1. Come on now, now you’re stooping to the level of a lying Fed? I provided the video archive in the other link. Watch it and tell me where Banks says that “he and Peltier,” walked out of Wounded Knee? He was clearly talking about himself and Lenny Foster. The reporter that wrote the summary simply made a mistake. Oh, btw, where are all the recent responses to Mr. Ed, Benson?

    • Oh come on now Rev.Holtzman,you’re stooping to the level
      of a lying AIM stooge-where did I say Bank’s issued
      the summary?
      It was Norell remember-once again you portray yourself
      as the guy walking behind the AIM/PELTIER parade with a broom
      and shovel cleaning up all the horseshit left behind.
      Perhaps another “reporter”, Standing Deer, made a mistake
      as well when reporting his version of “lions, and tigers,
      and SNAKES,oh my”.
      And as I said in the blog-“I’m willing to say AIM has told
      so many stories they get confused at times”, and the Peltier
      miscue was a mistake related to that”.
      But interesting you’ve made no attempt to characterize the
      “shoplifting” claim as a mistake,in fact you predictably make
      no mention of it. Want to address that now?
      Is that what the warrant for Jimmy Eagle was about, “shop lifitng”?

  2. If you want to be accurate in YOUR reporting then you would go to the source material. It doesn’t matter ultimately what the warrant was for. The F.B.I were on Pine Ridge to broker an illegal land deal and to aid the Uranium mining companies. Dick Wilson was their puppet so they used him to snuff out the traditional peoples by supplying the Goons with weaponry and intelligence on AIM. Perhaps they were really there to initiate a “para-military,” assault? Did you hear Manny Pino’s testimony on Uranium mining? Care to take a stab at miss-quoting/obscuring that as well? As Peltier said once himself, it was all about the theft of resources. If you want to call that “shoplifting,” then so be it.

    • “It doesn’t matter ultimately what the warrant was for”
      You’ve also said it didn’t matter what the ’99 oyate statement said,and it “ultimately” didn’t matter if Annie was a snitch or not.
      Nothing much matters as long as you get to suck up to AIM and be their in house puppet
      does it?.
      And Peltier says? Get real,is anybody expected to believe anything he says?
      What exactly would you call the assault or the unlawful detention related to theft of the boots. Does that fall under the heading of shoplifting as well?
      Put the dunce hat back on-I didn’t refer to it as shoplifting, your boy Banks did.
      And fair warning-either answer the question I’ve posed without your usual attempt to slide
      something else in or take your dog and pony show elsewhere as you’ll be done here.
      In other words whether the warrant for Eagle was about more than “old boots”,and if so
      that those who have advanced that have lied?
      I’m calling everyone who has a bald faced LIAR-if they have an issue with that then let them step up and comment to make their case-demonstrate that the warrant was about “old boots”.

  3. Supporter number #370HSSV-0773H unabridged definition of ‘shoplifting.’

    (“Old Cowboy Boots” Revisited)

    An element of the folklore surrounding Leonard Peltier is the continuing theme that Agents Coler and Williams went to Pine Ridge and Jumping Bull searching for someone who stole an old pair of cowboy boots.

    A follow-up to this issue was prompted by a lengthy article in the Toronto Sun, within which the reporter stated, “On the morning June 26, 1975, Coler and agent Ron Williams drove into the Jumping Bull property, ostensibly to look for a teenager who had allegedly stolen a pair of cowboy boots.” This article also precipitated another round of threats of lawsuits between a Peltier attorney and an editor who criticized the reporter and the article. The NPPA was prompted to finally get to the bottom of this incident.

    On the evening of January 17, 2005 Mr. Jerry Schwarting was telephonically contacted and asked if he would be willing to discuss the incident which occurred on June 23, 1975. He agreed. Mr. Schwarting stated that he considered Hobart Horse a family friend and after a day of branding cattle with several other individuals agreed to provide Hobart Horse a ride to the residence of Teddy Pourier. Also at this residence were Herman Thunder Hawk and Jimmy Eagle. Accompaying them to Pourier’s residence was a younger male, Robert Dunsmore. Mr. Schwarting is white; the other individuals were Native Americans.

    While there, after some prompting and friendly dares from Hobart, Schwarting agreed to wrestle Hobart Horse for fun; he did, and beat Hobart three times. It was at that point the evening turned from an impromptu social gathering into a dangerous and criminal confrontation. Schwarting was beaten by the others, and held, along with the young teenager Dunsmore who was stripped of his clothes. They were both threatened, even with castration, and had guns repeatedly fired over their heads by the others.

    During the telephonic interview, Mr. Schwarting, on his home computer, reviewed the NPPA section (above) concerning this incident and agreed that it was an accurate summary of what had happened. Mr. Schwarting added that at one point they stole his vehicle, jacket and boots, and clarified that the boots were only two months old and cost $200. Two hundred dollars in 1975 was a good sum of money to pay for a pair of boots.

    Mr. Schwarting stated that during this episode he was put in fear for his life, was cut several times by Hobart and still carries the scars to this day.

    He recalls being interviewed by FBI Agents Coler and Willilams, providing them with the details of the incident and later being held in protective custody for a period of time.

    The final outcome of the charges in this incident is irrelevant. The fact remains that there was a violent confrontation, felony laws were violated, charges were filed, including robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, warrants issued, and on June 25th, one of the subjects, Teddy Pourier was arrested. Agents Coler and Williams were pursuing a fugitive investigation at that point and were attempting to locate and apprehend Jimmy Eagle on June 25, and at Jumping Bull on June 26.

