US vs LEONARD PELTIER TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS Case Number CR77-3003

FRANCIS HE CROW, TRADITIONAL ELDER'S COUNCIL

VOLUME 17
 

MR. TAIKEFF:  All right. The defense calls Francis He Crow.
{3577}
 FRANCIS HE CROW,
being first duly sworn on the sacred pipe, testified as follows:
MR. TAIKEFF:  May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT:  You may proceed.
 DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TAIKEFF
Q  Mr. He Crow, can you move the microphone a little closer to make sure that everyone in the courtroom, but particularly the Court and jury can hear you.
How old you, sir?
A  Forty-six.
Q  And where were you born?
A  Oglala, South Dakota.
Q  And where do you live now?
A  Pine Ridge.
Q  And have you ever lived anywhere other than on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation?
A  Yes. I lived in Dallas, Texas.
Q  For how long?
A  About seven years.
Q  Now, is there a group of people who in English might be called the traditional council of chiefs?
A  Yes.
Q  Could you briefly explain to the judge and the jury who the traditional council of chiefs is?
A  Traditional chief council is older peoples of Oglala Sioux {3578} Tribe.
Q  The elders of the Oglala Sioux Tribe?
A  Yes.
Q  Can you raise your voice, or move a little closer to the microphone, please, or move your chair closer if that's more comfortable for you.
Now, do you have any connection with that traditional council?
A  Yes. Since November 20, 1972.
Q  And would you be kind enough to tell us what is your connection, what is your function and reference to the traditional council?
A  I work as a coordinator and researching the treaty, treaties.
Q  What kinds of treaties, between who and whom?
A  Oglala Sioux, the Sioux nation and United States Government.
Q  Now, I'm going to put before you a piece of paper which has been marked Defendant's Exhibit 193 for identification. I ask you first to look at it and then after you've looked at it to please tell us whether you know what it is. But I must tell you that it's not in evidence and you cannot say anything about the details of what's in or on that piece of paper. Look at both pages, please.
A  Yes.
Q  You do know what it is?
{3579}
A  Yes.
Q  Can you tell us the name of the person or the group that is responsible for that piece of paper?
A  Yes.
Q  Please do.
A  Head chief is Chief Fools Crow. And other chiefs are David Flying Hawk, Luke Weasel Bear, Charlie Red Cloud, Mathew Bear Shield and Frank Kills Enemy.
Q  What do those people have to do with the traditional council of chiefs?
A  Well, it's the people, members of the tribe. If they have any problems or anything, that bring it to head man. And head man are the one that put in written or research.
Q  No, don't tell us about the document yet.
A  Okay.
Q  I just want you to give us certain basic information first, and then we will get to the document. Do you understand that?
A  Yes.
Q  You mentioned before that you were the coordinator for the traditional council of chiefs?
A  Yes.
Q  You just mentioned certain names to us. I want to know whether those people you mentioned are the council, the traditional council of chiefs?
A  Yes.
{3580}
Q  There's also an additional government on the Pine Ridge Reservation, isn't there, or an additional governmental body?
A  Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Q  There's a tribal government?
A  Yeah. It's a tribal government under 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
Q  Okay. Now, this traditional council of chiefs is not the same as the tribal government that exists under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, right or wrong?
A  No.
Q  I'm wrong?
A  Yes.
Q  All right. Explain, are they the same or are they different?
A  Different.
Q  They're different, okay. I think maybe my question confused you.
The tribal government is a result of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act?
A  Yeah.
Q  The traditional council of chiefs is a group of elders from amongst the traditional full-blooded Indians on the reservation; is that right?
A  Yes.
Q  And there are two different kinds of groups?
A  Yes.
{3581}
Q  All right. Now, in the spring and early summer of 1975 was Leonard Peltier on the reservation?
A  I think in April.
Q  Do you know who he is when you see him?
A  Yes.
Q  Would you look in the courtroom and see if he's here.
A  Yes.
Q  Where is he?
A  Sitting there (indicating).
