Overview
On September 2, 2004,
in a major lawsuit
filed in Washington, DC, the Peltier attorneys claimed that United States
Department of Justice officials have knowingly violated the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984 (and its amendments) and illegally extended Peltier's prison term by 12 years or more.
The defendants
named in the lawsuit include the U.S. Parole Commission and individuals
who have served on the Commission during the past two decades;
Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Attorneys General Edwin Meese,
Richard Thornburgh, William Barr, and Janet Reno; and the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, as well as former directors J.
Michael Quinlan and 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
and 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the SRA; repealed, in Section 2,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);
and 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
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 and the latest in 2002. The suit claims these
extensions were legally invalid and therefore inapplicable because, at the
time they were made, the Parole Commission had already been abolished.
Leonard Peltier
should have been given his
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 Peltier's term of imprisonment. The failure of the Parole
Commission to give a certain release date to Peltier violated the ex
post facto, Bill of Attainder, and Due Process clauses of the U.S.
Constitution.
The Peltier
attorneys demanded a permanent injunction preventing further
misapplication of the SRA and its amendments by the government;
enforcement of the rights created by the original section 235(b)(3);
and, due to irreparable injuries suffered by Peltier, compensatory and punitive damages as determined by a jury.
On September 17, 2004, the Court issued an
Order to Show Cause why the complaint shouldn't be transferred to the
District Court in Kansas. A response to the Order, as well as a
Request for Hearing, were filed on October 12. The Court issued
an Order to Transfer soon thereafter. On October 29, the Legal Team
Petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for
a Writ of Mandamus. The Petition was denied. A similar Petition was
filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 15, 2005. This Petition
also was denied.
On August 28, 2006, the U.S. District
Court, District of Kansas, dismissed the action and denied all relief.
Case Files
|