    To claim that the “Incident at Oglala” was over a stolen pair of old cowboy boots, as Peltier and the LPDC have repeatedly suggested, would be like saying Leonard Peltier has never changed his version of what happened at Jumping Bull that fateful morning.

  4. So much for brokering an illegal land deal.

    Name calling? Only three that fit like well worn old cowboy boots: Liar, coward and murderer.

    But “Perhaps they were really there to initiate a “para-military,” assault?” Really? (“Perhaps”…more fables from the lexicon.)

    As for the second biggest lie proffered by coAIMintelpro was the “para-military” nonsense. Offered in Prison Writings, and by the LPDC and Robideau.

    “Peltier lays the groundwork for claiming that according to a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the government “…had been gathering in the area for a preplanned paramilitary assault on the Pine Ridge reservation,” (p.129) comprised of “…dozens, maybe hundreds…” (p.127) of law-enforcement personnel.

    The document (dated April 24, 1975) he refers to (the noted “sanctioned memo”) says nothing of the kind and related to the 1973 takeover by AIM of Wounded Knee. Ironically this memo was still being circulated around FBI headquarters in Washington D.C. even after the murders of agents Coler and Williams with a date at the bottom of the memo of August 11, 1975.

    This memo is not even in the same universe as Peltier claims.

    This assertion was so outrageous even Matthiessen shied away from it by claiming after all his research that the initial shooting at the agents was spontaneous, neither a pre-planned government event nor premeditated ambush of the two agents. “…if there is another persuasive explanation of the location and position of their cars, I cannot find it.” (ITSOCH p.544).

    Robert Robideau, Literary Critic “The Sanctioned Memo”: Peltier’s most vocal ally and his greatest burden, December 1, 2006


    “Robideau continues with his rambling and tired rhetoric but proves one point very well; that he fails to read, or if he did read it, then failed to understand one of his key references.

    Robideau states:
    There has been an ongoing effort for the past 30 years, without success, to get congress to investigate the Reign of Terror and culpability of the FBI as sanctioned in a memo entitled “Para military activity in Indian Country” which was issued because of the 1973 Wounded Knee confrontation with the United States Government.

    It would be too kind to say that Robideau is just honestly mistaken regarding his characterization of the purpose of this memorandum because he has alleged this before, as has the LPDC and Peltier in Prison Writings. This has become one of the cornerstones of Peltier folklore. Robideau deliberately misrepresents the purpose and meaning of this memo for his own questionable purposes. However, any reasonable person who takes the time to read-and understand-the memo, would easily see that Robideau is wrong or deliberately lying about this claim.

    The purpose of the April 24, 1975 internal FBI memo entitled “The use of Special Agents of the FBI in a paramilitary law enforcement operation in the Indian Country,” is stated in the very first sentence;
    To brief the Attorney General “…on the role of the FBI in the event of a major confrontation in Indian Country…”


  6. To me it sounded more like he misspoke then he lied. Like I said before, I believe that there was a much larger purpose for the F.B.I being on the reservation then simply to investigate, “Indian on Indian,” crimes. Do you agree with this? Or would you believe Trimbach’s and Mr. Ed’s line that they were angelic law enforcement agents simply doing their jobs? Or Demain’s line that they were harmless, “school librarian,” types? Why did Coler and Willams meet with BIA officer Stoltz earlier that day to arrange for back up at Jumping Bull? To tell you the truth, Banks’ was one of the least impressive of all the testimonies. If he had any real guts and he really wanted to help Leonard, he would have confronted his lying, “wire wearing” ex-wife. Why so much focus on him? What about Lenny Foster’s testimony or Manny Pino’s testimony about illegal uranium mining. That got more to the heart of the matter. Is Trimbach a “liar” when he tries to play himself off as “James Simon?” So do I get my “Mr.Ed,” responses posted now? What happened to the “Who is the real terrorist?” post? too close to the truth?

    • Banks “misspoke”…another classic spoken by SB,everybody else lies but your boys only misspeak or made a mistake.
      What a safe and “gutless” way to put it.And to top it off you actually have the nerve to call others cowards or gutless.
      You forgot to add the usual “ultimately it doesn’t matter” you’re noted for when attempting to grant absolution.
      Banks and AIM want to help Peltier as much as they did Annie, or her family-but related to Peltier they have no other choice,they are obliged to “misspeak”-plus there are a few bucks to be made in doing so. Maybe LPDOC “reimburses” them for their efforts as you say they do you.
      Besides with Peltier as a “leader and founder” of AIM what else can they do?
      Are Trimbach and Banks one and the same person-if not then aren’t each as individuals accountable for their own actions?
      Or is that too close to the truth?
      Are your boys so angelic they can do no wrong?
      The rest of the bs in the spam?-going in the trash where it belongs, you’re done here like you are most other places,and for the same reasons-you could care less about the truth, justice, or AIM’s victims.

    • “Why did Coler and Willams meet with BIA officer Stoltz earlier that day to arrange for back up at Jumping Bull?”

      Where does this “fact” come from #370HSSV0773H? More coAIMintelpro propaganda. Why?

      If asking for help from someone who knows the territory while looking for a fugitive is suspect, then that’s a very weak argument…second;

      “arranging for back up at Jumping Bull?” Not true, never happened and an obvious lie. And how do we know that? Ron on the radio trying to describe where they were being attacked. Had he or Jack known, he would have said “We’re on the Jumping Bull farm, on the west side of Highway 18, a few miles south of Oglala.”

      But why be confused by the facts…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s