A Cesspool of Judicial Corruption

A Cesspool of Judicial Corruption

A Cesspool of Judicial Corruption
The David Hinkson Story
An appeal to the world court of public opinion. When any government agency is empowered to manufacture, subvert and perjure evidence with impunity, the truth becomes immaterial.
Roland Hinkson
November 21, 2010

A Cesspool of Judicial Corruption

Forward this book as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate the written version of this book in full among private individuals and groups, post it on all Internet sites and publish in all not-for-profit publications. I encourage any and all radio, Internet and television hosts to use it freely, but, in context. Use of any part of this work out of context is strictly prohibited. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Disclaimer - The posting of the stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) in this book does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of the misconduct herein. The documents speak for themselves and the misconduct is self evident from an understanding of the entire case and should not be taken out of context.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWARD by wesley w. hoyt

PREFACE by roland hinkson

ONE the jury is coming in

TWO david in the hands of the marshal

THREE conditions at ada county jail

FOUR the chief accuser testifies at trial

FIVE the judge locks up david and throws away the key

SIX the count of monte cristo goes to his dungeon

SEVEN ten-thousand tears

EIGHT a letter from hell

NINE letter to the adx warden

TEN from my diary

ELEVEN david hits the jackpot, finally

TWELVE swisher's blackmail begins

THIRTEEN who is this guy swisher?

FOURTEEN how and when did this all begin?

FIFTEEN albers expands his intregue

SIXTEEN other employee betrayers

SEVENTEEN gunderson and his coconspirators

EIGHTEEN gunderson plot revealed

NINETEEN the plot thickens

TWENTY implementation of the gunderson plan

TWENTY-ONE the setup–j.c. harding wired

TWENTY-TWO let's try to mitigate our anger

TWENTY-THREE memorandum to the national marine corps league

TWENTY-FOUR daughter describes swisher as a sociopath

TWENTY-FIVE swisher gets convicted

TWENTY-SIX swisher's tall tales of his heroism

TWENTY-SEVEN be careful whom you trust

TWENTY-EIGHT bellon takes wateroz to court

TWENTY-NINE why feds dumped raff, their first star witness

THIRTY our hope to enlist a top appellate attorney

THIRTY-ONE riordan says, "i'll take the case

THIRTY-TWO government's crimes and recommended punishment

THIRTY-THREE wes hoyt views the panorama

THIRTY-FOUR are the cowards the ones quick to judge?

THIRTY-FIVE idaho congressman george hansen– chained and thrown into prison

THIRTY-SIX traficant survives the judicial cesspool

THIRTY-SEVEN dungeons in america

THIRTY-EIGHT the rewards of "testilying"

THIRTY-NINE do prosecutors and judges get paid?

FORTY the u.s. constitution vs targeted individuals

FORTY-ONE 3 judge panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals

FORTY-TWO 11 judge en banc appeal

FORTY-THREE the en banc court overturns the appellate court

FORTY-FOUR the en banc decision is not final

FORTY-FIVE legal reporter levine on en banc decision

FORTY-SIX seventeen-thousand korean war vets speak out

FORTY-SEVEN better to destroy one man than to retry subsequent cases

FORTY-EIGHT a panorama review

FORTY-NINE roland's opinion

FIFTY conclusion

FOREWARD by wesley w. hoyt

The Presumption of Innocence is the fundamental right, at the foundation of all personal freedoms in America and embodies the concept “it is better to free ten guilty men than to convict one who is innocent.”

For the last 30 years, the government has been using various techniques to replace basic, God-given Constitutional rights, such as the Presumption-of-Innocence, with various legal devices, such as the “Presumption of Governmental Regularity and Correctness.” An example of how this device is used is that judges proclaim they will “always believe the government witness over the accused” (in situations where all other factors are equal). Judges who follow the Presumption of Government Regularity and Correctness consider only the government’s witness to be an accurate reporter of events and consider the citizen not believable; hence, the evisceration of the Presumption of Innocence.

There are case law rulings creating this abomination of justice, which is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. What should happen under our Constitution is, when only the word of a citizen is pitted against the word of a government witness, without corroborating evidence, the Presumption of Innocence REQUIRES that the judge accept the word of the accused as true. But this new device allows the judge to base his decision on something other than fundamental constitutional principles to arbitrarily conclude that the government is right and the citizen wrong.

