Retired FBI Agent Joseph H. Trimbach (pictured) Testifies at Leonard Peltier's Parole Hearing

"Inmate Peltier, the issue of your guilt was decided over 30 years ago in a courtroom and you continue to pay the price for the crimes you committed. But now could be the time for healing and closure. Healing is possible only if you acknowledge your guilt, ask for forgiveness, and show remorse for the terrible crimes you committed. It is not too late. You must acknowledge the truth. You have an opportunity to make a positive contribution to society. Ours is a forgiving country, but you have to ask for forgiveness. And you need to cooperate fully with authorities on other matters under investigation, including the Anna Mae Aquash murder.

The path you have chosen over the last three decades has only succeeded in keeping you behind bars. I want you to consider this very carefully because this might be your last chance. So I’m asking you to search your heart and conscience. Do the right thing. Accept responsibility for your actions. And you must ask Ron’s mother and Jack’s widow for forgiveness."--Joseph H. Trimbach (7-28-09), former FBI Special Agent in Charge and co-author of American Indian Mafia: An FBI Agent’s True Story About Wounded Knee, Leonard Peltier, and the American Indian Movement (AIM)

On Tuesday, July 28, 2009, the retired FBI Agent Joseph H. Trimbach testified [see the full text below] in the Lewisburg, Pennsylvania federal prison at the parole hearing of Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of Aiding and Abetting in the 6-26-75 execution-murder of the badly wounded FBI agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. [See the official FBI "quick facts" about the Reservation Murders (RESMURS) case and a fuller account at the No Parole Peltier Association (NPPA). See the 3-14-09 letter to President Obama from Edward Woods of the NPPA.]

There has been a deluge of mendacious, hate-filled, propagandistic pseudo-scholarship about these vicious murders. For example, when the discredited ex-professor Ward Churchill falsely claimed that the two murdered FBI agents died "Custer-like--in their self-made trap," he disparaged these victims of terrorism in exactly the same way that he disparaged the 9-11 victims as "little Eichmanns" in his error-filled essay "Some People Push Back." [See Ward Churchill, Agents of Repression. p. 241 for his dishonest and disparaging comparison of murder victims Coler and Williams to General Custer.]

John Trimbach, Joe's son and the co-author of American Indian Mafia, commented in a book interview published on 7-10-09:

We are gratified that our biggest supporters are Native Americans who are thankful that the truth about what happened has finally come out. Dad is probably the only person alive who could have written this book with the credibility of someone who was there. One of the village residents, JoAnn Gildersleeve, recently thanked us for our efforts by saying that had we not written this book, a slice of American history might have been lost forever. Frankly, I am surprised that no reputable scholar had revisited these topics in an honest manner. No one had ever tried to interview Joseph Trimbach. They choose instead to propagate the falsehoods already recorded, in many cases, by the perpetrators themselves.

The U.S. Parole Commission will make a decision on Inmate Peltier's case in the next three weeks. Peltier remains eligible for parole because he was convicted before 1987, when parole was abolished for federal inmates.

The Associated Press (7-28-09) cited Mr. Trimbach's statement (below) and also reported:

Drew Wrigley, U.S. attorney for North Dakota, provided a 17-page letter to the hearing officer in which he said, "Peltier is simply an unrepentant, violent, armed criminal who is a continuing danger to the public welfare.

"Paroling him at this time would create an unacceptable risk to society in general and to the United States Parole and Probation officers who would be tasked with the duty of attempting to supervise him," Wrigley said.

Here is the statement of former FBI Special Agent in Charge, Joseph H Trimbach (7-28-09):

Statement of Joseph H. Trimbach, Special Agent in Charge, FBI (retired)
in Opposition to Parole for

LEONARD PELTIER
Reg. No. 89637-132

United States Penitentiary
Lewisburg, PA
July 28, 2009

I would like to thank the Parole Commission for giving us this opportunity to make a statement in opposition to parole for Inmate Peltier. I am here representing only myself and my son, John. We do not represent any group or organization. The opinions and recommendations are ours alone. The facts presented are as we know them to be, and as we set forth in our book, American Indian Mafia, An FBI Agent’s True Story About Wounded Knee, Leonard Peltier, and the American Indian Movement. Our book sets the record straight on matters pertaining to Inmate Peltier as well as the leadership of the American Indian Movement.

On June 26, 1975, I was in my office in Minneapolis when I learned that there was gunfire at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, some 600 miles away. I assembled my SWAT teams and flew to Rapid City. We were met there by George O’Clock, the 60-year-old supervisor in that resident agency. As I stepped off the plane, George came up to me with tears streaming down his checks. He could barely speak. He looked up at me and said, “Boss, they killed them.” He was talking about two of my Agents, Ron Williams and Jack Coler, both 28-years-old.

The Rapid City Resident Agency was a close-knit group of about a dozen Agents. They worked and socialized together. They were like family. Several years ago, we interviewed, for our book, one of the Agents who had been assigned there. He told me that his grief over the loss of these two friends was something he would carry with him to his grave.

Agent Williams had a brilliant future in the FBI and was scheduled to come to Headquarters for training as a squad supervisor. Jack Coler, the father of two young children, was assigned to the Denver Division and was on loan to my office. He was a former police officer, and an outstanding Agent.

On that fateful day in June 1975, we flew to the Pine Ridge airstrip and were driven to the scene of the shooting. The gunfire had not ended. We immediately came under fire from shooters in a small building. They escaped out the rear of the building and into the woods before we had a chance to surround them. We pursued them in our vehicles until the terrain made this impossible. We then proceeded on foot as the fugitives fled west. Inmate Peltier and his associates shot at us. I almost became a casualty myself. A bullet hit the dirt just a few feet from where I was running. We could not see the shooters because we were looking directly into the setting sun. I was forced to call off the chase for fear that more of my Agents would be killed pursuing the fugitives in the dark.

