions of dollars from well-intentioned supporters egged on by the media. (But that’s a whole’ nother story!) At least Arlo shows true remorse, although it is difficult for the jury to see. Bachrach hopes the judge will allow him to violate his attorney-client privilege so he can testify on behalf of his client. Somebody needs to resuscitate Arlo’s story and credibility, and it might as well be his own lawyer. The judge will announce his ruling on the matter first thing Monday morning, despite Hanna’s calling it “extremely irregular.” Hanna was calm compared to when he loudly objected to Arlo blurting out that Marshall was “Russell Means’s enforcer.” “Objection!” thundered Hannah. “I move for an immediate mistrial… this has poisoned any chance for a fair trial for my client.” It did not seem fair that Arlo was forbidden from explaining why he feared Dick Marshall and had left out the part about being in Dick’s bedroom on the night of the murder. That was when Dick was allegedly handed a note with the instructions, “take care of the baggage” a quote Cleo changed to “take care of the luggage” when she was under oath. Hanna protests that Arlo’s new version is simply an attempt to have his life sentence reduced. The judge ruled that the show must go on.

Arlo’s other alteration came as an even bigger shock. 2008 was also the first time he mentioned the name of the man who greeted him at the door at Bill Means’s house, the second-to-last stop on Anna Mae’s final ride into the wilderness. When Arlo needed to use the bathroom, he temporarily left his prisoner in the back of the Pinto hatchback. When Arlo knocked on Russell's brother's door, he says he was greeted by Charlie Abourezk, Russell’s other main AIM buddy at the time. Today, Charlie is known as a well-placed lawyer in Rapid City and the son of South Dakota’s former Senator, James Abourezk. Arlo wants the jury to believe that anyone powerful and closely associated with Russell Means could be viewed as a very serious threat. He might be right about that. For the fellow who I spied in the courtroom, the one who gave the nod to Russell in 2004, was the same man Arlo says he fears. And his name is Charlie Abourezk.

www.americanindianmafia.com

Expertclick.com keyword: Trimbach

Letter to Red Nation

Former FBI Agent in Charge Joseph H. Trimbach awaits a response from the group, Red Nation, following its decision to award Leonard Peltier their first ever humanitarian award. The Trimbachs would like Red Nation and its founder, Joanelle Romero, to explain how Peltier has, in the words of the group, "...helped focus world attention on government repression of Native resistance throughout the Americas." Here is the letter from Trimbach:

December 3, 2009

Joanelle Romero, Founder - Red Nation
9420 Reseda Blvd PMB 352
Northridge CA, 91324-2974

Dear Ms. Romero,

I was the FBI Agent in charge of South Dakota when, on June 26, 1975, Leonard Peltier gunned down two young Agents under my supervision. I have recently learned that your organization, Red Nation, has awarded Peltier your first annual humanitarian award. I can only surmise that your group is unaware of the facts of this double murder and Peltier’s continued efforts to deflect attention from his crimes by masquerading as an American Indian victim of persecution. My book, American Indian Mafia, sets the record straight regarding Peltier’s made-up persona as a political prisoner and exposes the true legacy of Peltier’s crime bosses, leaders of the American Indian Movement (AIM).

I was there that day, responding to the frantic radio calls from 27-year-old Ron Williams after he and his partner, 28-year-old Jack Coler, came under fire from shooters well outside the range of their service revolvers. Exposed in an open field, the men were caught virtually defenseless. Peltier, at the time a wanted fugitive, later admitted that he mistakenly believed the Agents were there to arrest him. The evidence shows that Peltier fired from a distance of over 200 yards from the cover of a large elm tree. At least a hundred shell casings matching Peltier’s assault rifle were found at the scene. Other shooters joined in, all aiming at Ron and Jack as they sought cover behind their vehicles. Over 125 bullet holes were found in their Bureau cars.

After both men were wounded, Peltier and two of his accomplices went down to the injured Agents and shot them both at point-blank range. We know this because of the evidence presented at Peltier's trial and because Peltier later bragged about shooting Ron Williams in the face as he sat pleading for his life. The autopsy report confirms that Ron died with his right hand raised in front of his face to ward off the blast from Peltier’s weapon. We learned about Peltier’s boast from testimony given at the 2004 trial of AIM member Arlo Looking Cloud, who was found guilty of murdering AIM activist Anna Mae Aquash. I attended that trial, where the former common-law wife of AIM founder Dennis Banks, Ka-Mook Nichols, recalled under oath how Peltier reenacted his crime with gestures and boasted, “The motherf—ker was begging for his life but I shot him anyway.”