The Presumption of Governmental Regularity and Correctness is a malicious tool, created as an alternative to Constitutional law, fashioned by the New World Order (NWO) movement, to defeat the Constitutional rights of the individual in America. It is the chief technique that allows collaborating government and foreign private interests to transform this country into a police state.

Another technique used in transforming this nation from a free state to a police state, is the attack on the innocent, who are willing to speak out against tyranny and corruption, by using false charges manufactured by rogue government agents on behalf of the elite who deem themselves to be “politically correct;” i.e., the NWO movement.

“They,” these rogue agents and the prosecutors and judges who support them, deliberately attack innocent individuals who criticize the NWO movement simply because of differing views of how governmental authority should be administered, managed and applied.

The tie-that-binds these entities is a form of peer pressure mixed with legalized bribery that encourages government employees to stick together, causing judges, prosecutors and government agents to feel obligated to support each other, even if their conscience tells them that they are prosecuting an innocent person on false charges.

Legalized bribery comes in the form of “cash awards” for government employees from $10,000 to $25,000 per conviction to “recognize and reward” each official under 5 USC §§ 4502, 4503 & 4504 and 5 USC §4302 to enhance their “performance” or for so-called “superior accomplishment” or “a special act or service” or if the act “achieves a significant reduction in paperwork.” The criteria is so loose, any employee can be given a cash award for almost anything; consider the power this act gives the head of each agency to manipulate employees. In addition, the government employee can also receive “time off from duty without loss of pay” as a part of the reward for bringing down a politically incorrect person.

A politically incorrect person not only believes in the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, but uses his freedom of speech to point out law violations by the government. Such was the case for David Hinkson who came under the scrutiny of Rogue agents at the IRS, FDA and FBI and were helped by cooperating individuals who wanted him in prison so they could steal his business.

Because of something called the “Crony System,” a member of the government invariably refuses to challenge another government employee who is attacking an innocent politically incorrect person; this part of the Crony System operates like a conspiracy of silence.

Also, rogue agents are allowed to vindictively pursue their own personal agenda, such as when such an agent feels insulted by someone who challenges their authority, as happened in David Hinkson’s case. The rogue agents are allowed to pursue their own agenda because they are supposed to be the protectors of the judges and prosecutors who supervise them. These agents create a “bunker” mentality among the judges and prosecutors in a paranoid atmosphere with a pretense of constant danger. These rogue agents are in a symbiotic relationship with both judges and prosecutors that leaves the ordinary citizen “out of the loop” and creates conditions ripe for victimizing the innocent politically incorrect person.

The attacks by rogue agents are not limited to dissenters who make "politically incorrect" statements. Sometimes such agents are directed by NWO leaders to attack creative individuals, such as inventors who develop products that might compete with the private interests of big-pharma or the oil and gas industry or other industries that provide profit to the NWO bankers.

Once falsely charged with a crime, the innocent person’s prosecution will be supported because of the Crony System, which ultimately relies upon the Presumption of Governmental Regularity and Correctness for cohesive bonding in order to bind these different techniques together to ensure a conviction. Convicting as many dissidents as possible not only silences the opposition, it provides funding to the American Prison Industry, another creation of the NWO bankers. Not only is the Presumption of Innocence defeated by the use of these techniques in order to obtain a conviction, but evidence of other defenses that an innocent politically incorrect individual might have, such as alibi or self defense, are simply excluded by a cooperating activist judge, who is receiving some form of payoff.

In some cases, such as in the Hinkson case, the judge would not allow the jury to hear evidence crucial to his alibi defense which could have resulted in his acquittal. For example, when the government failed to produce David’s U.S. Passport, the judge also refused to order it produced which would have proved that David was in Ukraine and Russia when he supposedly was soliciting Elvin Joe Swisher to murder federal officials.

Also, the judge excluded from the jury’s consideration Swisher’s official military file which absolutely proved that Swisher was a liar as he had not received military awards or decorations, had not killed anyone in combat and had not served in Korea; in fact, Swisher was court-martialed for misconduct and busted from a Corporal to a PFC without ever having traveled to Korea or served in a conflict.