John and I attended the murder trial of another American Indian Movement gunman named Arlo Looking Cloud, in February 2004. Ka-Mook Nichols, former wife of American Indian Movement founder Dennis Banks, testified that a few months after the murders, Inmate Peltier bragged to her and her sister, that he shot Agent Williams. According to Ka-Mook’s testimony, Inmate Peltier said, “The motherfucker was begging for his life but I shot him anyway.” Ron Williams died with his right hand held up in a futile effort to stave off the rifle bullet he knew was coming. He had been trying to tie a tourniquet on the upper arm of Jack Coler who was in deep shock and bleeding to death from a severe gunshot wound that nearly severed his right arm. Williams had also been shot and was obviously in great pain. Neither Agent posed a threat to anyone. Inmate Peltier shot both Agents in the face from a distance of just a few inches away.

Some people have referred to these killings as a shootout. Actually, this was more like an ambush from 200 yards away, followed by the deliberate cold-blooded execution of two wounded law enforcement officers.

No one in the FBI, and certainly no one in my office, knew that Peltier was on the reservation. The Agents were not there to arrest him. Ron and Jack were looking for Jimmy Eagle, a local resident wanted on a felony assault charge. In fact, the Agents had been in the area the day before, asking about Eagle.

Inmate Peltier knew these men were FBI Agents when he opened fire on them. He thought they had come to arrest him, as there was an outstanding felony warrant on Inmate Peltier.

Inmate Peltier continues to deny his involvement in these murders, despite the massive evidence against him. In so doing, he has done substantial harm to our criminal justice system by polluting the minds of many well-intentioned but gullible people, particularly students, who believe his lies. He has inspired falsified books to be written (e.g., Peter Matthiessen’s “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse”) and a falsified documentary to be produced (Robert Redford’s “Incident at Oglala”). By claiming to be a political prisoner, illegally convicted by the FBI, he promotes disrespect for law and order and hatred for America. He has poisoned the minds of many Native Americans with his lies and his defense fund schemes.

In a recent blog posting on behalf of Inmate Peltier, the article opened with the words, “May death be upon you, FBI.” To my knowledge, Inmate Peltier has never disavowed these dangerous words. In our view, with his present mindset, he presents a clear, present, and continuing threat to law enforcement, particularly the FBI.

Inmate Peltier, the issue of your guilt was decided over 30 years ago in a courtroom and you continue to pay the price for the crimes you committed. But now could be the time for healing and closure. Healing is possible only if you acknowledge your guilt, ask for forgiveness, and show remorse for the terrible crimes you committed. It is not too late. You must acknowledge the truth. You have an opportunity to make a positive contribution to society. Ours is a forgiving country, but you have to ask for forgiveness. And you need to cooperate fully with authorities on other matters under investigation, including the Anna Mae Aquash murder.

The path you have chosen over the last three decades has only succeeded in keeping you behind bars. I want you to consider this very carefully because this might be your last chance. So I’m asking you to search your heart and conscience. Do the right thing. Accept responsibility for your actions. And you must ask Ron’s mother and Jack’s widow for forgiveness.

In conclusion, we believe that releasing Inmate Peltier, based on his claim of innocence, runs contrary to the findings of the Federal Circuit Court Judges, all of whom concluded that he is guilty. Furthermore, if Inmate Peltier is released without acknowledging his guilt, we can expect him to give speeches on reservations and college campuses asserting the lie that he was a political prisoner. We believe it is unacceptable to grant parole to an unrepentant killer who refuses to ask for forgiveness from family members deprived of a son, a husband, and a father.

AIM Myth Busters: Ten Reasons Why Leonard Peltier Should Never Be Freed

"The motherfu—er was begging for his life but I shot him anyway."---Leonard Peltier bragging about his execution-murder of the critically-wounded FBI Agent Ron Williams, according to the court testimony of Darlene P. Nichols, the former Ka-Mook Banks

On Tuesday, July 28, 2009, Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of aiding and abetting in the 6-26-75 execution-style murders of the badly-wounded FBI agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams, will have a parole hearing.

There has been a deluge of mendacious, hate-filled, propagandistic pseudo-scholarship about these vicious murders, but AIM Myth Busters has set the record straight and listed "10 Reasons Why Leonard Peltier Should Never Be Freed" (7-26-09):

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 [the young, murdered FBI Agents] 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: here. (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 here.)

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. [See the original post. For more information about the crimes of the AIM leadership and Leonard Peltier see American Indian Mafia.]

Ward Churchill Cites Science Czar John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, and Anne Ehrlich

"[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."---Science Czar John Holdren in his 1977 college textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (page 786) [As cited by David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner (7-14-09)]

IN PROGRESS...

President Obama's mother was an unmarried 17-year-old girl when she became pregnant with the future President Obama; yet the President's Science Czar John Holdren, along with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, are the co-authors of Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, a 1977 textbook that the authors contend merely "describes" how underage pregnant girls might be forced by the government to put their babies up for adoption, get married, or have an abortion.

For the background on Science Czar Holdren's 1977 textbook Ecoscience, see articles at Front Page Magazine (2-27-09), Zombietime (7-10-09), The Denver Post (7-15-09), and Michelle Malkin (7-21-09). Ecoscience is also available at Questia.com

Dr. Holdren and the White House say that Ecoscience is an old college textbook and that Dr. Holdren does not now and has never advocated forced sterilization. (Ecoscience had discussed putting something in the water to control the population). The Washington Times (7-15-09) and Zombieblog (7-14-09) report:

When asked whether Mr. Holdren’s thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, “This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization.” [Page 1 of the Washington Times article]…The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, “anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement.“ [Page 2 of the Washington Times Article]

Never-the-less, the so-called "descriptions" in Dr. Holdren's book continue to be cited and may have morphed into "endorsements" at the hands of more recent authors.

According to a Google book seach, Ecoscience seems to be "cited" on page 28 in Islands in Captivity, a book edited by the dishonest ex-professor Ward Churchill. [Seach Google Books for "Ward Churchill" Holdren.]

Of course, Ward Churchill books often mischaracterize what respected and honest scholars say to give Churchill's bogus and dishonest research credibility. It is hard to know without seeing Islands in Captivity who cited Dr. Holdren, since Ward Churchill was supposedly only the editor.

Still, it is very worrisome that the mere "descriptions" of John Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich in an old college textbook might have snowballed into "endorsement" at the hands of other academics.

Ward Churchill, who has some really extreme ideas about drastically reducting America's population in order to save the planet, has "joked" in three of his "scholarly" books that American mothers should "snuff" their babies and kill themselves to "do the planet a real favor."

