A Cesspool of Corruption – The David Hinkson Story


Thank you for your interest in Freeing David Hinkson!

David Hinkson’s father, Roland Hinkson, is a blow-by-blow account of all the intrigue, lying, corruption and greed behind the false conviction of David Hinkson.

Free Download of the Entire Book in pdf:

Cesspool of Judicial Corruption – The David Hinkson Story

FOREWORD by Wesley W. Hoyt

The Presumption of Innocence is the fundamental right, at the foundation of all personal freedoms in America which 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 testimony of a government witness, without corroborating evidence, the Presumption of Innocence REQUIRES that judges accept the statements of the accused as true. But this new device allows the judge to base his decision on something other than fundamental constitutional principles and arbitrarily to 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’s the chief technique used to allow governments to collaborate with foreign private interests to transform this country into a police state.

Another technique used in transforming this nation from a free state into a police state, is the attack on the innocent; those “politically incorrect” people willing to speak out against tyranny and corruption. Against them the government uses 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 law 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 developed ionized minerals as a dietary supplement and started a business that went from zero to $4.0 million in sales in four years. Then he came under the scrutiny of Rogue agents at the IRS, FDA and FBI who were helped by cooperating private individuals all of whom wanted to put 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 a politically incorrect person; this part of the Crony System operates like a conspiracy of silence.

Also, rogue agents are given wide latitude to pursue vindictively their own personal agenda, such as when 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 by members of the Crony System, which ultimately relies upon the Presumption of Governmental Regularity and Correctness 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 (API), another creation of the NWO bankers. The API depends upon revenue bonds for funding. They are sold in regional and world markets and must be repaid by taxes that support prisoners; the more prisoners, the more tax dollars to repay revenue bonds. In order to obtain a conviction, not only is the Presumption of Innocence defeated, but evidence of other defenses a 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. 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 contained 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, then the only evidence is “hearsay” from the lying mouth of a government witness such as Swisher upon which to base the conviction. When Swisher made the claim that the accused said he wanted to hire him to murder federal officials, other than a flat denial, which he did, there was no other way to rebut such testimony than to show that the informant was lying about his other in-court statements, i.e., about faked military heroism and awards.

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–crimes 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 tried to solicit him to murder federal officials. Take out the first lie with the military record and the second lie 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 prove 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 convict every innocent person who is falsely accused 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 requires that at least two witnesses must testify as to the same set of facts if the accused is 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 false charge and couldn’t find any liars to tell the same story; so finally, the Savior Himself had to supply the “crime” by stating that He was divine, which supposedly was blasphemy). Congress must pass a law to require at least two witnesses in the case of hearsay crimes.

Consider, if someone testifies: “You did it,” that there is no way to overcome such a statement because a mere denial, such as “No, I didn’t,” is merely what we commonly call “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 he 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 damages the rights of the individual, because it virtually insures a conviction in every case by mandating acceptance of the government’s version.

Another technique used by the U.S. Department of Justice is to provide news releases, at the outset of the case, filled with false accusations in order to demonize the accused by mounting community disdain against him. This is a form of jury-tampering based on attempts by the government to mold the minds of prospective jurors against the accused. There is no mechanism to prevent the government from leaking false information to the media damaging to the reputation of the accused because there is no one to prosecute the prosecutors–unless Congress makes such conduct illegal.

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 has been fabricated specifically for the detention hearing, the accused is denied a bond. Thus, he 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 claim 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: There is no mechanism for holding the government accountable or responsible for bringing false allegations against the accused at a bond hearing, so those false allegations which held the person in jail before trial are quickly forgotten; nonetheless, they served the purpose of holding the accused in detention and denying him the opportunity to participate in his own defense. Thus, by these techniques, the innocent politically incorrect individual becomes a political prisoner of the U.S. Government.