MR. TAIKEFF:  May the record reflect that he's pointed at the defendant.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Is he a personal friend of yours?
A  Yes.
Q  How long do you know him?
A  I don't remember. I know him quite a while.
Q  When he came to the reservation did he come with anybody else?
A  Well, when he come on the reservation they told us they were there. So we went over there and we met them.
Q  When you said "they," that's what I'm trying to get at, who do you mean by "they"? Leonard and who else?
A  He's the only one I recognize. I forgot the others names.
Q  Was there a person named Dino?
A  Yes.
Q  Was there a woman named Neelock?
{3582}
A  Yes.
Q  Was there a man named Bob?
A  No, I don't know him.
Q  Were there others in addition to the ones I just mentioned?
A  Ernie Peters.
Q  By the way, when you speak at home, do you speak English or do you speak another language?
A  Both.
Q  What is the other language you speak?
A  Sioux language.
Q  What is that called?
A  Lakota.
Q  Now, do you know what organization Leonard and these other people represented in the spring of 1975?
A  American Indian Movement.
Q  And do you know, I don't want the details at this moment, I just want to know if you know how it is that they came there to that location, to that area?
A  They were invited.
Q  And can you tell us who invited them?
A  Oglala Sioux. Full-blooded members.
Q  And does the document that is in front of you have anything to do with that invitation?
A  Yes.
Q  Without the Court and the jury --
{3583}
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, considering the time and knowing the nature and extent of the answer I would respectfully ask that I be permitted to stop at this point.
THE COURT:  I think we will stop at this point.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  Court is in recess until 1:30.
(Recess taken.)
{3584}
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom without the hearing and presence of the jury:)
THE COURT:  Question has been raised as to whether or not the Court will be in session tomorrow and the answer is yes, the Court will be in session for the full day.
The jury may be brought in.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the hearing and presence of the jury:)
THE COURT:  Mr. Taikeff, you may continue.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Thank you, Your Honor.
May the record reflect I am returning to the witness Defendant's Exhibit 193.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Mr. He Crow, I think I was asking you questions about the invitation to the American Indian Movement, do you remember that?
A  Yes.
Q  And we had been talking a little bit about that document which is in front of you. When was the invitation originally made to the American Indian Movement?
A  I remember 1975. January they generally have a traditional counsel and this is suggestion they wanted to invite the American Indian Movement to come on the reservation and protect Indians and property, fish and wildlife and in February they had another one and in March and April they started drafting this resolution.
{3585}
Q  Would you explain to the judge and the jury why there were four meetings, if there was any special reason?
A  This is part of our religion, Indian religion. When I hold that pipe, pray with that pipe four days and four nights and when at that meeting, they going to have four days, one first meeting is discussion and second is researching and third is put it together and fourth is resolution.
Q  Now these meetings take place in what language?
A  They record it on tape recorder.
Q  On a tape recorder?
A  Tape recorder.
Q  What language do the chiefs speak?
A  Sioux language.
Q  You said you speak English and the Sioux language, Lakota, is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  In fact you have a job in that connection, do you not?
A  Yes.
Q  What is that job?
A  I have to gather treaty documents or I go out in district and I do some researching and then I have a tape recorder so I tape all the peoples and bring it back to the meeting.
Q  And did you have anything to do with the making up of that document which is in front of you?
A  Yes.
{3586}
Q  And is it fair to say that you acted as an interpreter as far as the making of that document is concerned?
A  Yes. There's about six Indians within there that speak both languages and I was appointed to help the legal aide to put it in English. So I put it in English and then legal aide, they put in the right words on there.
Q  Did you check that document?
A  Yes. I check it both times.
Q  How did it compare with what the chiefs agreed to do at their four meetings?
A  Chief counsel, each chief took about hour to explain it and read it over.
Q  Who explained it?
A  Would be of the coordinator, one called coordinator, but I don't remember. I wasn't there when they go through this because I work out in the field then. So after they go through that four times, each chief's, and then they sign it.