Ward Churchill's vicious and thrice-repeated "joke" that mothers should "snuff" their babies is not so different than the Orwellian "description" in Ecoscience of unmarried girls being forced by the government to abort their babies.

President Obama has said that if one of his daughers "makes a mistake," he doesn't want her "punished with a baby." With an attitude like that, is the President really giving his daughters a choice? The President's mother was an unmarried teenager when she got pregnant. Was the unborn President Obama a "mistake" who "punished" his mother? Or was he the first black President?

From a search on Google, it appears that Ward Churchill "cites" Science Czar Holdren's co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich more often than he cites John Holdren.

For example, search "Ehrlich" in Ward Churchill's nasty essay "I Am Indigenist."

The Ehrlichs claim that they were simply "describing" hypothetical policies, but Ward Churchill is endorsing these authors' "descriptions."

Of course, Ward Churchill may be mischaracterizing what the Ehrlich's have written. Maybe the Ehrlichs should write a paper explaining to everyone that Ward Churchill is mischaracterizing their descriptions as endorsement.

In "I Am Indigenist," Ward Churchill "jokes" that American mothers should "snuff" their babies and kill themselves "to do the planet a real favor."

The University of Colorado fired Ward Churchill, but none of the scholars seem to have been troubled by Churchill's sick "joke." Are the Ehrlichs and Science Czar Holdren, who merely "describe" forced abortion in Ecoscience, bothered by that "joke"?

Ward Churchill advocates extreme solutions for population control and environmentalism. He "cites" the "descriptions" of Science Czar Holdren and the Ehrlichs in order to give his ideas credibility. I don't know if the "descriptions" are cited accurately and in context or not, but it is scary to see that the "descriptions" of our Science Czar and his co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich are cited and endorsed by Ward Churchill, a discredited scholar who "jokes" in three of his "scholarly" books that American mothers should "snuff" their babies and kill themselves to "do the planet a real favor." [Search Google and Google books for "Ward Churchill" snuff.]

Former FBI Chief Joseph H. Trimbach Urges President Obama to Keep Leonard Peltier Behind Bars

"May Death Be Upon You, FBI."--a threat posted a Leonard Peltier blog site and attributed to the unrepentant killer Leonard Peltier

On Tuesday, July 28, Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of aiding and abetting in the execution-style murders of the badly wounded FBI agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams, will have a parole hearing. On March 17, 2009, a press release reported that the retired FBI agent Joseph H. Trimbach had appealed to President Obama to reject executive clememcy for Peltier:

Former FBI Special Agent in Charge Joseph H. Trimbach has asked President Obama to reject all petitions for executive clemency for Leonard Peltier, a member of the American Indian Movement convicted in the 1975 murders of two federal agents.

In a strongly worded two-page letter, dated January 20, 2009, Trimbach called on the President to deny requests for clemency on the grounds that Peltier is guilty and unrepentant. This follows recent news that in his final days in office, President Bush formally rejected Peltier's petition for freedom, thereby requiring Peltier to refile his request with the Obama administration. Peltier's supporters hope President Obama will invoke his executive powers and grant an immediate pardon which would override current time limitations in the petition process. Calling his recent move a "charm offensive" designed to fool the President, Trimbach wrote that releasing Peltier would be "an abomination of justice" and "have far-reaching ramifications for your administration, for the FBI, and for the people of Indian Country." In his letter, Trimbach recalled being shot at as he and his fellow agents chased Peltier and his accomplices into the hills south of the village of Oglala, on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. Trimbach detailed several items that he says substantiate Peltier's guilt as the triggerman, including Peltier's boast about shooting one of the agents, recalled under oath by a witness in another trial. He further stated that information made public since Peltier's conviction strongly validates the guilty verdict rendered in 1977. Specifically, Trimbach said that every judge who has heard or reviewed the case has concluded that Peltier was fairly tried and fairly convicted. Trimbach told the President that many well-intentioned people have been fooled by Peltier's persona as a "political prisoner," a manufactured identity that has bilked millions of donors out of millions of dollars for Peltier's defense fund. Peltier is supported by Robert Redford, David Geffen, and other Hollywood celebrities who say the 64-year old inmate should be released due to humanitarian reasons.

Trimbach's web site, americanindianmafia.com, features a youtube.com video which shows Peltier apparently contradicting himself over the course of several interviews. Through his blog site, aimmythbusters.com, administered by James Simon, Trimbach argues that Peltier's lawyers have merely sealed their client's fate by encouraging his dishonesty and denial. "Every time an inconvenient truth exposes one of his falsehoods, he changes his story" says Trimbach, adding that only prisoners who admit their guilt and ask for forgiveness should be considered for parole or pardon. Peltier claimed for many years that another man, known as Mr. X, was guilty of executing Agents Ron Williams and Jack Coler. An interview of a masked X was shown on 60 Minutes in 1991. The story was later exposed as a hoax, designed to persuade then President Clinton that Peltier was innocent. Clinton left office without acting on the Peltier case.

In a separate letter to Congressman John Conyers, Trimbach cited Peltier's 1993 Parole Board which concluded that his aiding and abetting conviction belied the greater probability that Peltier himself fired the fatal shots, all delivered at point-blank range. Evidence presented at Peltier's trial included a shell casing found at the murder scene, which matched over a hundred shell casings found nearby and ejected from Peltier's weapon, an AR-15 assault rifle. The weapon was recovered three months later after the car it was in, laden with gunpowder and weapons, exploded on a Texas highway. A recent message from Peltier to his supporters opened with the words, "May Death Be Upon You, FBI" Trimbach responded by writing, "On June 26, 1975, Leonard Peltier surely brought death to the FBI."

Joseph Trimbach presents other evidence against Peltier in his book, American Indian Mafia, An FBI Agent's True Story About Wounded Knee, Leonard Peltier, and the American Indian Movement (AIM). He may be reached through his public relations service found at ExpertClick.com (keywords: AIM Myth Busters) and his web site, americanindianmafia.com. For a book summary, see outskirtspress.com/americanindianmafia.

[See full press release.]