Six months after the Agents’ murders, Peltier’s leaders ordered the execution-style murder of Aquash, the mother of two young girls, because they thought she was an FBI informant. She was never an informant. Once again, AIM thugs had acted on faulty assumptions. Looking Cloud and his accomplice dragged Anna Mae from a car, shot her in the head, and pushed her off a cliff. Peltier had earlier interrogated Anna Mae by putting a loaded gun in her mouth. He called this administering “truth serum.” Peltier may have sealed Anna Mae’s fate because she was also present when he boasted about shooting Agent Williams. Peltier had given his leaders another reason to eliminate her.

In July of this year, I sat a few feet away from inmate Peltier at his parole hearing, where I urged him to accept responsibility for his crimes and ask for forgiveness from his victims’ families. As I read my statement, he could only stare at the floor. The parole board found him to be undeserving, defiant, and completely without remorse. Like every judge who has reviewed the Peltier murder case, the board saw through his phony cloak of victimhood. Every one of Peltier’s alibis has been exposed as a cynical ruse directed against his supporters, whom he must surely regard as mindless tools.

For over 30 years, Peltier has relied on the ignorance of political organizations and well-intentioned human rights activists to sustain the myth of his innocence and the success of his illicit defense fund, now operating under a fraudulent non-profit corporation. Your group is just the latest to fall victim to the same old conspiracy theories and shameless lies of Peltier and his chief falsifiers, Peter Matthiessen, the author of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, and Robert Redford, the producer of the documentary, Incident at Oglala. As my book documents, both of these media productions are full of distortions, falsehoods, and Peltier’s well-rehearsed fables.

It is time for all people who have been fooled by the Peltier propaganda machine to educate themselves on the facts and join Native American groups who rightly condemn Peltier and his misguided defenders. I urge Red Nation to rescind the award given this unrepentant killer and take a stand for Native American truth and virtue. It is not too late to restore dignity and honor to your humanitarian award. There are plenty of American Indians deserving of your accolades, but the pathetic manipulator who now serves two consecutive life sentences in a federal penitentiary is certainly not one of them.

Sincerely,


Joe Trimbach
www.americanindianmafia.com

Letter asks the National Museum of the American Indian to Support Truthful Indian History and Exposes Leonard Peltier Fund Fraud

In a letter to the Director of the National Museum of the American Indian, former FBI Agent in Charge Joseph H. Trimbach asks for the Director's help in supporting truthful Native American history. The letter also raises questions about the legality of Leonard Peltier's legal defense funds. On April 28, 2008, Peltier's sister, Betty Ann Solano, filed articles of incorporation for the Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee. The fund was previously known as the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. Peltier's funds are filed under nonprofit corporations in possible violation of IRS tax regulations and disclosure requirements. Peltier has thus far refused to publicly disclose his financial records.

October 7, 2009

Mr. Kevin Gover, Director
National Museum of the American Indian
PO Box 23473
Washington, DC 20026

Dear Mr. Gover,

Congratulations on the fifth anniversary of the National Museum of the American Indian. The museum showcases a masterful display of Indian culture and artistry and has become a wonderful addition to the Smithsonian. It has come to my attention, however, that the museum bookstore sells a book that falsifies Indian history by depicting a murderer as an Indian hero. Peter Matthiessen’s In the Spirit of Crazy Horse glorifies convicted killer Leonard Peltier and places him on a pedestal alongside the brave and noble Chief Crazy Horse. My account of what happened, American Indian Mafia, takes issue with this attempt to portray Peltier’s cowardice and evil as Indian heroism and virtue. I cite several Native Americans who honor the truth and who contributed to setting the historical record straight. Award-winning Native journalist Tim Giago wrote that American Indian Mafia “takes apart” In the Spirit of Crazy Horse “and exposes it for the fraud that it is. It is refreshing to finally hear the other side of the story.” Paul DeMain, editor of News from Indian Country, says that my book helps expose Peltier’s foggy alibis and false cry for human rights.

Mr. Gover, I was the FBI Agent in Charge when, on June 26, 1975, Peltier gunned down two of my Agents on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. After the men were injured and disarmed, Peltier executed both of them with his assault rifle. We know this because of the evidence presented at his trial and because Peltier later boasted about shooting 28-year-old Ron Williams in the face at point-blank range as he sat pleading for his life and trying to save Jack Coler, his injured partner. Peltier’s recent parole board concluded that he is undeserving of parole based on his behavior behind bars. I read a statement to Peltier at his July 28 hearing; and I can assure you that he remains defiant, manipulative, and utterly unrepentant.

