SAMPLE LETTER TO THE JUSTICE MINISTER OF CANADA
June 6, 1994 Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, Canada 43 Chandler
Dr., Scarborough, Ontario Canada M1G 1Z1
The Hon. Allan Rock, Minister of Justice Room 448, Confederation
Bldg. House of Commons, Ottawa Ontario Canada K1A OA6
Greetings, Mr. Minister:
We, the people of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee,
Canada are hopeful having just heard of your recent decision to
review the 1976 false extradition of Leonard Peltier. We would
like to inform you that for the past 18 years we have been
lobbying both in Canada and the United States with the support of
millions of people worldwide, who are ashamed, offended and deeply
shocked with Canada's ongoing complicity in a very serious,
international treaty and human rights violation.
We are referring to Mr. Peltier's extradition from Canada by
which key evidence had been manipulated and falsified by U.S.
authorities for the sole purpose of securing his immediate return
to the United States of America.
It is our hope that a complete and independent examination of
what really happened will finally lay the ground for a fair and
honest solution.
It is with this in mind that we would like to bring the
following points to your attention. Had the truth, and nothing but
the truth, been presented to the Canadian extradition court back
in 1976, it is clear that there would have been insufficient
evidence to justify committing Leonard Peltier to trial on the
charges against him and thus no basis for his extradition. The
case presented on behalf of the American government was founded on
two affidavits sworn by Myrtle Poor Bear, an Indian woman with a
history of mental illness.
The F.B.I. coerced Poor Bear into signing several false and
conflicting affidavits saying that she saw Mr. Peltier shoot two
F.B.I. agents at Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota on June
26, 1975. The affidavits have long since been discredited: Poor
Bear recanted her testimony and U.S. prosecutors subsequently
admitted they were unreliable. All the other evidence has also
been discredited, and in any case, was no more than circumstantial
evidence that placed Mr. Peltier at or near the scene of the
crime.
There is evidence to suggest that the F.B.I. and Justice
department knew they were presenting false evidence to the
Canadian court. In 1978, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
recognized the submission of the false evidence was "to say the
least a clear abuse of the investigative process of the F.B.I."
The false affidavits were obtained from Myrtle Poor Bear only
after the Canadian prosecutor advised the F.B.I. that there was
not sufficient evidence to extradite Mr. Peltier. Two affidavits
were submitted, and a third, conflicting with the others, was
suppressed. Lawyers representing Mr. Peltier discovered the
existence of the third affidavit and raised objections to the
validity of the evidence before the Federal Court of Appeal on
judicial review of the extradition judge's order.
Even so, no court in Canada or the United States has ever
considered the false evidence or the fraudulently obtained
extradition order. The Federal Court of Appeal refused to examine
the new evidence, holding instead that this was the task of the
Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice at the time, Ron
Basford, also refused to examine the new evidence, as he was under
the mistaken impression that this had been done by the Federal
Court of Appeal. Similarily in 1989, members of the Supreme Court
of Canada, in the course of hearing an application for leave to
appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision several years ago,
commented that a political remedy from the Canadian government was
the appropriate response.
Leonard Peltier is documented in history as this century's
foremost example of a political prisoner whose only crime was
legitimate dissent and lawful aboriginal advocacy in defense of
the North American native peoples' rights.
His co-defendants, Robert Robideau and Darrell Butler, were
arrested and charged with the exact same charges as that of Mr.
Peltier, yet both men were acquitted on grounds of self-defense by
an unbiased, all-white jury in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The jury
immediately determined that due to the violent conditions on the
reservation, they were acting within their right to protect
themselves. At the same time, Mr. Peltier, having fled for his
life was arrested in Canada and applied for political asylum on
the basis that he would not have received a fair trial in the
United States. Therefore, we would like to also ask why the
Kwakiutl nation of British Columbia, which formally granted Mr.
Peltier sanctuary, was never recognized or respected in its
traditional right to grant sanctuary as it also believed he would
not receive a fair trial?
After the Robideau-Butler acquittals, he was the only other
person U.S. authorities could target for the agents' deaths. An
F.B.I. memo of Aug. 10, 1975, released years later under U.S.
freedom of information legislation, revealed that "the full
prosecutive weight of the federal government (was) to be directed
against Leonard Peltier." Also another incriminating F.B.I.
teletype of July 7, 1975 surfaced years later stating early in the
investigation tha the government planned to "develop information
to lock Peltier into the case."