Ward Churchill Files a Motion Asking Judge Naves to Amend His July 7 Ruling

On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, the discredited ex-professor Ward Churchill submitted a rudely-worded motion [Hat tip Pirate Ballerina] with the court asking Judge Naves to reconsider his July 7, 2009 ruling. Churchill wants his tenured teaching position at Boulder's University of Colorado restored, and he also wants Judge Naves to "reverse his finding that the CU regents were entitled to the same immunity that applies to judges because they were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when they fired Churchill."

Although Ward Churchill often claims expertise in Constitutional Law, after the trial Judge Naves ruled that the Colorado Constitution specifically establishes the regents; and case law gives them authority similar to judges for the action they took in his academic misconduct case. I probably am not describing the legal aspects very well, so read Judge Nave's ruling here or here.

According to Judge Naves, Judges and people acting in a similar capacity have quasi-judicial immunity, which seems to mean that judges, or people such as the CU regents acting in the capacity of judges, can't be sued. The remedy for a bad judgement is an appeal. Since CU would have to pay for any financial claims Churchill made against the regents, the University is entitled to judicial immunity. [Read Judge Nave's ruling, because I may not be explaining it accurately.]

Judge Naves says in paragraph 50 that Churchill doesn't understand the law:

Professor Churchill argues that the University is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because the University waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.

Oops! I think this means that somebody really messed up!

The Denver Post (7-21-09/updated 7-22-09) reports:

The lawyer for a University of Colorado professor fired after likening some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to a Nazi mastermind is asking a judge to reconsider a decision refusing to reinstate his client.

Ward Churchill's lawyer, David Lane, filed a motion Tuesday asking Denver District Judge Larry Naves to amend his ruling and reinstate Churchill to his former position as a tenured professor at CU's Boulder campus.

Naves ruled July 7 against Churchill's bid to return to his job as an ethnic studies professor. He said the decision by the university's governing Board of Regents to fire Churchill in 2007 for plagiarism "occurred with sufficient procedural protections."

Naves also noted that jurors who found in April that Churchill was wrongly fired awarded him only $1 in damages. He said the low figure meant that the jury concluded Churchill did not incur any damages.

...

Naves said in his decision against reinstatement that Churchill had shown hostility to the university in his comments after the jury verdict by calling Colorado University a "not very glorified vo-tech, a trade school." He said the university was right to fear that it would be hard to recruit and retain teachers if Churchill were reinstated and that his return would create a perception that the school tolerated research misconduct.

...

Churchill's attorney also asked the judge to reverse his finding that the CU regents were entitled to the same immunity that applies to judges because they were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when they fired Churchill. [Full text]

Science Czar John Holdren

"[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."---Science Czar John Holdren in his 1977 book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (page 786) [As cited by David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner (7-14-09)]

UPDATE: See additional articles about John Holdren at Front Page Magazine (2-27-09), Zombietime (7-10-09), The Denver Post (7-15-09), and Michelle Malkin (7-21-09).

Holdren's controversial book is also available on-line at Questia.

David Freddoso, who writes for Commentary, has written an article about President Obama's Science Czar John Holdren in the Washington Examiner (7-14-09):

Internet reports are now circulating that Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.

...

The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.

Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections to some proposals...especially to any kind of compulsion.” But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people's objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.

He writes:

"Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested."

Holdren refers approvingly, for example, to Indira Gandhi's government for its then-recent attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:

"India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi's government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective."

When necessary, then, compulsory sterilization is justified. This attitude suffuses the following passage, in which the possibility of putting a “sterilant” into a population's drinking water is seriously discussed. Holdren and his co-authors do not recommend this particular method, but their objections to it are merely practical and health-related, not moral or stemming from any concern for human freedom:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the oposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock...Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Even though they do not recommend it, note that Holdren and his co-authors treat this as a serious policy proposal with serious drawbacks -- not as an insane idea unworthy of consideration.

They look with more favor on this “milder” form of coercive sterilization:

"Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation."

Holdren and his co-authors also tackle the problem of illegitimacy, recognizing that it could be one consequence of a society which, in its effort to limit births, downgrades the value of intact nuclear families and encourages lifelong bachelorhood:

"[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

Holdren's suggestion here is presented perfectly in context. It stands alone in the text without any accompanying reservations.

President Obama has spoken repeatedly in favor of putting science before ideology.

The real debate, however, has never been about whether ethics are needed in science, but rather over whose ethics should determine where science will or will not go.

Nowhere has Obama suggested that science should be completely ethics-free. But Holdren is his Science Czar all the same.

Jim Wilkins, the FBI Agent Who Recaptured the Murderer Leonard Peltier, Dies

"Wilkins was the agent who recaptured American Indian activist Leonard Peltier, who was serving two life sentences for the [June 26] 1975 murder of two FBI agents at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota when he escaped from a California prison in 1979."---Star-Telegram (4-20-09)

The FBI agent who arrested the unrepentant murderer Leonard Peltier after he escaped from prison died on Friday, July 17, 2009. Next Tuesday, on July 28, 2009, Peltier, a vicious criminal who has never shown any remorse, will have a full parole hearing.

The Star-Telegram (4-20-09) reports:

Jim Wilkins’ 34-year FBI career included an important but little-known footnote in America criminal history.

Wilkins was the agent who recaptured American Indian activist Leonard Peltier, who was serving two life sentences for the [June 26] 1975 murder of two FBI agents at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota when he escaped from a California prison in 1979.

Peltier fled to the Santa Maria hills. But his run from the law ended after four days, when Wilkins spotted Peltier’s white tennis shoes in the brush and took him into custody.

Wilkins, a 1966 Grapevine High School graduate, worked for the FBI throughout California and in his native Texas. After his retirement in 2000, he became Marshall police chief, where he retired, again, in 2008.

...

Wilkins’ role in recapturing Peltier was recounted in American Indian Mafia: An FBI Agent’s True Story About Wounded Knee, Leonard Peltier, and the American Indian Movement (AIM). [My link.]

The book by Joseph H. and John M. Trimbach explores misconceptions about what happened between American Indians and the FBI during 1970s confrontations at Pine Ridge and Wounded Knee.

"Jim was instrumental in helping us correct the historical record," John Trimbach said Monday in an interview. He added that although Wilkins was rarely mentioned by name, his recapture of Peltier is often at the center of conspiracy theories involving the FBI secretly wishing that Peltier would escape from prison so that he could be killed.