Despite losing all his appeals, Peltier and his lawyers have fooled many people into believing that he was framed for the murders. Rather than accept responsibility for his crimes, Peltier exploits his Indian ancestry by sponsoring a fraudulent defense fund under the shelter of a tax-exempt organization. Over the last 30 years, Peltier has collected millions of dollars abusing the charitable instincts of people who care about genuine Indian suffering and hardship. Donors have no idea that this money is doled out to Peltier’s friends and supporters. Proceeds from the sale of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse also go directly to Peltier’s not-for-profit corporation, with no accountability.

Mr. Gover, the National Museum of the American Indian is a cultural gem that has enlightened and educated millions of visitors, but having Matthiessen’s book on display in your bookstore is a conspicuous blot on an otherwise fine collection of Indian literature. It is bad enough to invoke the spirit of Crazy Horse in defense of a murderer, but it is even worse to profit from this charade under the guise of authentic Indian history.

I am not in favor of censorship, but I believe you owe it to your patrons to present “both sides of the story.” Please consider making my historical account available in your bookstore so that people will have access to a fact-based rebuttal to Peltier’s lies. I hope you will take the occasion of the museum’s gala celebration to allow me, as well as the Indian witnesses in American Indian Mafia, the opportunity to counter Peter Matthiessen’s unconscionable depiction of Leonard Peltier as an Indian hero.

Regards,

Joseph H. Trimbach

AmericanIndianMafia.com
Expertclick.com keyword: Trimbach

10 Reasons Why Leonard Peltier Should Never Be Freed

July 26, 2009 - For the last 33 years, Leonard Peltier supporters have called for his release from the confines of the federal penitentiary. That is where Peltier has resided all these years, save for a brief moment of freedom when Peltier engineered an armed escape in which another inmate was shot dead by prison guards. Peltier got away but was captured a few days later after his big white tennis shoes highlighted his hiding place in the bushes of Santa Maria, California. After being convicted of escaping and using a firearm to do so, Peltier received another seven years tacked on to his two consecutive life sentences.

For the record, Peltier objects to serving time for the execution-style murders of FBI Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams on June 26, 1975. Peltier has always claimed that the truth of his innocence has never had a chance to blossom. While truth, no doubt, plays a reassuring role in the quest for justice, it is not something that has been a friend to the infamous Native American cause célèbre. The truth is particularly harmful to Peltier this year because he comes up for a truth-detecting parole board hearing in two days, on July 28, his first since 1993. Some say this is his last chance to bamboozle the board with his version of the truth.

Nevertheless, Peltier's fans, at one time numbering in the millions, remain hopeful; people like Robert Redford, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and the fact finders at Amnesty International, all of whom have never been impressed by the mountain of evidence against their favorite felon. Even those who say Peltier may be guilty as charged argue that he should be freed for "humanitarian" reasons because he'll soon be 65-years-old.

Though most Peltier supporters are loath to admit it, the truth has never failed to surface about Peltier's role in the executions; first during his trial, and ever since, through old secrets revealed. Moreover, the evidence has always beaten a path to Peltier's cell door, most often by way of his own flawed thinking and verbal admissions. Peltier thought the Agents were there to arrest him (they weren't), that he was justified in shooting two men in the face at point-blank range (he wasn't), and that he can now lie his way to freedom before a parole board (he can't.)

But because Peltier says he didn't do it, his followers simply believe him. Not only do they believe him, they issue astounding proclamations in support of his innocence, his make-belief persona as "political prisoner," and his "human rights activist" nonsense. As one blogger recently swore, "Leonard Peltier is not in prison for killing the two Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Agents as is alleged, he has been incarcerated for 33 years because he belonged to a group (American Indian Movement) that dared to challenge the federal government and their lies. When one has the audacity to challenge the fedgov, he/she becomes a target for malicious prosecution, fabricated evidence, witness tampering and illegal imprisonment. Leonard Peltier has experienced all of these in the extreme. "

"Extreme" is certainly a word Peltier pushers are familiar with. "Extreme," as in not allowing the facts to get in the way of regurgitating fables and falsehoods. "Extreme," as in ignoring the Federal Register, the Federal Record, and the court testimony, all of which place Peltier at the scene of the crime, at the moment the killing shots were fired. And so in the spirit of Coler and Williams, here are ten truthful reasons why an unrepentant Peltier should never see the light of day as a free man:

1. Peltier was fairly tried and fairly convicted. This is the conclusion of every single federal judge who's reviewed the case. Since his conviction in 1977, the evidence against Peltier has been repeatedly confirmed, expanded, and corroborated. [See: http://www.noparolepeltier.com/585.html (Note FN 15: "The two witnesses testified outside the presence of the jury that after their testimony at trial, they had been threatened by Peltier himself that if they did not return to court and testify that their earlier testimony had been induced by F.B.I. threats, their lives would be in danger")]

2. Facts of the case prove that Peltier opened fire on the Agents from a distance of over 200 yards. Armed with only their side arms, both young men were soon wounded. After the initial shooting ended, Peltier, along with two other men, walked down to the wounded Agents and finished them off, shooting them both in the face at point-blank range.

