by Roland Hinkson
Over a decade ago, the Department of Justice began their vicious attack against my son, David Roland Hinkson, an innocent victim of an absolutely corrupt government. One might think that my investigation, pursued relentlessly, for so many years would show me that our government follows U.S. laws, including adherence to our Constitution. It does not. This “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” is a fraud. I love this Country. I’m proud of most of our heritage, but I no long feel an allegiance to this government, for it is no longer a system of government under the rule of law, but it is now a dictatorial regime. It took the persecution of my son to open my eyes to how unbelievably corrupt many of our judges have become.
Thomas Jefferson admonished us that:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
As a former WWII veteran and my son a Vietnam veteran we reaped a harvest from this Nation that we revered, a nation that we defended. Instead of bringing us satisfaction for our service, our harvest was only agony and despair. Yes, I do hold this regime is utter contempt, for they are criminals of the highest order.
So why would a man who has loved and defended his nation for a lifetime attack his own government now? No, I do not seek anarchy, I seek restoration of our now defunct Constitution. As Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (graduating at the age of twenty with the highest grade average in Harvard Law School’s History), said:
“Our government teaches people by example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
The injustice and corruption that now permeates nearly every sector of our once beloved country must be exposed. Thomas Jefferson said, “When injustice or tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty?” George Washington from the very onset of our government said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” So if you think that you individually can’t or won’t make a difference, consider what Thomas Jefferson said: “One man with courage is a majority.”
Let me tell David’s story piecemeal so that it’s easier to understand. David, in a signed affidavit, said,
“On November 21, 2002, I was arraigned in front of Honorable Mikel Williams [a Federal magistrate]. I asked the Court if I could have “Discovery.” The Court ordered that the Prosecution would provide discovery in ten days. There has been no discovery provided that was responsive to this Court Order.”
For hundreds of years, “Discovery” was an essential part of our system of justice. Today it is still the law. So what is going on?
As you know by now, David was tried and condemned to 43 years in a Federal penitentiary. He appealed; and his conviction was overturned only to be reinstated by the eleven judge panel called “En Banc Panel.” Dan Levine, Recorder Staff Writer, wrote the following article after the decision of the Eleven Judge En Banc Hearing:
Conservatives on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rode to the rescue of one of their own on Thursday, finding that Judge Richard Tallman didn’t botch a bizarre murder-for-hire case in Idaho. The en banc decision from Judge Carlos Bea reverses an earlier opinion that blasted Tallman for refusing to grant defendant David Hinkson a new trial. The author of that panel opinion, Judge William Fletcher, now writes in dissent.
Bea and Fletcher largely talk past each other. Bea [from Spain then Cuba], a former state trial court judge, used the case to give district court judges more cover on abuse-of-discretion calls. Fletcher, former UC-Berkeley School of Law professor, essentially accused Bea of cherry-picking the facts, saying his version of events was too “truncated.”
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the ruling. “Not so,” [said] Hinkson’s defense attorney, Dennis Riordan of Riordan & Horgan in San Francisco. ”Any legal rationale that prevents a jury from learning that the only witness the government has on the charge came before the jury with the express purpose of lying to them, and showing them forged documents, can’t possibly be an appropriate or correct standard for a fair trial,” he said.
Federal prosecutors charged Hinkson with attempting to hire his onetime friend, Elven Joe Swisher [Swisher was never a friend], to kill an IRS agent, a prosecutor and an Idaho district judge. A tax protester [David was not a tax protester; he merely argued that the IRS and Federal Reserve were not legitimate under the Constitution] who made his living running WaterOz–a company that sold [mineral] water with [various amounts of minerals angstrom sized] small bits of dissolved gold and platinum over the Internet.
Hinkson hated federal authorities [No, he hated abusers of our laws]. He spoke of building a “fed-a-pult,” which “was a device to catapult federal agents into a canyon or into an oncoming train,” according to the opinion [Yes, he did, and everyone laughed]
At trial, Swisher appeared on the stand bedecked with a Purple Heart [lapel pin of a Purple Heart], which he claimed was a product of service in the Korean War. When the defense tried to challenge the medal, Swisher produced a military document which purported to prove its authenticity. Faced with conflicting evidence in Swisher’s personnel file, Tallman let the testimony in, and Swisher [Hinkson] was convicted.