Mr. Wilkins was interviewed for the book while still Marshall police chief, Trimbach said.

"Jim told us we were the first people who came along and asked what really happened," Trimbach said...[See full text.]

PBS Ignores the Perspective of Native American Scholars, Writers, and Activists in Favor of Named Co-Conspirators in Multiple Murders

Paul DeMain, editor of News from Indian Country (IndianCountryNews.com), said that parts of the film "take us to a well-charted fantasyland" because it fails to hold AIM accountable. "AIM leaders Dennis Banks, Russell Means, and Madonna Thunderhawk [all featured in the film] are named co-conspirators in several murders, like that of civil rights worker Perry Ray Robinson." Robinson, a colleague of Martin Luther King, was said to be the only black man inside the village during that period of the occupation. AIM is believed to have buried his body near Wounded Knee Creek in an effort to keep his death a secret. Added DeMain, "These same AIM leaders were involved in the execution of Annie Mae Pictou Aquash. They killed her because she evidently knew about Robinson's death. Several people tried to warn producer Stanley Nelson and PBS about this. They chose to ignore us."---John M. Trimbach

John M. Trimbach, a co-author of American Indian Mafia, has penned a July 14, 2009 article for Accuracy in Media titled "PBS Accused of Ignoring Indian History."

I am posting excerpts from Trimbach's article below:

...The Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association (WKVAVA) has issued a scathing letter to Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS. The letter...accuses the organization of fronting what the group says is a distorted film on Indian history, the last in the American Experience "We Shall Remain" series. The film, entitled "Wounded Knee," describes the occupation of the historic village in 1973 by members and supporters of the American Indian Movement (AIM). Wounded Knee, the site of an Indian massacre in 1890, sits near the southern border of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The FBI and the U.S. Marshal Service erected roadblocks around the small town after AIM members looted a store, set fires, and shot at responding emergency crews. The militants held 11 residents hostage. The occupation lasted 71 days as government lawyers tried to negotiate a peaceful end to the hostilities. Two occupiers were shot to death, although rumors persist that several victims were murdered behind the scenes during heated arguments and interrogations ordered by AIM leaders. The conflict left the village in shambles.

The group charges PBS with failure to hold "Wounded Knee" to PBS standards for editorial integrity, fairness, and historical accuracy. Many of the association's complaints center on the film's lack of information about the Wounded Knee villagers. "The real victims of Wounded Knee were the people who lived there," said Joe Trimbach, author of the book, American Indian Mafia (americanindianmafia.com). "Most of the residents were Indians. They lost everything they owned and yet they are invisible in this film. It doesn't even show the devastation." Upon learning that PBS had omitted his book from their bibliography, Trimbach contacted their legal department. PBS has since added Trimbach's book to the list. "We call Mafia, 'The history book they do not want you to read.' Well, here's a good example. We try to tell the truth about what happened and some people don't want to hear it."

JoAnn Gildersleeve Feraca, daughter of Wounded Knee residents Clive and Agnes Gildersleeve, recalled what it was like to watch the steady demolition of her community while the media appeared oblivious to the destruction. "The reporters did one of the worst disservices to real news gathering that I have ever seen. The media wanted to film a western. They created the good guys and the bad guys, and never even had to pay for ruined property and lives. And now we have a film from PBS that pays homage to the perpetrators all over again. My parents suffered greatly at the hands of their assailants. They were taken hostage. Their trading post store was burned to the ground. They even stole my mother's wedding ring and gold bracelet. My parents lost everything they had spent a lifetime building."

Among the signers of the letter are Saunie and Romona Wilson, daughters of Tribal Chairman Richard Wilson who is criticized throughout the film. The sisters plan on writing a book which they say will tell a different story about their father and about Wounded Knee. "I am upset how this film exploits historical issues painful to all of us as natives, like the boarding school era," said Romona Wilson. "My father was whipped and forced to chew soap for speaking Lakota in school. He was fluent and would speak it when he chose to. This film demonizes him by distorting his record and misreporting the facts. We intend to change that."

Paul DeMain, editor of News from Indian Country (IndianCountryNews.com), said that parts of the film "take us to a well-charted fantasyland" because it fails to hold AIM accountable. "AIM leaders Dennis Banks, Russell Means, and Madonna Thunderhawk [all featured in the film] are named co-conspirators in several murders, like that of civil rights worker Perry Ray Robinson." Robinson, a colleague of Martin Luther King, was said to be the only black man inside the village during that period of the occupation. AIM is believed to have buried his body near Wounded Knee Creek in an effort to keep his death a secret. Added DeMain, "These same AIM leaders were involved in the execution of Annie Mae Pictou Aquash. They killed her because she evidently knew about Robinson's death. Several people tried to warn producer Stanley Nelson and PBS about this. They chose to ignore us." The group has called for justice for Robinson and for Pictou Aquash who was murdered in 1975 because AIM leaders mistakenly thought she was a government informant. Pictou Aquash was a prominent figure at Wounded Knee but does not appear in the film.

Richard Two Elk, a former AIM member, was not interviewed for the film partly because of his first-hand account of the Robinson shooting. "I witnessed the incident when Robinson was shot in the leg and carried away after an argument with some of the leaders. Carter Camp knows that Robinson died after bleeding to death and he has lied about even meeting him." Camp, an AIM leader who appears in the film, defends his actions as an instigator of several gun battles during the occupation. Two Elk laments that PBS now appears to be a part of the effort to cover up the Robinson murder in order to "glorify" AIM leaders. "AIM hijacked the legacy of Wounded Knee and exploited it for their own gain. They cashed in and left their fellow Indians behind, homeless and destitute. That should have been part of the story. Now it appears that PBS has helped them get away with it. Another fact not mentioned in the film is that most of the invaders were from outside the reservation. They were not local people with local grievances."

Shawn White Wolf, CEO of White Wolf Media Group (native-view.com), judged the film to be little more than vintage AIM propaganda. "I am disgusted with this film. Producer Nelson has done nothing more than propagandize in favor of the murders, terror and violence committed by members of the American Indian Movement. This film only adds more salt to the wounds of the true Wounded Knee victims. And I ask the public schools to stop teaching our Native youth that AIM is a legitimate organization."

