This has nothing to do with saving taxes or making money. It does have everything to do with our freedoms and the miscarriage of justice that happened with the imprisonment of Leonard Pelletier of AIM (American Indian Movement) and the Battle of Wounded Knee. Jennifer Wade was a worker with Dr Martin Luther King when he was assassinated. She presently works with Amnesty International in Vancouver. I am pleased to pass this on. Try and read it and do some thinking about how we (the white man) have treated the First Nations people in North America so abysmally. David Ingram -----Original Message----- From: J.A. Wade [mailto:jawade at infoserve.net] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:19 PM To: Gowans Helen; Wood Ken; Brown Elizabeth; Quakers Can Friends Serv Com; Sing Tao News Room; Tutu Reverend; Toronto Star; Warren Peter #3; Woodrow Coward; Stephen Puddicomb; CCIA; Courier; Danish Centre for Human Rights; Davis Dawn; kmakin at globeandmail.ca; Ingram David Subject: John Graham story and action to be taken Please pass on to press and organizations that might be interested. John Graham Defense Update December 17, 2004 Included are the revised updates from the extradition hearings of the past two weeks. These updates have also been posted on the John Graham Defense Committee website, www.grahamdefense.org. This concludes our updates from these extradition hearings, until court reconvenes on January 25th, 2005. We thank you for your continued interest and support. Matthew Lien John Graham Defense Committee ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Hello friends and supporters, As you probably already know, December 6, 2004 was the first day of extradition hearings for John Graham. Following are updates from those hearings, for your information. Day 1: December 6, 2004 In the morning prior to court, John was feeling some stress but was also very positive to be walking the path of truth. He was surrounded my many friends and family members, some from the local area and others who flew to Vancouver to observe the hearings and offer their support. During the first day, John's lawyers and the Crown began presenting their positions before BC Supreme Court Justice Bennett. John's lawyers reviewed the details of his arrest with an officer on the witness stand, examining how John was first detained on a false accusation of harassment. While in police custody on this charge, John was allowed to contact a lawyer -- which he did. After this call, however, John was then informed of a new charge relating to the US indictment for the murder of Anna Mae Aquash. The original complaint evaporated and was replaced solely by this new charge. After being informed of the new charge, John was not asked if he wished to contact legal counsel -- an apparent violation of his rights, as John was now in further jeopardy -- and was further interrogated. Another witness for the Defense was a woman employed at the local police detachment where John was required to check in on a daily basis. Not only has John been checking in consistently and reliably, but he had also made friends of the staff and had sold one of his hand-crafted willow chairs to a woman working there. John has been crafting such items to help subsidize his income, since the restrictions of house arrest make it nearly impossible to find other employment. Day 2 - December 7, 2004 The second day was devoted to a few procedural matters, with a great deal of time spent reviewing the arrest procedures and the apparent violation of John's rights once informed of the charge relating to the US indictment. At the conclusion of the second day, the hearings were adjourned until Thursday at 10:00 AM. Day 3 - December 9, 2004 The day began with the lawyers for John Graham continuing their review of the arrest procedures and possible violations of John's rights. A new argument presented centered around the identification and a photograph of John taken at the time of arrest in Vancouver. The photo was faxed to the US for identification. The individual which the US relied upon to positively identify the photo was John Trudell, a witness for the prosecution. John Trudell looked at the photo and identified it only as "Graham". He never referred to the person in the photo as "John Boy," as he had consistently in the past. Furthermore, the arrest sheet sent from Vancouver described the man in custody as Caucasian, 87 kg in weight, and 188 cm tall -- several pounds and inches more than John's weight and height, not to mention the oversight that John is clearly an Indigenous man. Subsequently, the judge ruled the booking sheet inadmissible. This raised many important questions about the procedures during the arrest. This also led to questions about how the US had obtained the original description of John Graham, and how they determined it was the same description as the "John Boy" described in much of the documentation. It appears as though the US may have sent agents north to Canada, to meet with John and obtain identifying information, and then return to include this information in a warrant for John's arrest. This would suggest they had no idea who they were looking for, and supports John's assertion that agents had repeatedly come to the Yukon and threatened him to name a killer responsible for Anna Mae's death, and that if he did not, they would "ruin his life". Once John was arrested, the US and Canadian authorities, and John Trudell, concluded the Canadian authorities had arrested the right man -- even though much of the information describing John on the arrest sheet was incorrect. John's lawyers also questioned much of the case law which the Crown was relying on to defend themselves against apparent procedural improprieties. It was expressed by John's lawyers that the case law was outdated, and had since been replaced with cases that had set new precedence supporting an individual's rights as balanced with the rights of society -- in John's case, the balance had shifted much too far from