Q  And now do you recognize those signatures?
A  Yes.
Q  And that document which is in front of you, does it have the signatures of the members of the traditional council of chiefs?
A  Yes.
Q  And who is the head chief?
A  Chief Fools Crow.
{3587}
Q  And when was the last time you saw Chief Fools Crow?
A  Yesterday.
Q  And was there a time in the defense office when you saw him within the last week?
A  Yes.
Q  And did you show him the piece of paper which supposedly has his signature on it?
A  Yes.
Q  And what did he say as to whether or not that was his signature?
A  He told me, "I signed that and I took it to Washington in September, 1975."
Q  And now is there anything in that document which makes mention of the invitation to the American Indian Movement?
A  Yes.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, I'm prepared to offer the entire document. Perhaps the government would object. I at least offer the portion that makes reference to the invitation to the American Indian Movement.
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, the government does offer its objections on the grounds of relevancy.
MR. TAIKEFF:  May I show Your Honor the particular portion.
THE COURT:  You may.
MR. TAIKEFF:  A copy was provided yesterday to the {3588} government.
It's in paragraph 9. I'm prepared to settle on a stipulation instead of the entire document.
MR. HULTMAN:  I might add an additional reason, Your Honor, that in addition to relevancy that the document itself, I think on its face, might import to have some legal force of some kind and in fact I would object for that additional reason.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, the defense will stipulate that the traditional council of chiefs has no official governmental status on the reservation but is recognized only privately by the traditionalists. We make no claim that they have official governmental status.
THE COURT:  Paragraph 9 of the document will be received.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Thank you, Your Honor.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Now would you tell the jury if every member of the traditional council of chiefs signed the document after you prepared it in English and explained it to them in the way you've testified?
A  Yes.
Q  Now are you aware of your own personal knowledge or based on your own experience on the reservation as to the circumstances which made it necessary to invite AIM to come to the White Clay District?
{3589}
A  Yes.
Q  First I want you to tell us very generally, not in specific detail, what was the kind of situation, what was life like in the White Clay district that made it necessary to call in the American Indian Movement?
MR. HULTMAN:  Before, Mr. He Crow, you answer I would like to offer an objection, then I won't interrupt Counsel.
MR. TAIKEFF:  All right.
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, I want to make an objection and then I'll leave it as a standing objection if the Court rules to the contrary so I don't interrupt Counsel. My objection is that the matters now about to be discussed are not relevant and then I will not continue if the Court so rules otherwise.
THE COURT:  The record may show that the government has a standing objection to the testimony of this witness relating to the subject about to be mentioned in response to the question of Counsel. The objection is overruled.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) That means you may answer the question, Mr. He Crow. But I want a general answer before we get to any specific events.
A  There is no law on the reservation.
Q  Is there a police force, or was there in 1975 or in 1974 and 1975 a police force supposedly on the reservation?
A  Yes.
{3590}
THE COURT:  I may mention for the benefit of the jury that this evidence, the Court is allowing it in but is allowing it in only for the purpose of the defense showing the reason for the representatives of the American Indian Movement being on the reservation.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may proceed, Mr. Taikeff.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) I think I asked you whether there was at least supposed to be a police force on the reservation.
A  Yes.
Q  Was there a name for that police department?
A  Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Q  BIA police?
A  Yes.
Q  Were there people employed as BIA policemen?
A  Yes.
Q  Were they supplied with uniforms and cars?
A  Yes.
Q  Were they maintaining law and order?
A  No.
Q  In what year, I think you said there was no law on the reservation, is that a fair representation of what you said?
A  Yes.
Q  In what year did this condition begin?
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, if I might interpose, I would like {3591} to go back and get the response which the witness made in order that I might -- I believe, Counsel, he responded, "There is no law." He was not referring to something in the past and I would like the reporter to go back and find that response for me to make sure that I am correct and then on the basis of that I may interpose an objection.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I have no objection if the question is read along with his answer.
MR. HULTMAN:  I have no objection to that.