The group is asking PBS to make amends for shortcomings in the film. "We want equal time to dispel the myths and correct the damage done to the historical record by this documentary," said Trimbach. "We cannot let PBS or any other entity dismiss the hardships and horrors endured by the villagers and the victims. PBS owes it to the American public to get it right. In the interest of historical accuracy and fairness, they should take another look at this." Patrick LeBeau, professor of Indian Studies, Michigan State University, added that the PBS-endorsed curriculum (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/files/guides/WSR_TG_EP5.pdf) reflects the film's distortions. "I will not brainwash my students with the AIM litany of lies promoted by these leading questions. I will teach my students how to distinguish between factual history and propaganda. And I'll use the PBS study questions as a prime example."

Ray Robinson's widow, Cheryl Buswell-Robinson, wrote a letter that accompanies the group letter to PBS. In it, she wrote, "Ray was able to connect with all sorts of people more than anyone I have ever known....I am saddened to learn that the whole history of Wounded Knee, where my murdered husband rests in an unmarked grave, was suppressed." She added that Anna Mae Pictou Aquash was an important figure at Wounded Knee. "It would have been a positive addition to the historical record to finally document other aspects of Anna Mae's life, particularly her role during the occupation of Wounded Knee. Anyone's death is a tragedy, but not to have the death acknowledged is a double tragedy."

The group plans to launch a media campaign to voice their concerns and to persuade PBS to either change or challenge the Wounded Knee film. They want PBS to have a panel discussion about how to accurately portray Indian history...They would like to hear from people who were inside Wounded Knee during the occupation or who would like to share information. They assure confidentiality to all those who ask for it.

[See the original article for the e-mail of the WKVAVA.]

PBS Accused of Distorting Indian History; Falls Prey to Propaganda

"The last place we thought we would encounter resistance to the truth is the taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting System. But now it appears that the bigwigs at PBS intend to dig in their heels. They insist that their recently released film, “Wounded Knee,” is a fair and balanced account of the takeover and destruction of the historic village in 1973...Another example of deception [in the PBS film "Wounded Knee"] is the conspicuous absence of any footage showing Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a prominent and highly visible AIM member at Wounded Knee. Aquash was murdered by AIM leaders in 1975 because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informant. Ironically, Wounded Knee warrior Madonna Thunder Hawk, featured throughout the film, is also implicated in Aquash’s murder and its subsequent cover-up. Carter Camp, another featured AIM leader, has been repeatedly caught in a lie about knowing [the disappeared] Ray Robinson."---Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association (WKVAV.)

In its Tuesday, July 14, 2009 post, the AIM Myth Busters accuse PBS of distorting history and falling prey to propaganda. The Accuracy in Media site also carries a July 14 article by John M. Trimbach.

For previous posts about this issue, search PBS on this blog, the AIM Myth Busters, the Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association (WKVAVA), the American Indian Mafia site, or Joseph and John Trimbach's Expert Click homepage.

I have reproduced the original AIM Myth Busters post below:

PBS Accused of Distorting Indian History; Falls Prey to Propaganda

Sometimes you have to take a stand against widely-accepted propaganda and defend unpopular truths. The last place we thought we would encounter resistance to the truth is the taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting System. But now it appears that the bigwigs at PBS intend to dig in their heels. They insist that their recently released film, “Wounded Knee,” is a fair and balanced account of the takeover and destruction of the historic village in 1973. We beg to differ. To make our point, we formed a group, the Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association (WKVAVA.) Our group includes people who have either studied Wounded Knee or else have documented knowledge of what happened there. We stack up well against PBS’s “prominent scholars.” Unlike them, some of us were actual participants in the occupation and the efforts to end it peacefully. We therefore carry credibility of the sort that seems to be lacking at PBS HQ. Included in our group is JoAnn Gildersleeve Feraca (Chippewa), daughter of Agnes and Clive Gildersleeve, owners of the Wounded Knee Trading Post; Romona and Saunie Wilson (Lakota), daughters of Tribal Chairman Richard Wilson; Richard Two Elk (Lakota), Wounded Knee Veteran and former member, American Indian Movement; Patrick LeBeau, (Cheyenne River Sioux, Chippewa), Professor of Indian Studies, Michigan State University; Paul DeMain (Oneida-Ojibwe), Editor, News from Indian Country; and Shawn White Wolf (Northern Cheyenne), CEO, White Wolf Media Group. In addition to protecting the true story of Wounded Knee, our mission is to correct the historical record wherever we find evidence of distortion and propaganda with regard to the legacy of the American Indian Movement (AIM.) And we find much distortion and propaganda (and some backpedaling) from the folks at PBS. Here are excerpts from our first and second letters (May 10 and July 10, 2009) to PBS’s CEO, Paula Kerger.

Dear Ms. Kerger,

We wish to express our concerns about the PBS-backed production of “Wounded Knee,” the final installment of the “American Experience - We Shall Remain” series, which is scheduled to air on May 11, 2009. We believe that the producer, Stanley Nelson of Firelight Media, violates PBS’s own guidelines for editorial integrity, honesty, and fairness. PBS guidelines state: “When editing, producers of informational content must not sensationalize events or create a misleading or unfair version of what actually occurred” and that “(p)roducers must assure that edited material remains faithful in tone…” and is presented “…in a manner that fairly portrays reality.” “Wounded Knee” fails on all counts. This production employs distorted editing, deceptive statements, audience manipulation, and a propagandistic narrative that rationalizes the terror, violence, and murders perpetrated by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during the 1973 occupation of the historic Indian village of Wounded Knee.

This film attempts to explain away the destruction of the village by invoking historical issues (broken treaties, Indian boarding schools, government-sponsored relocation, etc.) and by rationalizing the criminality of the perpetrators. One of the film’s worst transgressions is its contemptible disregard for the real victims of Wounded Knee, the villagers who lived there. Aside from a brief statement from one of the Indian hostages, Agnes Gildersleeve, the villagers’ stories are virtually absent from this film. “Wounded Knee” does not even show how AIM systematically tore the village apart and reduced it to complete devastation. The film does not mention that AIM looted the town, stole people’s personal possessions, slaughtered cattle in their bedrooms, fire-bombed their homes and vehicles, and desecrated their churches. AIM occupiers stole or destroyed a collection of priceless Indian artifacts when they pillaged the Wounded Knee museum. Rather than condemn AIM violence, “Wounded Knee” serves as a mouthpiece for the perpetrators who spew their distortions and lies without challenge. To glorify AIM in this way is not only deceitful, it is offensive. This film cheapens genuine Indian valor and heroism.

