<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
Rebuttal to Comments Made by the No Parole Peltier Association<br>
April 22, 2005<br>
<br>
The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect
to<br>
Intelligence Activities, or the Church Committee, investigated the<br>
counterintelligence activities of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation<br>
(FBI) over a 25-year period, from 1956 to 1971. The fact is that,
with<br>
regard to its COINTELPRO operations, the Church Committee found the<br>
Bureau responsible for violating & ignoring the law, exceeding
its<br>
powers with regard to domestic intelligence activity, using
excessively<br>
intrusive techniques against United States citizens, using covert
action<br>
to disrupt & discredit domestic groups, abusing intelligence
information<br>
for political purposes, & having inadequate controls, as well as
no<br>
accountability.<br>
<br>
The FBI conducted more than 2000 COINTELPRO operations before the<br>
programs were officially discontinued in April of 1971, after public<br>
exposure, in order to "afford additional security to [its]
sensitive<br>
techniques & operations." While the programs themselves
were<br>
discontinued, the practices that the Church Committee found so<br>
objectionable were not. The FBI's intent was/is to continue
such<br>
practices as deemed necessary & completely at its own whim.
That intent<br>
was clearly stated by the FBI in April 1971. It's a matter of
public<br>
record.<br>
<br>
The Church Committee had intended to investigate the American Indian<br>
Movement (AIM) as another dissident group targeted by the Bureau.<br>
Witnesses had been investigated by congressional staff & called
to<br>
provide testimony. However, one day after the incident at Oglala,
the<br>
Church Committee cancelled the hearings. That's why official
misconduct<br>
against AIM & regarding Wounded Knee is not part of the
Committee's<br>
findings & could not be highlighted in our essay. <br>
<br>
That's also why we've requested that Congress complete the work of
the<br>
Church Committee. A thorough congressional investigation is
long<br>
overdue, don't you think? If you're truly interested in the truth,
your<br>
organization might join with us in calling for congressional
hearings<br>
into these matters. Together we might bring closure to what was
perhaps<br>
the most turbulent era in U.S. history.<br>
<br>
Barry Bachrach has challenged numerous mainstream media & other<br>
purveyors of fiction to come to his office to review the facts of
this<br>
case & examine primary documents. No one has ever taken up his
offer.<br>
Why? Are they afraid to find out the truth? <br>
<br>
Without getting into all of the instances of government misconduct,<br>
let's visit the undisputed facts in Mr. Peltier's case.<br>
<br>
1. When Mr. Peltier was
arrested in Canada, Frank Blackhorse was<br>
also arrested. Blackhorse was listed in FBI documents as a key
suspect<br>
in the shoot-out. Yet, while Mr. Peltier was extradited &
tried, Mr.<br>
Blackhorse was allowed to disappear never to be heard from again.
A<br>
warrant had already been issued for Blackhorse's arrest in
connection<br>
with Wounded Knee II. Despite this, Blackhorse disappeared into
the<br>
sunset. <br>
<br>
2. The U.S. government had
informants in the Wounded Knee Legal<br>
Defense/Offense Committee (WKLDOC) during the mid-70s, we now know.<br>
Documents also reveal that the FBI had informants in the WKLDOC at
or<br>
about the time of Leonard's capture - a critical time, i.e., while a<br>
defense was being mounted. We suspect that if the government
were<br>
required to produce the names of these informants & fully reveal
the<br>
information they provided, that the evidence would show that Mr.<br>
Peltier's defense team was infiltrated & the prosecution
received<br>
first-hand information concerning the defense, a clear violation of<br>
Leonard's constitutional rights. <br>
<br>
3. The U.S. government
conspired with Canadian authorities to<br>
extradite Leonard Peltier to the United States. The extradition
was<br>
based on fraudulent affidavits of Myrtle Poor Bear, an individual with
a<br>
history of mental health issues. The U.S. attorneys, together with
Paul<br>
William Halprin (the U.S. prosecutor in Canada) conspired with the
FBI<br>
to coerce Myrtle Poor Bear to sign affidavits stating she was
Leonard<br>
Peltier's girlfriend & a witness to Leonard's shooting of the
agents.<br>
In fact, three affidavits were prepared. The U.S. attorneys &
Halprin<br>
chose to submit only two of the three affidavits & deliberately
chose<br>
not to submit an affidavit in which Myrtle Poor Bear indicated she
was<br>
not present, but that Leonard had only told her he had shot the
agents.<br>
The affidavits were coerced by Special Agents Gary Adams & David
Price<br>
who held Myrtle Poor Bear in a hotel room for a lengthy period &<br>
threatened her by, among other things, showing her photos of the
severed<br>
hands of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. The government has since admitted
that<br>
Poor Bear didn't even know Leonard Peltier.<br>
<br>
4. Documents released through
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)<br>
requests unequivocally establish that Hultman, together with
Halprin,<br>
was involved in choosing two of the three affidavits to submit to
the<br>
Canadian court. In denying he had involvement with the creation of
the<br>
Poor Bear affidavits, U.S. Attorney Evan Hultman intentionally
misled<br>
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Hultman's
behavior<br>
constitutes a fraud on the court & should be sanctioned.