THE COURT:  The reporter may read the question and answer.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your honor, if that's the issue, I can make a representation on the side bar which is present tense and past tense. There will be a witness in that regard. I think I can explain, Your Honor, something Mr. Hultman is unaware of.
MR. HULTMAN:  I'd like to have the response if Counsel is going to use and state a response.
THE COURT:  The reporter was diligently looking for the response, then the lawyers started talking and he had to quickly get back to his record.
I will ask the reporter to again look for the question and answer and once he has started looking, then I would ask Counsel to be quiet until he's found it.
(Whereupon, the following question and answer were {3592} read back:  Question:  "First I want you to tell us very generally, not in specific detail, what was life like in the White Clay district that made it necessary to call in the American Indian Movement?" Answer:  "There is no law on the reservation.")
MR. TAIKEFF:  I think Mr. Hultman said he wanted to hear that answer so that he might decide whether to say something further to the Court. That's why I'm waiting.
MR. HULTMAN:  I was just objecting on the grounds that Counsel did not state in his question correctly the response of the witness. That's all I was getting at.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) When you said there is no law on the reservation, what time were you talking about?
A  That was way back in about '72 or before. I don't remember exact.
Q  And for how long did that continue?
A  Many years.
Q  Did that situation exist in 1974?
A  No. Way back.
Q  But was it still in existence in 1974?
A  Yes. Yes.
Q  Was it in existence in the first half of 1975?
A  Yes.
Q  At this point, once again I don't want you to tell us about specific events that you were at but just generally what were the kinds of things that were happening that made you say {3593} there was no law?
A  There was too many violence and murder and --
Q  Was there any attempt by the traditional people to hold traditional ceremonies or to have traditional meetings?
A  Yes.
Q  Was there any interference with that?
A  No.
Q  Were there beatings?
A  Yes.
Q  Were people arrested for doing those beatings?
A  Yes.
Q  How many deaths would you say, violent deaths that you know of in that area in 1974?
A  Too many.
Q  Now when AIM was invited to come to the White Clay district, what were they to do there, what was to be their job?
{3594}
A  Their job is to protect Indian members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe members and their property and the fish and wildlife.
Q  In the White Class District are there a lot of traditional people?
A  Yes.
Q  You know, do you know of people known as the goons?
A  Yes.
Q  How would you describe what that means?
A  Goons is a Richard, Dick Wilson will take over the tribal government. He divide between full-blood Indians and mixed-blood Indians and he organized a goon squad.
Q  What did the goons do?
A  They threatened Indians if they were going to have a meeting or traditional ceremonies or Indian dance.
Q  Or Indian what?
A  Indian dances.
Q  When you say "Indian dances" are you including a special kind of Indian dance?
A  Yes. Every year they have celebration on the 4th of July and one in August.
Q  And what is that special celebration called in English?
A  4th of July. Other one is Oglala Sioux affair.
Q  Are you talking about the sun dance?
A  And they have a sun dance, too, also.
Q  When does that occur?
{3595}
A  That usually come in the first part of August.
Q  Now, were the AIM people, how many AIM people came there in the spring of 1975?
A  I don't remember.
Q  Did they get paid a salary?
A  No. We have the food.
Q  You what?
A  We have them food.
Q  You gave them food?
A  Yes.
Q  And did they have a place to stay?
A  Yes.
Q  And did they get any other kind of pay?
A  No.
Q  And for how long did they stay?
A  Some were there from that district.
Q  Some of them lived in that district?
A  Yes.
Q  How about the ones who came from outside that district?
A  That outside district, they come in back in 1973 and they live on the reservation.
Q  Did you ever see Leonard Peltier in 1975?
A  Yes.
Q  He wasn't from that district, was he?
A  No.
{3596}
Q  Did they do work for the people living there, the older people?
A  Yes, they do.
Q  Can you tell the judge and jury the kind of work that they did?
A  Some older people used to have wood stove. So they hauled dry wood for them and they chopped wood for them.
Q  Did they do any work on cars?
A  Yes.