For a documentary that purports to be about the armed takeover of a community and its consequences, these are serious shortcomings that demand a response. From a philosophical point of view, the argument that the terror, violence, theft, and loss of life associated with the razing of an Indian village were somehow justified is an argument that is fundamentally flawed and must be exposed.

Producer Nelson went to great lengths to tell only the perpetrators’ side of the story. He misled interviewees, such as Wounded Knee resident Walter Littlemoon, about what would be in the film. Nelson reneged on his agreement to interview Wounded Knee veteran Richard Two Elk, a condition agreed to in exchange for Joe Trimbach’s participation. Nelson used Trimbach’s interview anyway. Nelson or his surrogates omitted American Indian Mafia from the PBS bibliography. This book, which is supported by thorough documentation, is arguably the most complete and factual account of Wounded Knee’s destruction. After Joe Trimbach registered a complaint with your legal department, Mafia was added to the PBS list. One wonders if Mafia was initially excluded simply because it exposes several of the books in the same list as falsified and fraudulent accounts of AIM history and of Wounded Knee. Nelson relies on these falsified books to support his distorted version of what happened in the village. To reference only the falsified accounts is inexcusable. To use this tainted information to construct leading questions for the PBS-endorsed school curriculum is equally scandalous and must also be exposed. There is not one question, for example, that asks how the villagers lost everything they owned.

We believe that Nelson’s failure to interview Two Elk was partly due to the fact that he witnessed the Wounded Knee murder of Perry Ray Robinson, a topic Nelson shows no interest in pursuing. Robinson, the only black man seen inside the village during that period, was a civil rights activist and a colleague of Martin Luther King. Robinson was shot by an AIM leader during a heated argument. His death and burial near the village ruins is one of many AIM secrets that Nelson’s production has now helped cover up.

Another example of deception is the conspicuous absence of any footage showing Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a prominent and highly visible AIM member at Wounded Knee. Aquash was murdered by AIM leaders in 1975 because they mistakenly believed that she was an FBI informant. Ironically, Wounded Knee warrior Madonna Thunder Hawk, featured throughout the film, is also implicated in Aquash’s murder and its subsequent cover-up. Carter Camp, another featured AIM leader, has been repeatedly caught in a lie about knowing Ray Robinson. Today, Camp denies ever meeting him. On camera, Camp has nothing to say about Anna Mae either. In fact, most of the AIM leaders interviewed for this film have been implicated in the Aquash and Robinson murders. Anna Mae likely knew about the Robinson shooting and her leaders’ attempts to keep his death a secret, and now it appears Nelson has joined the effort to write her out of existence as well. AIM leaders must surely approve.

Instead of documenting Indian history, "Wounded Knee" denigrates genuine Indian sacrifice and makes a mockery of true Indian heroism shown in previous segments. We intend to pursue every means available to expose this film for its dishonesty, its revisionist agenda, and its abject failure to tell a fact-based and fair-minded story of Wounded Knee. This production abuses the public trust by recycling and legitimizing what can only be described as vintage AIM propaganda. A PBS-sanctioned curriculum that indoctrinates our children must also be challenged. We therefore demand redress. We want equal time for rebuttal, balance, and clarification. The American public deserves better from our publicly-funded programming. We ask for your immediate response to our concerns.

PBS responded a few days later with a letter from PBS Executive Producer Mark Samels and with comments from some of their paid consultants. Here is our reply:

Dear Ms. Kerger,

This is in response to your letter of May 15 and to comments from the June 5 PBS mailbag in support of the American Experience film, “Wounded Knee.” In our letter of May 10, we expressed misgivings about the film and the manner in which it was produced. We believe that the points we raised deserve consideration and debate because they identify issues this film does not address but that are nevertheless central to its integrity and historical accuracy. As you know, we drew attention to a range of issues producer Stanley Nelson took pains to avoid, all of which would have undermined the credibility of AIM leaders Nelson interviewed for the film and whom he portrays as reliable sources. Our concerns focus on the film’s tendency to cover up serious crimes committed by these same AIM leaders during the occupation of Wounded Knee. We were also troubled by the explanation for why American Indian Mafia, the only book that mentions these crimes in detail, was initially dropped from the PBS bibliography. We had hoped PBS officials would respond in an honest and objective manner and perhaps offer insights unknown to us. After reading PBS’s official response, however, our concerns remain.

We do not agree with Executive Producer Mark Samels’s assessment that the film is “even-handed in the portrayal of the siege,” primarily because the film almost completely ignores the Indian victims of Wounded Knee. Nor is Samels correct when he claims that archival footage “clearly shows” the village devastation. In fact, the film does not show any of the fire-bombed homes or the mass vandalism that left most Indian residences completely uninhabitable. Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson was never the mayor of Pine Ridge, as Samels asserts, nor does the film follow through with what Samels says is its intent to show the effect the takeover had on Indians across the county. The film’s argument that Wounded Knee had a positive effect on Native Americans is almost entirely anecdotal and is offered by AIM supporters. There is hard evidence, as well, that suggests the takeover had a negative effect on Indians nationwide and on AIM. Just after Wounded Knee, AIM leaders drew less than 200 Indians to their national convention. The National Tribal Chairman’s Association condemned AIM for destroying the historic village; and when AIM took over a manufacturing plant in New Mexico the following year, hundreds of Navajos lost their jobs. Nelson’s film mentions none of this. On an empirical basis, it is easier to show that the destruction of an Indian village spelled the end of AIM as a credible organization formed to help other Indians. The producers are left with the shaky proposition that legal defense costs explain why AIM’s demise coincided with AIM’s greatest achievement.

Mr. Samels claims that American Experience has responded to our concerns “fully and responsibly,” but then he seems to contradict himself by saying that he does not feel it is “necessary or prudent” to respond point by point to our objections. It may not be prudent to admit the film’s shortcomings, but it is definitely necessary in the interest of portraying true Indian history. We are not persuaded by his assurances that the film was reviewed by “prominent scholars of Native American history,” especially when it appears that our first-hand insights into what really happened at Wounded Knee address the very questions these experts are unable to answer.

