From www.leonardpeltier.org TY)
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

On August 6, 2002, a Joint Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was submitted to the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. This pending appeal concerns the unconstitutional misapplication of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (under which prisoners sentenced "under the old system" were to be issued release dates no later than October 1989) by the U.S. Parole Commission. On February 20, 2004, a Reply Brief (Re the government's Motion to Transfer Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [to the U.S. District Court in the District of Kansas]) was filed. In March, the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia granted the government's Motion to Transfer.
WITHHELD DOCUMENTS
At the time of Leonard Peltier's 1977 trial, the government turned over roughly 3,500 pages of material to defense attorneys. The prosecution claimed that this was the extent of the material in its files related to Leonard Peltier & the investigation surrounding the shooting deaths of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on June 26, 1975. The FBI titled its investigation into the death of its two agents RESMURS, which is short for Reservation Murders.

In the early 1980s, attorneys for Leonard Peltier submitted a request to the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In theory, FOIA is a law that is designed to ensure public access to records maintained by the federal government. As a result of this request, it was discovered that the FBI actually maintained 18,000 pages related to Leonard Peltier's case. Twelve thousand (12,000) pages were released in full or in part. Six thousand (6,000) pages were withheld in their entirety. The government refused to release this information on the grounds that it would harm national security.

In 2001, the Peltier attorneys sent a new round of requests to every FBI Field Office in the United States. By virtue of these FOIA requests & two subsequent lawsuits that have been filed in federal court, it has been discovered that the FBI actually has 142,579 pages of material that have never been made available to Leonard Peltier or his attorneys. The Minneapolis Field Office alone has 90,000 pages. The data maintained by this FBI Field Office is particularly important in that the Minneapolis Field Office was the Office of Origin, or the office in which the RESMURS investigation was based.

A FOIA request made to the FBI Field Office in Manhattan (New York) on November 1, 2002, has revealed that its file on Leonard Peltier is allegedly missing! Correspondence from the FBI claims that the so-called "missing" file is on "special locate," a bureaucratic manner of saying that they are looking for the file. Nearly two years later, this file has yet to be located by the FBI. The "missing" Manhattan file is of particular significance given that a number of Peltier's attorneys including William M. Kunstler, Elliot A. Taikeff, & Ramsey Clark were based in Manhattan.

Currently, there is a FOIA lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. There are 812 pages of material responsive to Leonard Peltier's FOIA request submitted to the Buffalo Field Office. The FBI has released 797 pages in full or in part. Fifteen (15) pages are being withheld in their entirety.

The majority of the sought-after documents in the Buffalo case are over 25 years old. Nevertheless, the government is vigorously resisting efforts to release this data on national security grounds. Documents are supposed to be automatically declassified after 25 years under Executive Order 12958. The FBI is arguing, however, that this material should not be subject to automatic declassification because it could damage or cause serious damage to national security & the so-called war on "transnational terrorism". The FBI also contends that release of the data could have a chilling effect on the free flow of intelligence information & strain diplomatic relations between the United States & a foreign government.

On August 11, 2004, the Peltier attorneys filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the government's Motion for Summary Judgment in the Buffalo case.
ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT
In a major law suit filed on September 2, 2004, in Washington, DC, the Peltier attorneys claim that United States Department of Justice officials have knowingly violated the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (and its amendments) & illegally extended Peltier's prison term by 12 years or more.

The defendants named in the law suit include the U.S. Parole Commission & individuals who have served on the Commission during the past two decades; Attorney General John Ashcroft & former Attorneys General Edwin Meese, Richard Thornburgh, William Barr, & Janet Reno; & the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, as well as former directors J. Michael Quinlan & Kathleen Hawk Sawyer.

The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) was passed to address what Congress thought were inconsistent sentences imposed by different judges on different individuals convicted of the same crimes, as well as arbitrary parole decisions. A new system - one of determinate sentences - was born & the Parole Commission was abolished.

At the heart of the suit is the refusal of the government to enforce Title II, Chapter II, Section 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act. Effective on October 12, 1984, this part of the law ordered that parole dates "consistent with the applicable parole guideline" be issued to all "old system" prisoners within the following five-year period, at the end of which time (on October 11, 1989) the Commission would cease to exist.

On December 7, 1987, Congress enacted Public Law 100-182 which amended the SRA; repealed, in Section 2, the release criteria established by the original section 235(b)(3); & restored the release criteria under 18 U.S.C. 4206. This amendment did not restore the Parole Commission or remove its obligation to establish mandatory release dates, with sufficient time for appeal, by October 11, 1989. These changes to the law also applied only to crimes committed after the law was amended on December 7, 1987. The amendment simply did not apply to the Leonard Peltier or to the some 6,000 other "old system" prisoners still held by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons today.

After it had technically ceased to exist, the Parole Commission claimed it needed more time to complete its work. Congress inexplicably granted a number of after-the-fact extensions, the first in 1990 & the latest in 2002. The suit claims these extensions were legally invalid & therefore inapplicable because, at the time they were made, the Parole Commission had already been abolished.

Mr. Peltier should have been given his certain release date by October 11, 1989, minus sufficient time to exhaust appeals. Had the Parole Commission followed the congressional mandate, Peltier would have been released over 12 years ago. Lacking in any statutory authority, the U.S. Parole Commission in fact illegally extended Leonard's term of imprisonment. The failure of the Parole Commission to give a release date to Peltier violated the ex post facto, Bill of Attainder, & Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The Peltier attorneys have demanded a permanent injunction preventing further misapplication of the SRA & its amendments by the government; enforcement of the rights created by the original section 235(b)(3); and, due to irreparable in

About | FAQ | Terms | Privacy | Safety Tips | Contact MySpace | Promote! | Advertise | MySpace International

©2003-2007 M