Q  What kind of work?
A  In a district most of them, they drive old cars, and if they have car trouble they take it over to this AIM and they fix their car.
Q  How much did they charge for hauling and chopping the wood?
A  I think it's free.
Q  How much did they charge for repairing the cars?
A  Sometimes they helped them food.
Q  Give them food for it?
A  Yes.
MR. TAIKEFF:  If I may have a moment, Your Honor.
(Defense counsel conferred.)
MR. TAIKEFF:  No further questions, Your Honor.
 CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HULTMAN
Q  Mr. He Crow, you responded to a number of questions concerning {3597} law on the reservation, and so that I don't have any doubt in my mind or anyone else because of language difficulty, and we do have that on occasion, do we not?
A  Yes.
Q  So that we don't misunderstand at all, when you responded to counsel that there is no law on the reservation, and then you went back and you referred to I think some words "going way back" or some words to that effect, is this a condition, or is this a response that you were giving from some time far in the past up to and including here in the courtroom today, is that a fair conclusion for me to draw?
A  What I say there's no law on the reservation. What I'm talking about is the peoples that need help. If anything happen on reservation we go to BIA police and they never showed up.
Q  And I understand I think what it is you're saying. My question is:  You are not pointing out by your response to Counsel earlier or to me now, are you, just one period of time? You're talking about sometime way in the past up to and including the present time; is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  All right. So I want to make sure I understood that you were not just talking about something in the past or a given time in the past, that you're talking about the far past, the immediate past and the present. This is a general condition that {3598} you are talking about, is that fair?
A  Yes.
Q  All right. Fine. You referred to the fact that on Defendant's proposed Government -- proposed Exhibit 103, and of which one paragraph is now in evidence of that document, that the traditional chiefs had gotten together, and then through the four meetings had ultimately put down in paper what you have in front of you. Is that a fair conclusion for me to draw?
A  Yes.
Q  All right. And is it fair for me to include that you were enunciating or stating some principles or some positions that the ten items represent?
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, I suspect that that's too vague a question. I object to the form on that basis.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, I'm just trying to do my best, Counsel.
THE COURT:  Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS:  No.
THE COURT:  Objection is sustained.
MR. HULTMAN:  I will withdraw my question.
Q  (By Mr. Hultman) What did you do with paragraph 9 after you had agreed on June 1 of 1975? What did you do, what did the traditional chiefs then do? The date on this is June 1, 1975, is it not?
{3599}
A  Yes.
Q  And so paragraph nine applies to that date, does it not?
A  Yes.
Q  All right. Now, what was it that you did with reference to paragraph nine after June 1, on June 1 or after June 1, 1975?
A  They make documents and they prepared to take it to Washington after.
Q  All right. Was the purpose then of the document to go to Washington? Is that a fair conclusion for me now to draw?
A  Yes.
Q  Including paragraph nine; is that right?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, my point is that after you agreed, or the chiefs, the six chiefs who are traditional chiefs whose names appear thereon, after they had had the meetings and resolved the meetings and the thoughts to writing did you contact anyone about those, and specifically paragraph nine, other than going to Washington?
A  I don't understand.
Q  Well, let me ask you point blank:  Did you or any of the chiefs talk to Leonard Peltier concerning paragraph nine on June 1 or there after?
A  Say that again once.
Q  Did you personally, or to your knowledge, any of the six traditional chiefs whose names appear on that document speak to {3600} Leonard Peltier about any subject matter of any kind?
A  I understand this Leonard Peltier is the one of the leader, and that when they were invited he's one of them that he contact. But I don't remember exact date when we have meeting with them.
Q  All right. I'm not trying in any way to be difficult. Is it fair for me to conclude from what your remarks in response to my question is that you don't have any knowledge, first of all yourself, you never contacted Leonard about paragraph nine, did you?
A  I worked with his traditional, and when they're going to have a meeting I happen to set up the meeting. And legal aides and the chiefs and some interpreters, they work on this.