Film advisor Paul Chaat Smith admits he is unfamiliar with many of the issues we raised. That is understandable, but it is not a basis upon which to label them “extreme.” Reporting a myriad of sourced facts, as was done in American Indian Mafia, may be ground-breaking, even provocative; but it is surely not extreme. Furthermore, if Mr. Smith is going to make our argument for us, we wish he would do so accurately. Our concerns have always been with the corruption and criminality of the AIM leadership, not, as Mr. Smith suggests, with the membership or the ideals the Movement espoused. We do not accept the notion that “Wounded Knee” presents the “Native American perspective.” Rather, the film presents, very effectively, a dishonest “AIM leadership perspective”; and there’s a huge difference between the two. Then, as today, the leadership preyed on the membership, as evidenced by the distortions in this film. We agree with film adviser Robert Warrior’s assessment that, “…where AIM goes chaos often follows,” if “chaos” means violence, destruction, and murder perpetrated by the leaders. We do not see the need to parse words, however, or to provide cover to those who still wield power through fear and intimidation.

“Wounded Knee” strongly suggests that AIM “is responsible for many positive changes in Indian Country”; yet, like Mr. Smith, the film is short on evidence, aside from a hazy reference to Indians feeling good about being Indian and a hard-to-prove correlation to the revitalization of Indian culture. For example, the argument that the National Museum of the American Indian would not exist without AIM’s influence is more than problematic, especially considering that AIM is virtually absent from all exhibits. Mr. Smith raises some interesting issues, however, such as the phenomenon of an annual Pine Ridge celebration of the 1973 occupation, an event that left the reservation worse off in countless ways. How did the local history become so perverted? And how did national media coverage of the occupation color the way the history was recorded?

We find Professor R. David Edmunds’s comments particularly disappointing. He insists that a response to our concerns would be too lengthy to be of much use. How odd for an academic to make such an argument. He further states that he lacks a law degree that might otherwise enable him to answer a few questions of the sort that can be found through honest research. The professor might simply be unqualified to address the issues we raised. Perhaps this is why he fails to mention our primary complaint about the film, which is of course the lack of information about the real victims of Wounded Knee: the people who lived there and the people who died there. Why is it so difficult to address the charge that this film runs roughshod over the Oglala perspective in favor of AIM criminality?

Professor Edmunds concludes by referencing his vast experience as a basis for belittling our point of view as “the perspective of a very small group of people with a particular agenda, and will be generally ignored by almost everyone else.” He may hope so, but it appears the professor has an agenda of his own. We challenge him to debate us on the AIM lies and distortions in his book, The People: A History of Native America. A number of this book’s characterizations of AIM are easily exposed as propaganda that originated with AIM leaders and their lawyers. While there may be many fine attributes to the professor’s research in other areas, his AIM expertise is suspect; he seems threatened by the facts, especially the facts with which he is unfamiliar. This gets to the heart of our objections and the weaknesses inherent in the film’s premise of presenting AIM leaders as reliable sources and as righteous pioneers. This approach tied the hands of “Wounded Knee” producer, Stanley Nelson, as he avoided certain issues at all costs in order to advance his agenda of sanitizing the Wounded Knee historical record. We maintain that a more objective approach to Wounded Knee realities would have led to some very interesting questions.

Consider, for example, the death of Viet Nam veteran Buddy Lamont on April 27 of the occupation. As alluded to in the film, challenging AIM leader Dennis Banks’s authority was a very dangerous thing to do at Wounded Knee, even for a local Oglala leader like Lamont. The film has AIM member Beau Little Sky saying that, to him, Lamont’s death was a murder. It may very well have been a murder, since Lamont was shot in the back, and apparently from a much shorter range than the hundreds of yards that separated militant bunkers from government roadblocks. Why didn’t AIM leaders immediately call for a ceasefire when Lamont was hit, as they did when Frank Clearwater (the only other “official” death) was struck by a stray bullet ten days earlier? In fact, Dennis Banks rejected a government-offered ceasefire at about the time Lamont was shot, and AIM leader Carter Camp admits he left Lamont’s body where it lay for over two hours before staging a rescue. Why?

The same Carter Camp extolled in the film as he speaks of the “horror” of the 1890 massacre is not asked about murder victim Ray Robinson or the horror he surely experienced. Robinson bled to death after being shot by an AIM leader a few days before Lamont was killed. Why did Camp once claim that he had to leave Robinson after he was “shot through both legs” at Wounded Knee? Why does Camp now say he never met the man? What does Camp have to say about Robinson’s friend, Al Cooper, who was chained to a bed while Camp and other AIM leaders pondered his fate as a possible snitch? And what happened to the people who didn’t pass the spy test? We would like to see a film where narrator Benjamin Bratt asks these questions with the same serious tone as he uses when misstating what happened at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890. At the very least, these issues would lend new meaning to the PBS questions designed to “challenge students,” such as: “Who are some of the most successful Native American leaders at the beginning of the 21st century?”

To summarize, we are not satisfied by the responses to our concerns from the PBS experts and their paid consultants. We believe that any impartial examination of this film must acknowledge its tendency to promote distortions injurious to true Indian history. We will continue to press for a fair, impartial, and informed response to our concerns. PBS viewers should be presented a fuller picture of what happened at Wounded Knee than only the perspective of AIM leaders engaged in cover-up and the massaged story of a doomed village with no victims. That is why we are encouraged by the words of PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler. We agree with his conclusion that further discussion is warranted; the public interest is not well served by stifling debate and undercutting honest inquiry. We applaud his call for a group of scholars not connected to the program to take a second look at the film and possibly debate its merits. We can suggest a panel of experts such as Native publisher Tim Giago and former government administrator Dr. Jim Wilson, both of whom will challenge many of the film’s premises and claims. In the spirit of fairness and historical accuracy, we ask you to schedule a roundtable discussion of the issues we have raised. We look forward to PBS following through with what Mr. Getler agrees is the quintessential mandate of PBS: the pursuit of historical “authenticity.”