an individual's rights as enshrined in the Canadian Charter or Rights. Near the end of the day, the Crown asked to know if John's lawyers intended to request a Stay of Proceedings, to prepare their position against such a request. It was confirmed that John's lawyers did intend to request a Stay of Proceedings, based in part on an affidavit provided by the legal counsel for Arlo Looking Cloud, the credibility and reliability of another witness, and new information about the availability of another witness which raised questions about the US' certification of evidence. Arlo Looking Cloud is the only alleged eye witness the prosecution intends to call, to testify against John Graham in a US trial. The affidavit, however, declares that Arlo will refuse to testify against John should such a trial occur (as he demonstrated recently when refusing to testify before a Grand Jury). Many believe Arlo was coerced into providing false testimony against John, which inadvertently led to his own conviction earlier this year. Now that Arlo is no longer under the influence of alcohol and other drugs (as he admitted to being in his videotaped "confession") and is now being represented by unbiased and qualified legal counsel, Arlo has recanted much of his previous testimony. Accusations of drugs and alcohol being provided by the original authorities from the time of his arrest persist. Court was then adjourned for the day. The Final Week - Days 4, 5, 6 and 7 Some thoughts on extradition... As we entered the final week of hearings, we expected to conclude before the week's end. Without the ability of John's lawyers to examine the US Government's evidence (as restricted under US - Canada extradition law), we are considerably limited in what weaknesses, abuses of process, and untruths we can expose. Given the current policy for extradition between the US and Canada -- where the two countries have agreed essentially on a handshake, a brief procedural review and a rubber stamping of documentation for an extradition -- there is very little we are able to question at this stage. The lawyers for John have raised many important issues during these hearings, and these could prove much more useful during an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice. We are nevertheless fully prepared for the possibility that the judge may have no choice but to issue an order of extradition, and recognize that this would only conclude the first round. The problem with this "friendly" agreement between the US and Canada, is that it assumes the US Government will always act in good faith when prosecuting a case against a Canadian citizen. However, history reveals many instances where the US Government has engaged in wrongful and malicious prosecution against Native Americans, notably those involved with the American Indian Movement during the 1970s. For this reason, we believe it is unconstitutional that the Canadian Government should represent the United States in such a preceding, rather than representing the rights of the Canadian citizen being sought, and places the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's very sovereignty into question. In our opinion, when a foreign nation -- let alone the most powerful nation on Earth -- has a documented history of prosecutorial abuse again Native Americans, they must not be allowed to extract a citizen from Canada without disclosing the evidence. The Canadian Government must defend the individual's rights and freedoms against the foreign government's claim, should they be potentially false and malicious -- as is evident in the charge again John Graham. However, during these hearings, we see the Crown repeatedly reminding the judge that she has no authority to question the "reliability and credibility of the evidence" beyond the summary, even though much of it has been proven to be unreliable or unavailable. Their position is that a Canadian judge can not have discretion over the reliability of evidence, without having a detailed knowledge of the US legal system. As someone watching from a Canadian perspective, it is an insult to Canadian sovereignty -- not to mention aboriginal sovereignty -- that the Canadian court which alleges to provide a fair and unbiased venue, has no right to question, or even to view first- hand, the evidence supposedly held by the United States. John's lawyers continue to refer to existing case law which states that the Canadian judge's role "must not be reduced to 'meaningless'". Precisely what the role of the judge can be, however, seems to be unclear and a point of continuing argument. We are therefore fully prepared to challenge this existing extradition policy before the Supreme Court of Canada. Now... on to the developments of the second week BC Supreme Court Justice Bennett ordered the Crown to obtain detailed information from the US on how they identified John Graham, on the origin of its identifying information, and how it linked that identification to the person known as "John Boy" described in other testimony. The Crown obliged. It is expected to take a couple of weeks to obtain this information from the US. The judge stated that, while she may not have the authority to rule on the information obtained from the request, the Minister would have more authority to consider it later. This rare order was a clear indication that the concerns expressed by the Defense on the matters of identification do indeed have serious weight, and could assist John's lawyers further on. The Defense also continued their questioning of the evidence described in the summary, focusing on two points specifically: 1) A witness who was certified by the US as being available to testify, Al Gates, had been deceased for up to nine months prior to his allegedly being certified. This raises questions about the reliability and credibility of the certification process. Obviously, Mr. Gates had not been contacted to confirm that he would testify, because he was not alive at the time. The prosecution asserts that this is only one witness who was not correctly certified. However, the Defense asserts this is evidence that the certification process was not handled with due diligence, and casts doubt on the entire body of evidence as certified by the prosecuting authorities. John's lead attorney, Terry LaLiberte, went on to accuse the US of fraud and of misleading the Canadian court. 