After trial, when the defense supplied an affidavit from an officer calling Swisher’s document a forgery–and proving that he never served in Korea or won a medal–Tallman didn’t order a new trial. Instead, he sentenced Hinkson to 33 years, which he is serving in a Supermax prison for terrorist suspects [Tallman sentenced David to thirty years plus upward departure of three years on Swisher’s testimony and another ten years for the phony structuring charges].
In his opinion, joined by six others, Bea tightened the abuse-of-discretion standard. “We invoke that standard of review as we have hundreds of times before, but this case forces us to step back and consider precisely what “abuse of discretion” means,” Bea wrote. “From now on, a district judge’s factual findings can only be reversed if they are found to be illogical, implausible or not supported by inferences drawn from the facts, he wrote [This decision gives trial judges unbelievable, totally illegal power but is Constitutionally unlawful. Thus any trial judge’s decision is basically final even if the judge is lying and avoiding the law].
If any of these three apply, only then are we able to have a “definite and firm conviction” that the District Court reached a conclusion that was a “mistake,” Bea wrote. ”Tallman’s decisions passed this test,” he concluded [even though he excluded David’s Passport? That is absolutely illogical. That may be the law in Cuba, but not under the Constitution of the United States of America]. Joining Bea were Chief Judge Alex Kozinski [who later reversed his opinion in favor of a fair trial for David] and Judges Diarmuid Scannlain, Andrew Kleinfeld, Consuelo Callahan, Sandra Ikuta and N. Randy Smith.
Fletcher didn’t take on Bea’s new standard, but instead ticked through a list of mistakes he says Tallman made. For example, Tallman said Hinkson’s lawyers waited too long to investigate Swisher’s war records, when in fact, Fletcher wrote, they had been waiting for a response from the military for months.
“It is almost incomprehensible to me that the government would make that argument. It is entirely incomprehensible that the majority would accept it,” [Judge] Fletcher wrote. He was joined by [judges] Kim McLane Wardlaw, Richard Paez and Harry Pregerson. Riordan plans to ask the entire Ninth Circuit to hear the case and, failing that, the U.S. Supreme Court [but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case].
Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that a former trial judge would want to change the law in order to give trial judges decisive power. As Tallman said at David’s Trial, “You can always appeal my decision”–yes, if you can afford it–our expenses including all appeals have exceeded $4,000,000.00. With this interpretation of the law there is no effective way to appeal even the most corrupt judges.
It should be apparent to any reader that David Hinkson did not have a fair trial. What we observed was a modern day inquisition. Webster describes an inquisition as “an official investigation, esp. one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudiced on the part of the examiners and recklessly cruel punishment.”
Under our Christian/Judeo culture (Deuteronomy, Chapter 19, verses 18-19) we read that “…the judges shall make diligent inquisition and, behold, if the witness be a false witness and hath testified falsely against his brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother.” Certainly this would be a fair punishment for Swisher; but the Regime reluctantly acquiesced when a small faction within the Justice Department brought charges against Swisher. A debt was due for Swishers perjury at the behest of the Regime; so Swisher was sentenced to a year and a day by Idaho District Judge Lynn Winmill. He endured possibly 60 days behind bars before being escorted to a halfway house in Coeur d’ Alene, Idaho. For this punishment he sniveling cried crocodile tears, but it didn’t bother him that David would spend forty-three years (43) in prison.
The message is that in our enlightened society today, any liar is free to falsely testify against anyone with impunity as long as he/she is willing to lie for the government.
Judges may think that politics is more important than justice, but they are wrong. And the day will come when they in turn will be judged. Therefore, I call for a Grand Jury to investigate Richard C. “Dick” Tallman of the Ninth Circuit.
See also: David Hinkson Persecution