Q  Well, I'm still asking you one very basic, I'm trying to question, not what about somebody else may or may not have done that you really don't know about, I'm asking you first of all here's a document that June 1 was at least reduced to writing; is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  And the purpose was to take these things that are set forth in it, including paragraph nine which is now in evidence here, to Washington; isn't that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, my question is just very simply this:  Did you, Mr. He Crow, did you speak to Leonard Peltier after June 1, 1975 {3601} to June 26, 1975 about anything that's referred to in paragraph nine?
A  I remembered they were there the last meeting. So when the American Indian Movement there, but I don't know this. But I think he was there, too.
Q  Pardon?
A  I think he's there, but the person, I don't talk to him.
Q  All right. Now, let me ask you, is there anything in paragraph nine that says anything other than you welcome American Indian Movement to reside and work to support you in your goals?
A  Yes. This is, means we have some treaty meetings and we want to negotiate with the United States Government concerning 1868 treaty.
Q  Well, now there isn't anything in here about using guns to enforce the law against anybody, is there?
A  Well, you go to a reservation. You are going to see a lot of cars, they carry guns. And also the American Indian Movement, they carry rifles.
Q  Well, did you look to the American Indian Movement then as being, having a purpose to enforce the law? Is that your understanding of the reason for the American Indian Movement to have guns and enforce the law?
A  Yes. It's pretty dangerous to live on the reservation, and they have to carry in case anything happened. Because there are {3602} goon squads were there and they carry guns.
Q  Well, let me ask you this:  Who were the people, other than Leonard Peltier, you've mentioned him in direct response to the name being used by counsel in examining you on direct examination, who are the other members of the American Indian Movement other than, or in addition to Leonard Peltier that were at the Jumping Bull area, or in that group that you specifically invited in for a specific purpose?
A  All I know is the American Indian Movement.
Q  So is it fair for me to conclude that all you are talking about is that as paragraph nine reads, and I think it's, since it's in evidence it might be appropriate that I read it, "The legal aides are recognized by this Lakota treaty council to reside and work within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation for an unlimited time," end of sentence.
Second sentence, "The American Indian Movement is likewise recognized by us to reside and work here to support us in our goals," end of second sentence. End of paragraph nine.
A  This legal aides were there in 1974, in November. And when they worked there they need protection.
Q  Well, are you saying you went out and hired some guns, is that what you are saying?
A  No.
Q  Well, what is it that you are saying then to this jury {3603} concerning what your relationship was with the American Indian Movement in general, and any specific individuals other than to come in and assist you in any ways with your general goals as traditionalists?
A  Well, we asked the American Indian Movement to come on our reservation, what they're going to expect as to goons. This is one reason they carry guns.
Q  Well, then you did hire them as hired guns, is that fair for me to conclude?
A  They carried guns, I know that.
Q  Well, now let me ask you specifically about the individuals that we're concerned with here. Whose names have appeared in the course of these proceedings rather than generalities. Is Leonard Peltier a Sioux?
A  He's Chippewa.
Q  So I conclude from that that he is not a Sioux; is that correct?
A  No.
Q  He's a Chippewa.
Now, why is it that you have to go out and hire a Chippewa to do whatever it is that you want done that you couldn't do yourself as a Sioux?
MR. TAIKEFF:  I object to the form of the question because it implies something which has not been testified to. He didn't specifically go out and hire a Chippewa.
{3604}
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, then I'll include some others, some from the Wisconsin Winnebago --
THE COURT:  Just a moment. Are you withdrawing the question?
MR. HULTMAN:  I was just going to make it ever more specific.
THE COURT:  Why don't you withdraw it and restate it.
MR. HULTMAN:  All right.
Q  (By Mr. Hultman) Why is it, if you can tell us, Mr. He Crow why is it that in the group of individuals that we are concerned with here, specifically on the Jumping Bull property, that the individuals are Chippewa, Wisconsin Winnebagos, Navajos and maybe some others that I'm not absolutely certain of? Why is it that you have to hire those people to come in and do the things that you were referring to here other than you doing them yourselves?