Instead,<br>
Hultman has suffered no repercussions whatsoever for his fraudulent<br>
conduct. <br>
<br>
5. The FBI had analyzed the
Robideau-Butler trial & determined<br>
what would be needed in Peltier's trial so as to win a conviction.
The<br>
FBI met secretly & exparte with Judge Benson prior to trial.
There are<br>
no notes of these meetings but, not surprisingly, all the FBI could
wish<br>
for came to fruition during the trial. Judge Benson's rulings were
made<br>
almost always in favor of the prosecution. The FBI should never
have<br>
been allowed to have exparte communications with the judge trying
the<br>
case. This is outrageous conduct & not justified by the FBI's
alleged<br>
security precautions in connection with the Peltier trial. Somehow
the<br>
government permitted this to happen with impunity. We believe a
full<br>
investigation of this occurrence should be conducted. <br>
<br>
6. Three teenagers involved -
Michael Anderson, Norman Brown &<br>
Wilford Draper - were indisputably intimidated by the FBI &
consequently<br>
provided false testimony against Mr. Peltier that was key to the<br>
prosecution's theory of the case. <br>
<br>
7. Contemporaneous FBI
transmissions indicate that the FBI was<br>
following a red pickup on to the Jumping Bull Compound. Agent
Gary<br>
Adams' testimony in the very beginning of Peltier's trial revealed
that<br>
Coler & Williams were following a red pickup onto the Jumping
Bull<br>
Compound because Jimmy Eagle was supposedly in a red pickup.
Somehow<br>
the government turned that red pickup into a "red & white
van" & claimed<br>
that it was Leonard Peltier's van. Comparison of FBI 302 reports
that<br>
were accepted into evidence at the Robideau-Butler trial (but not<br>
permitted in the subsequent trial except in a very few instances) to
FBI<br>
agents' testimony given at the Peltier trial shows that these agents<br>
committed perjury at trial. <br>
<br>
8. One of the falsehoods
introduced at the trial of Leonard<br>
Peltier was Frank Coward's testimony that he was able to see Peltier
at<br>
the site of the shoot-out, some 700 feet away, using the telescopic
lens<br>
on his rifle. Judge Benson would not allow for any actual test of
that<br>
claim. Any gun expert would have been able to testify, however,
that<br>
Coward could not have identified any person from a distance of 700
feet.<br>
Yet, Coward's testimony was allowed into evidence & was used as a
basis<br>
to support Peltier's conviction. <br>
<br>
9. The lynchpin of the case as
indicated by the Eighth Circuit<br>
was a link between a mysterious casing found a few days after the<br>
shooting in the trunk of Agent Coler's vehicle. The FBI lab
purportedly<br>
linked this casing to an AR-15 alleged to have been wielded by
Leonard<br>
Peltier (although there was no testimony presented that linked
Peltier<br>
to the weapon). After Leonard's conviction, FOIA documents released
by<br>
the FBI unequivocally showed that the FBI lab had in fact conducted<br>
tests early on which demonstrated that there was absolutely no link<br>
between the casing & the AR-15. This withheld evidence meant
that the<br>
government had no proof of Peltier's direct connection to the
shooting.<br>
Nevertheless, despite acknowledging that the withheld evidence casts<br>
serious doubts on the government's case, the Eighth Circuit refused
to<br>
provide Mr. Peltier a new trial.<br>
<br>
10. In the same Eighth Circuit decision, however,
the court<br>
acknowledged there was clear evidence of FBI misconduct. The
court<br>
refused to grant Mr. Peltier a new trial because it preferred not to<br>
impute further misconduct to agents of the FBI. The bottom line
here is<br>
that the court decided it was better to keep Leonard Peltier in
prison<br>
than to risk exposing further FBI misconduct in this case.<br>
<br>
11. In addition, during trial, the FBI produced
approximately 3,500<br>
documents & claimed that these were all the documents in
existence.<br>
After the trial, through a FOIA request, the Peltier attorneys<br>
discovered that some 12,000 documents had been withheld. Six
thousand<br>