Failure to produce David’s Passport by the government and exclusion of Swisher’s military file by the trial judge, who lied from the bench when he ruled that the file did contain information that supported Swisher’s service in Korea is nothing less than prosecutorial and judicial misconduct – however, there is no one to prosecute them.

When there is no physical evidence that a crime occurred, such as the accusation that David Hinkson tried to hire Swisher to murder federal officials, and the only evidence is “hearsay” from the lying mouth of a government witness such as Swisher, who claims the accused made incriminating statements, there is no other way to rebut such testimony than to show that other in-court statements by that witness (i.e., about faked military heroism and awards) also were lies.

When Swisher bragged to the jury about his fake status as a decorated Korean combat veteran, he clothed himself with unassailable credibility because everybody loves and believes a war hero! He said that David wanted to hire him as a hit man because Swisher had killed “many” in combat. If the jury had learned that Swisher was lying about being a war hero, in combat and serving in Korea and never received any decorations, awards or medals, his credibility would have been stripped from him. Thus, the government was able to use two fraudulent stories to convict David of crimes he did not commit and which never happened. The first story was that Swisher was credible because he was the equivalent of a super-hero injured war veteran and the second was that David Hinkson tired to solicit him to murder federal officials. Take out the first lie with the military record and the second lie also fails.

The failure of the judge to allow David to show that Swisher was lying about his military record, which the government went to great pains to make the center piece of its case, denied David the chance to prove that he was not guilty, or at least there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

The judge applied the Presumption of Government Regularity and Correctness when he excluded Swisher’s military file from the evidence that could be considered by the jury by saying that if admitted, it would only “confuse” the jury. Applying that precedent to future cases, one can see that the government will always convict every innocent person who is falsely accused in every case until the Presumption of Governmental Regularity and Correctness has been overturned.

Bearing false witness was prohibited under Biblical law. In addition, the eternal Law of Witnesses required at least two witnesses must testify as to the same facts if the accused was charged with a hearsay crime (remember that in the trial of Christ, the Sanhedrin went looking for two witnesses who would testify to the same lie and couldn’t find any liars who could tell the same story, so finally, the Savior Himself had to help them out by stating that He was divine, which fit the crime of blaspheme). Our system should require no less than two witnesses if an accused is faced with a hearsay crime, and Congress needs to pass a law to require at least two witnesses in all such cases.

Consider, if someone testifies: “You did it,” that there is no way to overcome such a statement because a denial, such as “No, I didn’t,” is merely the common hearsay of “he said/she said.” Under the pre-1980 system the accused would win if it was just his word against the government witness, but under the present system, the government wins every time because the Presumption of Governmental Regularity and Correctness. In such a situation, the only choice for the accused is to prove that, for a variety of reasons, circumstances show that you didn’t do it. At that point it is up to a third party, such as a judge or a jury to “weigh” the evidence and decide who is believable and whether there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. That is why the Presumption of Government Regularity and Correctness is so damaging to the rights of the individual, because it gives the government, with all its other resources, the clear advantage in every case, in spite of the U.S.Constitution (which requires the Presumption of Innocence to control).

Another technique used by the U.S. Department of Justice is to provide news releases with false accusations in order to demonize the accused by mounting community distain against him. This is a form of official jury-tampering. There is no mechanism to prevent the government from falsely reporting to the media because there is no one to prosecute the prosecutors who leak bogus information that damages the innocent person from the outset of the case.

Another technique is to hold the accused in jail, so that he cannot participate in his own defense. By presenting false accusations of additional criminal activity that never existed, which activity is fabricated specifically for the detention hearing, the accused is denied bond and, thus, cannot get out of jail before trial.

Typically, in order to be in a position to have the court deny bond in a murder for hire case, the government will falsely claims that the accused has a “list” of persons he is planning to kill. This makes the defendant appear to be very dangerous and thus, justifies holding him in pre-trial detention. Note: Those false allegations used to hold a person in jail before trial are quickly forgotten because there is no truth in them, nonetheless, they serve the purpose of holding the accused in detention. Thus, by these techniques, the politically incorrect individual will become a political prisoner of the U.S. Government.