A  Well, this organization, they come back in in 1972. And one Indian were murdered at Gordon, Nebraska, and there's no investigation. So his relative's name is Yellow Thunder.
Q  Is Gordon, Nebraska on the reservation?
A  No.
Q  Then we're not talking on the reservation as far as that issue; is that right?
A  Yeah. That's his first time, I know, American Indian Movement to come on reservation.
{3605}
Q  Well, my question is:  I thought we were talking about events on the reservation; is that fair in my discussion?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, the event you just mentioned wasn't on the reservation at all, was it?
A  Yes.
Q  Is there any specific reason that you know, other than you stated thus far, as to why Leonard Peltier is the one that you have referred to and not to any others by name specifically?
A  He's the only one I know or recognize him, and I know him before.
{3606}
Q  Do you know, when did you first meet him approximately?
A  That was probably in 1975, in January I believe it was.
Q  Did you know at that time that there was a warrant for his arrest for attempted murder?
A  No.
MR. HULTMAN:  I have no further questions.
 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
By MR. TAIKEFF:
Q  Mr. He Crow, do you know the name, Russell Means?
A  Yes, I do.
Q  What connection, if any, does he have with the American Indian Movement?
A  I remember he was the leader at one time.
Q  How about Ted Means?
A  Yes, I know him.
Q  What connection does he have with the American Indian Movement?
A  I don't know.
Q  How about Bill Means?
A  Yes, I know him.
Q  What connection does he have with the American Indian Movement?
A  I don't know. I know he is a member.
Q  He is a member?
A  Yes.
{3607}
Q  Do you know if Ted Means is a member?
A  Yes, he is a member.
Q  Pedro Bisenet, do you know his name?
A  I know Pedro Bisenet.
Q  Do you know whether he was involved with the American Indian Movement?
MR. HULTMAN:  Your Honor, now I am going to object. I don't think there is any relevancy of any kind to show any association of what we are concerned with here.
MR. TAIKEFF:  If Mr. Hultman would just exercise a modicum of patience, I will show him that this is an extension of his last objection.
THE COURT:  Proceed.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) You said you knew the name, Pedro Bisenet. I asked you whether he was involved in any way with the leadership of the American Indian Movement?
A  No.
Q  How about Bob Yellow Bird?
A  Yes.
Q  Is he involved with the leadership of the American Indian Movement?
A  Yes, he is a member.
Q  How about Byron DeSersa?
A  Yes.
Q  Involved in the leadership of the American Indian Movement?
{3608}
A  He is a member.
Q  He is a member. O.k.
How about Marvin Ghostbear?
A  Yes, I know him.
Q  What is his involvement with the American Indian Movement?
A  I think he is a member too.
Q  How about Leonard Crow Dog?
A  Leonard Crow Dog, yes, I know him.
Q  What is his involvement with the American Indian Movement?
A  He is a member.
Q  Does he have any official standing as far as you know with the American Indian Movement?
A  Spiritual leader.
Q  Which of those people that I have read the names of and that you have identified are Sioux Indians?
A  Means.
Q  The three Means?
A  The three Means. Pedro Bisenet, Crow Dog, Bob Yellow Bird Ghostbear. I can't remember those other names.
Q  Did I read the name Byron DeSersa?
A  Yes.
Q  Is he a Sioux?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, I think you said that the legal workers came on the Reservation, came there in 1974, is that correct?
{3609}
A  Yes.
Q  Were they Indian people or white people?
A  Some are Indian and some are whites.
Q  Now, Paragraph 9 of the document indicates that those people are welcome to stay and live there, is that correct?
A  Yes.
Q  Does that mean that they couldn't come until they had that document?
A  No. They were there before.
Q  They were there before?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, likewise after that document was signed, the document which is in front of you, there was no special invitation given after the document was there?
A  I think they call this Legal Aid before that, but I don't remember the date.
Q  When did the AIM people come into the district?
A  They come in the district about around 1972.