documents were then released. More recently, despite the FBI's
claim<br>
that only 6,000 full documents related to this case remained
undisclosed<br>
- & that these are merely "administrative" documents, of no
use to the<br>
defense team - we discovered that the government continues to
withhold,<br>
nearly 30 years after the FBI opened its file, over 140,000
documents<br>
concerning the Peltier case. <br>
<br>
12. There also is evidence that the FBI has
destroyed documents.<br>
Specifically, the FBI has destroyed key field office documents in
San<br>
Francisco, Portland & Pittsburgh. Other field offices, such as
that in<br>
Manhattan (New York), claim to have been unable to "locate"
documents<br>
though they do claim the documents have not been destroyed. These
are<br>
documents that should have been produced over 28 years ago. In
light of<br>
the fact that continuing misconduct is being found with the further<br>
production of documents, the spoliation of evidence documents
compels<br>
the conclusion that the government has destroyed documents which
could<br>
prove Peltier's innocence.<br>
<br>
13. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
destroyed whatever<br>
records it had on Peltier. Again, these documents should have
been<br>
produced at trial. <br>
<br>
14. The South Dakota Highway Patrol & the
State Attorney General<br>
possess records on AIM & Leonard Peltier. These documents are
being<br>
withheld because South Dakota has no Freedom of Information Act
which<br>
would allow Peltier & his attorneys access to these documents.
<br>
<br>
There was NO witness testimony that Leonard Peltier actually shot
the<br>
two FBI agents. There was NO witness testimony that placed Mr.
Peltier<br>
near the crime scene before the deaths occurred. Those
witnesses<br>
placing Peltier, Robideau, & Butler near the crime scene after
the<br>
killing were coerced & intimidated by the FBI. There was NO
forensic<br>
evidence as to the exact type of rifle used in the shootings.
Several<br>
different weapons present in the area during the shoot-out -
evidence<br>
now shows that there were other AR-15 rifles in the area - could
have<br>
caused the fatal injuries. In addition, the AR-15 rifle claimed to
be<br>
Mr. Peltier's weapon was found to be incompatible with the bullet
casing<br>
allegedly found at the scene. Also, although other bullets were
fired<br>
at the crime scene, no other casings or evidence about them were
offered<br>
by the prosecutor in this case. In short, there was NO
reasonable<br>
evidence that Mr. Peltier committed the crimes for which he was tried.
<br>
<br>
This is just a microcosm of the egregious misconduct in Mr.
Peltier's<br>
case. It does not even begin to address the misconduct by the<br>
government on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation as recognized as<br>
recently as November 2003 by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals:
"Much<br>
of the government's behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation & in
its<br>
prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government
withheld<br>
evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not
disputed." <br>
<br>
Given the pattern of misconduct against a whole array of dissident<br>
groups as revealed by the Church Committee investigation, why
wouldn't<br>
one find it at all plausible that the same disruptive methods -<br>
including media manipulation - have been employed against AIM?
We<br>
suggest that people take the guess work out of this discussion. Do
your<br>
homework. Review the pertinent government documents, as we have,
from<br>
the time the Movement was first targeted by the FBI. <br>
<br>
But why depend solely on the FBI's own documents? Or on
congressional<br>
findings? <br>
<br>
The detail our essay lacked would fill a book. But why would we
write<br>
such a book when one already exists? You may have disdain for In
the<br>
Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter Matthiessen, but the fact is that
this<br>
definitive work on AIM & the Peltier case was successfully
defended<br>
against lawsuits brought by former Governor & Congressman Wm.