2) Another witness presented in the US summary of evidence who came under question was Frank Dillon. Mr. Dillon has previously stated that John told him he had to "off" Anna Mae. However, the Defense has acquired Grand Jury testimony where Frank Dillon testified that John had never said this, and that John had never used the word "off." The contradictory testimony obviously calls into question the reliability and credibility of this evidence. John's lawyers assert that Canada "can not extradite on evidence which does not exist, has not been diligently examined, or is inaccurate." They further assert that, since the US is a party to the case before the Canadian court, the court must be prepared to judge the evidence which has come into question. Following these arguments, the Defense requested the judge consider either a Stay of Proceedings, or that she disallow the evidence provided and certified by the US. Either solution would render this matter closed, and John would not be extradited. Adjourned The court adjourned on Thursday for the holiday season, planning to reconvene on January 25, 2005, at which time the information obtained by the Crown regarding how the US obtained identifying information for John Graham will be reviewed. We expect this to require one or two days, assuming no further information is brought before the court. It is unclear how the judge will rule. Clearly, the Defense has been successful in demonstrating -- even in this extremely restricted extradition venue -- that the case prepared by the US is fraught with inaccuracies, unreliability, and a lack of credibility. Whether BC Supreme Court Justice Bennett deems she has the authority to act on this information will be determined when court reconvenes. Home for the holidays It is good news that John remains free for the holiday season to join family from the Yukon to be with him. He will also join his children and grandchildren who have attended the hearings daily, with love and a belief in truth shining in their eyes. We will continue to prepare the case for appeal, in the event the judge must issue an order to extradite. We are also planning a new letter writing campaign, and a "Letters to your Editors" campaign. We wish you all the very best for the coming holiday season, and thank you most sincerely for your continued interest and support. Matthew Lien www.matthewlien.com John Graham Defense Committee www.grahamdefense.org ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ==> Support justice for John in Court (in Vancouver) Let’s fill the court to show we care. Let’s tell John’ s story to people we meet. January 25th, 2005 ==> Participate in the letter-writing campaign immediately. Write what presses you know or your MP , or write the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Indian Affairs, members of the opposition etc (Sample letter provided or write your own after looking at the web page====== www.grahamdefense.org Graham’s case is not only about what happens to indigenous people but it is about Canadian justice being on trial. The Honourable Irwin Cotler Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada 284 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0H8 Email: webadmin at justice.gc.ca Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs Dear Honourable [NAME OF MINISTER OR M.P. HERE] John Graham is a Canadian aboriginal man from Whitehorse, Yukon. He is a father to eight children, a community organizer, and an advocate for aboriginal issues. John Graham was arrested on a U.S. indictment in Vancouver on December 1, 2003, and is currently awaiting an extradition hearing. John Graham is charged with the murder of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash, who was his friend and colleague in the American Indian Movement during the mid-1970s. John has always maintained his innocence of this crime which occurred in South Dakota 28 years ago and his story has remained consistent. He maintains the FBI alone “know plenty about what happened to Anna Mae”. He claims Anna Mae was very afraid of the FBI. Leonard Peltier, a fellow activist in the American Indian Movement, suffered an extradition from Canada based on fabricated evidence and false affidavits presented by the FBI. The former justice minister and judge who allowed the extradition, Warren Allmand, has since said that he would never have agreed to the extradition had he known some affidavits and evidence presented by the U.S. were false. In a recent statement of support, Leonard Peltier himself said, "I fear that John will not receive a fair trial in the U.S. anymore than I did. I must remind you, it is court record that the FBI lied to extradite me back to the U.S." Leonard Peltier's subsequent trial has been widely recognized as a travesty of justice, attracting criticism from human rights organizations and activists including Amnesty International, Nelson Mandela and Jesse Jackson. For these reasons, and because John Graham is an indigenous person, Canada must intervene in this extradition immediately. He must not be extradited on hearsay alone. In the wake of Leonard Peltier, we cannot allow the Canadian government to facilitate - either knowingly or otherwise - another human rights tragedy. If you would like more information about the matter of John Graham, please visit the John Graham Defense Committee website at www.grahamdefense.org. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, [YOUR NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS HERE] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.centa.com/CEN-TAPEDE/centapede/attachments/20041220/5f305d7c/attachment-0001.htm