3. A few months after the murders, Peltier bragged about killing Agent Ron Williams, as recalled by a witness in a separate murder trial in 2004. Under oath, the witness recalled Peltier's exact words: "The motherfu—er was begging for his life but I shot him anyway." (See: http://www.jfamr.org/doc/kmtest1.html.)

4. Peltier has parlayed his Native American ancestry into a successful defense fund, bilking millions of people out of their time and money. He has fooled Amnesty International, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, the Dali Lama, and people all over the world. Peltier is supported by Hollywood heavyweights such as David Geffen, Barbra Streisand, and Oliver Stone, all of whom have fallen prey to his propaganda machine. Robert Redford produced and narrated a documentary that relies on politics and propaganda to explain away Peltier's guilt, such as the Mr. X alibi concocted by Peltier's friends. The X story, promoted by author Peter Matthiessen in an effort to sell his book about Peltier, was later exposed as a complete hoax.

5. Freeing an unrepentant murderer runs contrary to all principles of parole and rehabilitation. A free Peltier would undermine law enforcement efforts, subvert the rule of law, and compound the anguish of the victims' families. Freeing the killer of two FBI Agents would be particularly devastating to other Federal Agents who risk their lives every day in pursuit of criminals. Parole to a remorseless killer would also be detrimental to American interests by giving ammunition to our enemies. They will point to our system of justice as obviously flawed, thus confirming their argument that Peltier was wrongfully convicted and that our court system is unfair. Worldwide media will parrot these conclusions as if they are fact-based.

6. Freeing a guilty killer like Peltier would undermine efforts to investigate crimes on Indian reservations. Many Indians would view his freedom as a sign that the FBI and the Justice Department had always tried to mislead Indian Country about the facts of the case. Many Indians would be more reluctant to cooperate with current investigations.

7. Peltier claimed his prison break in July 1979 was in response to being targeted for assassination by evil FBI Agents. The truth is that inmate Peltier had planned his escape for several years, and counted on help from outside contacts such as actor Max Gail. Peltier must be held responsible for the needless death he caused during his escape and for threatening a man from whom he stole a truck during his getaway.

8. If Peltier is freed, it will be more difficult to indict him on other murders in which he may have been involved. In one of these cases, Peltier interrogated a young woman, Anna Mae Aquash, by putting a loaded gun in her mouth. Aquash's execution was ordered by leaders of the American Indian Movement (AIM) because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informant. (See www.americanindianmafia.com/audio/GunInHerMouthReMix.wmv.)

9. Contrary to his claims, Peltier has always put himself above the welfare of Native Americans. One of his recent newsletters opened with the words, "May Death Be Upon You, FBI." These are not the thoughts of an innocent man, but rather the wish of someone wanting to incite violence. Even if Peltier did not author the message, he has not disavowed it, either. The truth is, Peltier would like nothing better than to agitate for criminal acts against Indians who oppose his freedom and who count on the FBI to apprehend evildoers on the reservation. Peltier has nothing but contempt for our system of justice.

10. Peltier's 1993 Parole Board recognized that he was convicted of aiding and abetting the murders. But then the Board went on to say: "... the greater probability is that you yourself fired the fatal shots... It would be unjust to treat the slaying of these F.B.I. agents, while they lay wounded and helpless, as if your actions had been part of a gun battle. Neither the state of relations between Native American militants and law enforcement at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation prior to June 26, 1975, nor the exchanges of gunfire between individuals at the Jumping Bull Compound and the law enforcement agents who arrived there during the hours after Agents Coler and Williams were murdered, explains or mitigates the crimes you committed... Your release on parole would promote disrespect for the law in contravention of 18 U.S.C..."

There is no question that Leonard Peltier is guilty. He has done nothing to earn his freedom. He has done nothing to show that he accepts responsibility for his crimes. To this day, he remains defiant, manipulative, and completely remorseless. Freeing this ruthless killer would be a terrible travesty of justice.