Janklow<br>
from South Dakota (recently convicted of criminal charges, jailed,
&<br>
forced to resign his congressional seat in disgrace) & FBI Special
Agent<br>
David Price in three different states, surviving an eight-year<br>
litigation. As acknowledged by the courts, Matthiessen's reputation
for<br>
not being sensationalistic or scandalous is well known. He is a
highly<br>
respected author & his works have received wide acclaim.<br>
<br>
We find it interesting how a fine author like Peter Matthiessen is<br>
impugned, while mainstream America remains ignorant of the true facts
of<br>
this case. Why is that? Who controls the mainstream
media? We believe<br>
that to be a rhetorical question.<br>
<br>
Moreover, the deposition of Agent Price in his lawsuit is entirely<br>
inconsistent with the facts as they have since come to light. Did
Agent<br>
Price believe the facts would never come out? Did he believe he
could<br>
speak with impunity without regard to the truth? The fact he lost
the<br>
case probably says it all. <br>
<br>
The Church Committee uncovered a 25-year pattern of media
manipulation<br>
by the FBI against political activists & dissident organizations,
but<br>
some would have the public believe that this mode of operation
suddenly<br>
ceased in 1971 &/or that AIM was somehow the exception to the
rule. <br>
<br>
Washington has been feeding "packaged news" to the American
people for<br>
decades - it's called propaganda. Just such behavior on the part of
the<br>
White House has been revealed to the American public within the past<br>
year. Further, government agencies routinely employ staff to create
a<br>
positive image of the agency & present issues in a certain
light. The<br>
FBI is no exception. <br>
<br>
Early FBI press releases regarding the incident on June 26, 1975,
spoke<br>
of bunkers that didn't exist & the need for heavy military force<br>
(reminiscent of Wounded Knee II, government strategy which was<br>
subsequently ruled unconstitutional). Then the government's
propaganda<br>
campaign blamed the incident on "rogue" Indians despite AIM
members<br>
having been invited onto the reservation to protect traditionals
against<br>
vigilantes sponsored by our government. <br>
<br>
The cozy relationship between the FBI & the Guardians of the
Oglala<br>
Nation (GOON) squads was verified by the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights<br>
shortly after the incident. The Commission's report was highly
critical<br>
of the FBI's paramilitary operations in Indian Country. Was this
report<br>
taken seriously by the media? Obviously not, because they failed
to<br>
expose or prevent the continued official misconduct on the Pine
Ridge<br>
Reservation. <br>
<br>
What Americans were not told (and still are not told) is that the
FBI<br>
sent two young & relatively inexperienced agents to their
deaths. Why?<br>
<br>
Let's not pretend that official misconduct on the part of the FBI is
a<br>
thing of the past either. In recent years, landmark civil
rights<br>
lawsuits against FBI agents have been won in Boston, Chicago &
Oakland,<br>
CA, to name only a few.<br>
<br>
We did "leap ahead some twenty-plus years to President Clinton &
the<br>
clemency issue" to make our case. With good reason. the
instances of<br>
media manipulation were so overt so as not to be ignored.<br>
<br>
The Washington Post ad? We disagree that the ad simply stated
the<br>
salient facts surrounding the deaths of Agents Coler &
Williams. <br>
<br>
. The third
paragraph of this ad stated as fact that Mr.<br>
Peltier was in the vehicle pursued onto the Jumping Bull Ranch the
day<br>
of the tragic shoot out, & that he & the other passengers
abruptly<br>
stopped their vehicle & began firing at the FBI agents. This
isn't<br>
explained as an unproved prosecutorial theory & Mr. Peltier has
always<br>
insisted that he was already on the ranch when the shooting broke
out.<br>
At Peltier's trial, despite descriptions of the vehicle as a pick-up<br>
truck for a nearly two-year period following the shootings, the<br>
description of the vehicle suddenly changed to that of a "red &
white<br>
van". There is no untainted evidence to establish that Mr.