Since there is overwhelming evidence to show that a fraud
between two friendly countries had taken place, we point to
additional facts on record proving the extradition was as much
politically motivated as was Mr. Peltier's false murder
conviction. At trial, he was not allowed to present his case of
self-defense; since the court ruled the F.B.I. was not on trial.
On appeal years later, U.S. prosecutors admitted there was no
evidence to prove Mr. Peltier killed the agents. Today they
justify his continued imprisonment on the theory he was an aider
and abettor, even though he was never tried or convicted in court
for aiding and abetting.
On Nov., 9, 1992, 55 Members of Canada's Parliament
intervened and at the request of the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, Dianne Martin, Canadian law professor, gave oral
testimony on their behalf: condemning Mr. Peltier's fraudulent
extradition recommending the court release him to Canada for a new
and lawful extradition and set aside his conviction.
Unfortunately, the appeal was rejected on July 7, 1993 and
dismissed the concerns of Canadian politicians primarily because
they were not representing the Canadian government.
It is unfortunate but ironic that after 18 years, Leonard
Peltier's tragedy has come full circle and the Liberal government
finally has the opportunity to set the record straight as it was
their government responsible in Parliament at the time. However,
some of its members, such as the Hon. Warren Allmand, who was
Solicitor General at the time, still goes to great lengths to
bring this case to the attention of the Canadian government in
hope that it will acknowledge the wrongdoings and seek the
appropriate remedies.
Amnesty International has adopted Mr. Peltier as a political
prisoner. Formal resolutions have also been made by the NDP Party
of Canada; countless U.S. senators and congressmen; the Canadian
Labour Congress; the World Council of Churches and many others. An
official petition has recently been signed by 48 Dutch
Parliamentarians supporting the position put forward by 55 Members
of Canada's Parliament expressing their great concern for the
violations which occurred in Canada and the United States.
Hundreds of aboriginal nations, councils and organizations in
Canada and the United States continue to petition American and
Canadian governments strongly objecting to Mr. Peltier's false
extradition and wrongful conviction as a violation of the
fundamental rights and liberties of all North American Indian
peoples. In particular, Mr. Peltier's own Oglala Lakota nation as
represented by the Pine Ridge tribal government, is for years a
strong advocate for justice and his freedom.
To date, then, Mr. Minister, the judicial and executive
branches of the Canadian government have "passed the buck" to each
other, even as the evidence of fraud has become irrefutable,
largely as a result of documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom
of Information Act. It is unconscionable that there has been no
official examination of a fraud committed on the Canadian justice
system that resulted in a fundamental violation of Canadian
sovereignty. The extradition process, as you know, has very few
procedural safeguards, because the process is premised on an
assumption of good faith and fair dealing between friendly
nations. The American authorities subverted these assumptions in
the Peltier case, thus far with impunity.
It is our sincere hope that the buck will finally stop in
your office, and that you will demonstrate your commitment to
upholding the integrity of Canadian justice and Canadian
sovereignty by making a formal diplomatic objection to the conduct
of the American authorities during the extradition proceedings in
1976.
Given the fraud committed on the Canadian court, a formal
diplomatic request should also be made for Leonard Peltier's
return to Canada. This would also include holding the United
States of America responsible for its act of aggression and breach
of trust between two sovereign states by demanding a full inquiry
as a start for a fair and just solution.
These steps are necessary to protect the integrity of
Canadian justice and to uphold principles of international law,
and also could play an important role in adding to the
international pressure building on the American government to
release Leonard Peltier.
Mr. Minister, we conclude by asking for your example in
presenting a clarification of Canada's complicity in this serious
matter. We would hope to enhance your review by submitting the
enclosed documentary films and other documentation.
Sincerely,
Frank & Anne Dreaver
LEONARD PELTIER DEFENSE COMMITTEE, Canada 43
Chandler Dr., Scarborough, Ontario Canada M1G
1Z1
_________________________________________________________________________
cc: The Hon. Warren Allmand, Member of Parliament; Ottawa, Canada
Mr. Georges Erasmus, Mr. Rene Dussault, Co-chair Commissioners
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa, Canada