Q  Do you know who told the people from AIM who came there in 1957 about the goon problem?
A  I don't remember.
MR. HULTMAN:  Well, I object to this, your Honor, again on many grounds, the last one of which is that it is a matter which has been gone into and is a matter which is new material again as far as redirect examination, and {3610} further, there is no showing as to times or places or events specifically to which we are now referring, and further --
THE COURT:  (Interrupting) The witness says he doesn't know.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Your Honor, I believe it was on the Government's cross examination that they elicited that fact.
THE COURT:  Well, the witness has stated he has no knowledge.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I was merely asking for details, if he had any.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Now, Mr. Hultman asked you about a killing you talked about in Gordon, Nebraska, you remember him asking you about that?
A  Yes.
Q  Now, Gordon, Nebraska, is not on the Reservation, is that right?
A  No.
Q  What connection did the Reservation have --
MR. HULTMAN:  (Interrupting) Well, again, your Honor now I am going to renew my objection. We are not getting into specific events of other kinds that are highly prejudicial and are not material.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I didn't finish my question. I don't {3611} know how Mr. Hultman could possibly know whether the question is objectionable or not.
MR. HULTMAN:  The form of the question clearly indicated it to me, your Honor. That's the reason I objected.
THE COURT:  You may complete your question.
MR. TAIKEFF:  Thank you, your Honor.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) What connection, if any, was there between the Gordon, Nebraska, incident and the Pine Ridge Reservation?
MR. HULTMAN:  And again I object, your Honor, that being totally irrelevant and immaterial unless that question goes to the issue that's before this jury as the events on the 26th.
MR. TAIKEFF:  The subject was opened up by the Government, and all I am trying to do is counter the Government's cross examination on the question of whether there was any connection between that incident and the Reservation.
That subject was gone into for the first time by the Government on cross.
MR. HULTMAN:  That is not correct, your Honor. This witness was asked specifically about a given death. My only question was:  "Was it on or off the Reservation?" The subject matter was raised in direct examination,
MR. TAIKEFF:  I think he said, "Did it have any {3612} connection whatsoever with the Reservation?" And that is what I am addressing myself to.
THE COURT:  I will allow him to answer that.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I am entitled to ask a leading question and I am not doing this.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Was there any connection between that death on the Reservation and the people on the Reservation?
A  Yes. Raymond Yellow Thunder, he is from Pine Ridge.
MR. HULTMAN:  Again, your Honor, I object on the grounds that there is no showing of any relevancy of any kind.
THE COURT:  He has answered. I will let it stand.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) Now, you said on your cross examination that the people from the American Indian Movement were going to or did help you with your treaty work?
A  Yes.
Q  Can you briefly explain what you mean by your treaty work, just in general?
MR. HULTMAN:  Again, your Honor, I would object on the grounds of relevancy. I can't see what possible relevancy does that have to the issues that are stake in this particular trial for materiality or relevance.
MR. TAIKEFF:  It was brought out on the Government's cross examination.
THE COURT:  Well, I have allowed defense counsel to {3613} go into the reasons, at least their alleged reasons for AIM to be on the Reservation; and on that matter, I would allow the question.
Q  (By Mr. Taikeff) I asked you in general terms, not to get into complicated things or specifics, when you said that the AIM people were going to help you with your treaty work, and you summarize for the Court and jury what you meant by "treaty work"?
A  1974 they were going to have a treaty hearing in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Q  And in the Federal Court?
A  Yes, and after that Court, they want to take it on up to the upper Court.
Q  When you say an "upper Court", you mean a higher Court?
A  Yes, higher Court.
Q  Yes.
A  And this is one reason their Legal Aid live on the Reservation.
Q  And it is that case that you were referring to when you said "treaty work"?
A  Yes.
MR. TAIKEFF:  I have no further questions.
MR. HULTMAN:  No further questions.
MR. TAIKEFF:  May the witness be excused?
THE COURT:  Any objection?
{3614}
MR. HULTMAN:  No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may step down, and you are excused.
(Witness excused.)