Peltier was<br>
pursued onto the ranch, or that the pursued vehicle was the red &
white<br>
van he sometimes drove. To make such a flat assertion of
"fact" without<br>
reference to the conflicting & contradictory information is
prejudicial<br>
& deceptive.<br>
<br>
. In the fifth
paragraph of the paid ad, the FBI agents wrote:<br>
"Three shots were fired from Peltier's rifle. Williams, kneeling,
was<br>
shot in the face... Coler, still unconscious, was shot twice in the
head<br>
at close range." It is important to note here that U.S.
Attorney Lynn<br>
Crooks has stated on several occasions that no one knows who in fact<br>
fired those close-range fatal shots. This admission was inevitable
in<br>
light of the clear language of Mr. Hodge's ballistics report stating<br>
that the bullet casing used as evidence in Peltier's trial was
simply<br>
incompatible with the firearm claimed to have been Mr. Peltier's
weapon.<br>
The agents responsible for composing this ad knew or should have
known<br>
about these matters. The highly inflammatory language was intended
to<br>
misinform & confuse the public, to cover up for former FBI
misconduct, &<br>
to deprive Mr. Peltier of fair consideration of his legal claims.
We<br>
believe that serious legal & ethical questions were raised by
this<br>
language.<br>
<br>
. In paragraph six
of the paid ad, it is claimed that Mr. Color<br>
& Mr. Williams had only fired five shots, while the AIM members
fired<br>
125 rounds at them. First, several eyewitness accounts suggest that
the<br>
agents in fact fired more than five rounds. Also, from the record,
it<br>
appears that several of the weapons belonging to the agents were
taken<br>
by persons fleeing the ranch & were only recovered long afterwards
by<br>
the FBI. The weapons may have been fired, reloaded & fired
several<br>
times again since that day. We also understand that the
casings<br>
recovered at the crime scene did not account for all of the shots
fired.<br>
How, then, is the number of rounds fired on that particular day - &
by<br>
whom - known? <br>
<br>
. This paid ad also
stated as fact a number of instances in<br>
which Mr. Peltier allegedly carried out violent actions. Many of
these<br>
cited instances are highly suspect, & appear to be but one more
example<br>
of government distortion of the evidence against Mr. Peltier. They
also<br>
make reference to former criminal charges of which Mr. Peltier was<br>
acquitted. We noted the claim of Canadian Officer Golden Doll that
Mr.<br>
Peltier stated that he would have blown the arresting Canadian
officers<br>
"out of their shoes". It is significant that such a
violent statement<br>
was not included in Mr. Golden Doll's report at the time of the
arrest<br>
or even during the extradition hearings. Mr. Golden Doll made
no<br>
mention of this alleged statement until Mr. Peltier's trial nearly
one<br>
year later. Given the repeated instances of FBI coercion of
witnesses &<br>
use of tainted witnesses in other AIM cases, this late statement is<br>
highly suspect. Mr. Golden Doll's testimony was also
uncorroborated<br>
despite the presence of other officers at the time of Peltier's
arrest.<br>
It was improper to present this statement as a fact while never<br>
mentioning the surrounding circumstances. <br>
<br>
. The ad also
oversimplified the judicial history of this case<br>
in an inappropriate manner. Noting that Mr. Peltier lost his
appeals,<br>
the ad stated that there are no new facts. "The old facts have
not<br>
changed & Peltier is guilty as charged." Again, this statement,
together<br>
with its serious omissions, was highly deceptive & therefore
improper.<br>
There were indeed many new facts, including but not limited to the<br>
discovery of the concealed ballistics test & the revelations of
coercion<br>
by various witnesses. The accurate version of the judicial history
is<br>
that Mr. Peltier was denied a new trial despite the new information,
as<br>
a result of the strict Bagley standard set by the courts in previous<br>
opinions. It should also be noted that Judge Heaney, who wrote
the<br>
denial in Peltier's appeal, also wrote to support clemency for Mr.<br>
Peltier. And one can't forget that over 100,000 FBI documents
remain<br>
concealed to this day. We believe those documents contain many
new<br>
facts of importance to this case. <br>
<br>
. The ad also
claimed that Mr. Peltier "openly states he feels<br>
no guilt or remorse or even regret for the murders." Once
again this<br>
statement was intentionally inaccurate, inflammatory & self
serving.<br>
Mr. Peltier has in fact on a number of occasions stated that he
regrets<br>
the loss of life & the pain caused to the agents' loved ones, even as
