 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
PELTIER v. Louis Freeh, ET. AL. Peltier files a complaint in U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, against former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and other named and unnamed defendants for violation of the Bivens case alleging a "...systematic, and officially sanctioned campaign of misinformation and disinformation designed to prevent the named Plaintiff from receiving a fair hearing on his claims for both Clemency... and ...Parole..." Peltier sues for a jury trial and judgments, which include restraining orders and $1,000,000. Author's Note: This long awaited suit is a disappointment. It is clear though that this very desperate attempt by Peltier and his supporters has but two goals:
Aside from not even getting the names or status correct, Peltier, through his New York attorney, Bernard V. Kleinman, made a number of erroneous allegations and statements: At paragraph 29 of the complaint: "29. Significantly, however, The FBIAA (FBI Agent's Association) has, among its website links, one to the "No Parole Peltier Association" [www.noparolepeltier.com]. This lists an address of P.O. Box 54667, Cincinnati, OH 45254. The website contains no identifying information as to who runs, pays, organizes, plans, or executes it." Perhaps Peltier at Leavenworth does not have access to the Internet, but certainly the LPDC, most Peltier supporters, and presumably, Mr. Kleinman, do. Posted on the NPPA site from its inception were answers to these questions in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section:
Why, How, and Who Created the NPPA?
Who Makes Up the NPPA?
How Much Taxpayer Time and Money Go Into the NPPA and its Web Site?
But even after this allegation in Paragraph 29, Peltier and Mr. Kleinman answer their own question in Paragraph 82 of the complaint by quoting a newspaper article: "82... May 26, 2000...acknowledged his authorship, funding and maintenance of the website www.noparolepeltier.com." But unlike the LPDC, which sends emails and "press releases" and never provides a name but only the closing, "In Solidarity, LPDC:" This author has never hidden his identity. At the heart of Peltier's "Substantive Allegations" are several bewildering statements: He criticizes, and uses as examples, quotes from himself and sources close to him: "83...included quotes from the book In the Spirit of Crazy Horse...Included also was a quote from Plaintiff Peltier's acquitted co-indictee, Robert Robideau," and "84. From the aforementioned sources...relying upon Plaintiff's (Peltier's) interview with CNN..." Finally, Leonard Peltier, and now his attorney Kleinman, got it right. They now realize that the NPPA's position was to provide the interested reader with an analysis of the contradicting statements made by Peltier and the LPDC. So evident is this principle that they could have seen it in the very first paragraph on the homepage of the NPPA web site:
The stated purpose of the NPPA is to respond to the erroneous statements and allegations made by the International Office of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC). The NPPA will forgo political rhetoric and name-calling and concentrate on the record of the events reviewed. Its goal is to provide the interested reader and researcher with a balanced approach to a very serious incident. The NPPA opposes early parole or clemency for Leonard Peltier. Which brings us to the final point in Peltier's complaint: "85...primary, if not sole purpose, in the creation, design, and maintenance, of this website was and is "to collect signatures of those opposing Peltier's release." Journal World, at p.3b (5/26/2000). Thus, such actions were designed solely to deny him the right to due process both before the Parole Commission and in petitions for Executive Clemency." Gathering signatures on petitions was an ancillary goal--not unlike the continuing similar efforts by the LPDC on behalf of Peltier. The NPPA's purpose, repeated here for clarity is "...to provide the interested reader and researcher with a balanced approach to a very serious incident." For too many years the public only knew of Peltier's version of the event's of June 26, 1975, a version he has repeatedly changed to suit his own needs, coupled with documented lies and erroneous statements about what occurred. Peltier's efforts here are shallow and transparent; publicity, the FOIPA documents, and most significantly, an attempt to squelch free speech from those who oppose his release and believe in his guilt.
Ed Woods,
On March 22, 2004, USDCJ Richard Leon granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.
|
