The United States Parole Commission has rendered a negative, extremely controversial decision in the Leonard Peltier case. The overdue and much awaited decision came in the form of a denial of parole after the Commission deliberated for over two months. Furthermore, the Commission reverted back to the initial hearing and reinstituted the 15 year waiting period for a reconsideration hearing, (December 2008). Despite the board's contention of government shutdowns, snow storms and the consolidation of the parole board, the decision was still unduly prolonged. This denial comes despite a favorable recommendation resulting from the December 11, 1995 interim hearing conducted at the Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas. The favorable recommendation was based in part, on the time already served, (twenty years), versus the charges, (aiding and abetting). During the course of the hearing on the 11th., the United States prosecutor, Lynn Crooks instructed the Parole Commission to proceed on this very basis. We couldn't agree more. When one considers Leonard's time served relative to the base guidelines established, it reveals yet another injustice in this long struggle.
The initial parole proceedings two years ago, yielded decisions based on previously stated inaccurate facts and abandoned theories as to Leonard's involvement surrounding the deaths of two FBI agents on June 26, 1975. The parole board made its decision based on the notion that Leonard was guilty of the point blank range ambush and murder of two disabled law enforcement officers. This theory has long been abandoned by the court, and as recently as the December 11 hearing, prosecutor Crooks offered to the Commission, "The agents had to be killed by someone, even if it's not him [Peltier], by someone." The initial parole board considered the 1977 pre-sentencing inaccuracies before offering an immediate denial and further stating Leonard might as well not bother applying for parole for an additional 15 years.
These pre-sentencing details have been dispelled in court and the record of such does not currently stand. There is no credible evidence or substantiated testimony, no eyewitnesses and no legal basis for these circumstances to be used as a basis to apply punitive standards of extended length to Leonard Peltier.
Leonard has been an exemplary prisoner
In light of Leonard's actual involvement in the events of June 26, 1975, in light of his own record while incarcerated, (salient scores), the consistent development of his abilities, accomplishments and artistic talent, his chances for success in society appear excellent. Thus, immediate parole would be completely in order, and in fact, overdue. The combination of these things coupled with the overwhelming worldwide support, offers of job and housing security on the reservation would seem to place Leonard at the top of the list of those being considered for parole. Leonard has served over 20 years now and in that time he has helped so many people: establishing scholarships for aspiring Native law students; setting up food and housing programs, outreach programs; and educating countless people through his artwork. He has won humanitarian awards and been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize, all from within the confines of his cell in Leavenworth Penitentiary.
Leonard has been non-violent throughout his unjust incarceration. What are society's goals of incarceration? If not to rehabilitate, to what end? This man has unjustifiably had his personal life ruined and in the process he has seen his Constitutional Rights denied, due process denied and his family torn apart. He did not see his children grow up and now is missing his grandchildren as they grow up without the personal touch and influence of their grandfather. Leonard has seen many loved ones die while he remains confined. He is 51 years old. He is a traditional Indian man. He needs to be re-established with his family and returned to the land.
Delays, delays, delays
We were informed on February 22, 1996, that the Peltier parole case was hung up in the legal division of the Parole Commission. What did this mean?
After over ten weeks of deliberation, the facts presented by both sides and now the case has become, somehow, hung up in the legal division? In the light of the subsequent denial, are we to surmise no legal basis for a denial existed prior to the 22nd? It was on February 22, 1996, that we were also informed that Commissioner Sam Robertson (whom presided over the December hearing and issued the positive recommendation to the full Commission) had been re-assigned and was no longer a part of the parole Commission. This mysterious re-assignment reminds us of the re- assignment of trial Judge McManus (and venue) immediately following his presiding over the acquittals of Bob Robideau and Dino Butler in 1976 just prior to Leonard's trial in the same case.
What do these mysterious dismissals or re-assignments do to the confidence of the American public regarding our system of justice? On what basis did the parole board deny Leonard Peltier? Did that standard exist before February 22, 1996, or was it engineered by the recently convened legal division of the Department of Justice? The public deserves to know; Leonard deserves to know. Is this just the latest version of selective justice?
What if this was your child?
Could you be next, maybe your children? As we were taught, all three branches of the government were created to serve the people and each was to serve as checks and balances on the other. Yet, time after time in the Peltier case we see examples of incredible irregularities and conflicts of interest present themselves.
Let us examine the history of this case and hold those responsible for their actions and accountable to the public whom entrusted them to properly use and apply the power of the system. We are tired of the re-shuffled excuses used as any type of legal basis to deny freedom to Leonard Peltier. Let us educate the people, thereby the lies might stop. The manipulated denial of parole for Leonard Peltier, in the face of irrefutable facts supporting a favorable decision, writes yet another most heinous chapter in a very dark volume of American injustice. Following, we will cite each chapter and through further discourse, expose these incredible circumstances and reveal just how the United States government has hoodwinked the American public. It exemplifies how individual lives can be ruined and how the system of justice can be and is manipulated, manufactured and re-constructed to a predetermined end, when the government feels compelled to do so.
I. Manufacturing of Extradition Documents