he<br>
maintains that he is not the one who committed the killings. The FBI<br>
statements in this ad placed Mr. Peltier in the untenable position
of<br>
either admitting to a crime he did not commit, or else being vilified
as<br>
a remorseless brute. <br>
<br>
. Lastly, one of
the final paragraphs stated that "Leonard<br>
Peltier is a vicious, violent & cowardly criminal who hides
behind<br>
legitimate Native American issues. Leonard Peltier was never a
leader<br>
in the Native American community. He is simply a brutish thug
&<br>
murderer with no respect or regard for human life." Not only
are these<br>
statements intentionally geared to promote fear & confusion, they
once<br>
again omit key facts. The FBI & other officials have long recognized
Mr.<br>
Peltier as an AIM leader, as is reflected in their own investigation<br>
files & other statements. More importantly, Mr. Peltier has
enormous<br>
support from many Native American communities. <br>
<br>
The Peltier March in New York City on December 10, 2000? Members of
the<br>
Peltier Legal Team were present at the march - as were many
mainstream,<br>
concerned citizens - & we can assure you that the number of
participants<br>
has not been at all exaggerated. (Search & find photographic
evidence<br>
on the Internet.) Again, we urge you to do your homework & deal
in<br>
facts. <br>
<br>
We, too, marched in a dignified manner - unless one finds
traditional<br>
American Indian songs, drums, & prayers not to be so - albeit not
in<br>
business suits, but then it wasn't a business day, was it? And,
surely,<br>
no one would suggest that a former Attorney General of the United
States<br>
or Lakota elders from the Pine Ridge Reservation were anything other<br>
than dignified. <br>
<br>
December 10th was International Human Rights Day. Even more reason
to<br>
question why a demonstration that partially shut down the streets of
New<br>
York City & a well-attended rally that took place in front of the
United<br>
Nations building was not covered by the media. Not one sound
byte<br>
appeared on network news broadcasts. How curious is it, in
particular<br>
when New York City is one of the top three media centers in the
U.S.,<br>
that there was not one mention of this event. No black out, you
say?<br>
It is essential that all of the Church Committee's documentation be
read<br>
before people make judgments about what is or isn't possible where
the<br>
FBI is concerned.<br>
<br>
The FBI's demonstration on December 15, 2000? The venue itself made
the<br>
event unprecedented - & apparently much more worthy of the
media's<br>
attention, too. And we're talking about a march on the White
House.<br>
You can't get much more political than that. <br>
<br>
The march was performed on the tax payers' dime, too, wasn't it?
It's<br>
great agents took annual leave to attend, but who pays for that
benefit?<br><br>
<br>
Federal workers engage in political activities all of the time, as
you<br>
yourself pointed out, but never in their official capacity as
government<br>
employees whether in their free time or not (so as to avoid the<br>
appearance of expressing the views of an entire government agency,<br>
partisan or otherwise). Active agents didn't march as private
citizens<br>
that day, but as current members of the FBI. We stand by our
assessment<br>
that this was an abuse of power & a violation of our client's
Due<br>
Process rights. <br>
<br>
Of course, we are aware that the debate over clemency did not take
place<br>
in a courtroom. However, clemency involves a legal process &
confers a<br>
legal status - why else does the Pardons Attorney's office operate
under<br>
the auspices of the Department of Justice? It's not so dissimilar
to<br>
parole in that regard. These are constitutionally protected
elements of<br>
our justice system, too.<br>
<br>
"[Clinton], an attorney himself, listened to reasoned counsel
&<br>
understood the facts. He recognized Peltier's guilt & decided
that he<br>
was not worthy of clemency." How can one know that? This
is not fact,<br>
but speculation. And logic suggests that, if this were true,
Clinton<br>
would have denied clemency, when in fact he didn't officially decide
one<br>
way or the other. <br>
<br>
The Bill of Rights & the fact that Bill Clinton designated
December<br>
15th, the day of the FBI march on the White House, as Bill of Rights<br>
Day? No accident there although an occurrence certainly open
to<br>
interpretation. But let's talk about the Bill of Rights for a
moment.<br>
As regards Clinton's awards of Executive Clemency when leaving
office,<br>
former President Carter availed himself of his right to free speech
&<br>
used "disgraceful" to label the actions & the man.
Yet, you object to<br>
Peltier's comment at the time. Peltier used a more colloquial
yet<br>
synonymous term - understandable given the fact that White House
sources<br>
had led us to believe that an award of Executive Clemency was
imminent.<br>
Besides that, criticism of public officials - even the President of
the<br>
United States - about how well or badly they carry out their
official<br>
duties, strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. It is this
form of<br>
speech which the framers of the Bill of Rights were most anxious to<br>
protect. Criticism of government is entitled to the maximum
protection<br>
of the First Amendment.<br>
<br>
We respectively suggest that the FBI's (and the NPPA's) primary goal
has<br>
been & will continue to be to prevent Peltier's release from
prison.<br>
Given the fact that, since 1985, the prosecutors in this case have<br>
admitted that they do not know who shot Agents Coler & Williams &
they<br>
did not & cannot prove Peltier's guilt, we believe such actions to
be<br>
based on vengeance & not on the precepts of equal treatment,
fair<br>
consideration, or reasonable doubt - in short, not on justice at
all.<br>
<br>
In regard to:<br>
<br>
"But these examples are merely a prelude to an immense leap of faith
the<br>
[Peltier Legal Team] expects from its adherents. They excoriate
the<br>
federal prosecutors in last year's trial of Arlo Looking Cloud who
was<br>
convicted for his participation in the gangland style murder of AIM<br>
activist Anna Mae Aquash in December, 1975. They complain that
the<br>
trial was more about the denigration of AIM & Peltier than it was
about<br>
the specific facts relating to Looking Clouds' complicity. Much of
the<br>
testimony resulted in media attention that they believed was
unfavorable<br>
to AIM & Peltier." <br>
<br>
In a statement made in February 2003 & again in the above
referenced<br>
essay, we wrote concerning this debacle because it was clear that
the<br>
mainstream media wanted only to focus on inadmissible hearsay &<br>
irrelevant testimony rather than the issue at hand.<br>
<br>
In regard to:<br>
<br>
"If the so-called ranting of all the members of Peltier's legal team
on<br>
this issue really point to some multifaceted conspiracy to 'destroy<br>
support for Peltier & prevent his release on parole in 2008,'
they<br>
failed to prove their case. These obviously mature, experienced,
&<br>
educated attorneys have careened down the slippery slope of<br>
uncontrollable paranoia (while perhaps surrounded in their offices
by<br>
dark shadows), but neglected to bring with them some facts."<br>
<br>
As Barry Goldwater once said, ".extremism in the defense of liberty
is<br>
no vice. moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
<br>
<br>
His Legal Team will continue to fight unknown & unseen forces that
have<br>
& will continue to deny Mr. Peltier justice. We refuse to
submit to<br>
unjust practices &, in the face of the failure of government &
other<br>
official agencies to act, yes, we will take direct action against<br>
injustice because as Martin Luther King, Jr., once wrote:
"Injustice<br>
anywhere threatens justice everywhere." <br>
<br>
The problem is that Peltier's Legal Team is fighting shadows &
windmills<br>
created by the government's propaganda puppets - mainstream media
&<br>
purveyors of fiction. <br>
<br>
In addition, the federal government refuses to produce all of the<br>
documents related to this case or conduct hearings by which Mr.<br>
Peltier's Legal Team could put form to those shadows. <br>
<br>
For the sake of the open government recently extolled by President
Bush<br>
& the integrity of the nation's system of justice, we urge you
to<br>
support our FOIA actions & ask your former agency to release all of
the<br>
documents related to this case. <br>
<br>
Also urge Congress to hold hearings on the events on the Pine Ridge<br>
Reservation during the 1970s. <br>
<br>
Only then can the truth - the whole truth - be revealed.<br>
<br>
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse & Leonard Peltier,<br>
<br>
Barry Bachrach<br>
Delaney Bruce<br>
The Peltier Legal Team<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>