The techniques described above are only a few of those used by the government against the politically incorrect; but all such techniques appear to have come from a KGB-style play book on how to destroy political dissenters. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Regan and Stephen F. Downs, who lectures at New York University Law School both have isolated a problem with the prosecution for “fake” terrorist related crimes of almost a thousand innocent persons by the U.S. Government. Professor Downs refers these acts as “Preemptive Prosecutions.” They base them on a government assessment that the accused is likely to commit a crime in the future (or are just a general nuisance to the current administration). Therefore, he/she is indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned by a modern Kangaroo Court (by a Soviet style purge, but in the name of public safety). The government’s motivation to prosecute fabricated cases is
multi-fold, but includes: 1. Justification of agency budgets (e.g., FBI $8.3 Billion); 2. Advancement of the police state in Amerika (e.g., Patriot Act approved snooping — Military Commissions Act eliminated Habeas Corpus, etc.); 3. Profits from goods and services that supposedly promote public safety (e.g., sales and proliferation of total body scanners); and 4. Pretense-justification of U.S. aggression in countries that support terrorism (e.g. It is okay to murder civilians in Somalia because that nation has supporters in the USA who have or might commit acts of terrorism).

The bottom line is that the War on Terrorism is big business and the ultimate winners are the Bilderbergers (see below) who finance and profit from all industries that feed on the management of the purported threat of terrorism, which needs to publicly prosecute the politically incorrect who challenge the underlying assumptions of the government and this all consuming mantra.
Once convicted, a politically incorrect person likely will serve a lengthy sentence and be forgotten in the Gulag of the American Prison Industry. He will probably will die in prison for crimes he did not commit; crimes which never occurred in the first place. Such is case with David Hinkson; although there are thousands of examples of others who were innocent or severely overcharged in order to give them lengthy sentences that exceed their life span.

Over the years, laws identifying so-called “hearsay crimes” have foolishly been enacted by Congress with assurances from the Department of Justice that these laws would “never be used” to target innocent individuals. For instance, see minutes of Congressional Hearings where members of the Congressional Committee were concerned that the new structuring law they were approving might be applied to them when they withdrew or deposited more than $10,000 in cash in two or more transactions on more than one day. In fact, these laws have become the primary weapons used by the DOJ to prosecute the politically incorrect.

Hearsay crimes, such as murder-for-hire, are enhanced by the government’s ability to make phony tapes and videos that imitate the voice of the accused appearing to threaten some ghastly deed; as in the case of Edgar J. Steele, a First Amendment lawyer who stood up for the rights of the politically incorrect. Steele also is from North Idaho and the fraudulent attacks on him emanate from the same office of the FBI as the David Hinkson case. This Idaho office is known to use liberally the false testimony of government informants as the basis for prosecutions.

It is important to remember that government informants always have something very significant to gain by acting as a cooperating witness. In years past, government informants were paid for their testimony, which made juries suspicious. When the paid witness was not believed because he has little or no credibility, the government would lose cases. Today, however, informants are allowed to keep the “booty” stolen from the politically incorrect. It becomes their fee for testifying for the government in lieu of direct payment, as happened in both the Hinkson and Steele cases (Hinkson had $6,600 in cash stolen by government informant Marianna Raff and Steele had $45,000 in silver coins stolen by government informant Larry Fairfax).

Significant to both cases is that the federal government did not prosecute either of these informants for theft and discouraged the state of Idaho from doing so. In fact, the federal government wields great influence with its state law enforcement counterparts and easily can get them not to prosecute a government informant (see the case of John Connelly, former Boston Mass. FBI chief, about whom it is said, “he tarnished the badge”). Thus, these informants who stole from the accused got off “scot-free” for the theft, which turns out to be the payment for cooperation. The FBI insisted that Raff, who was a felony habitual offender, be set free from county jail to testify for the government even though she had committed multiple serious offences and Fairfax, will likely spend about a year in prison and never have to be accountable for the theft of Edgar Steele’s silver savings.

It is interesting to note that in David Hinkson’s case, the government’s informant, Swisher, was convicted of felonies including forgery, perjury and theft of approximately $200,000 of government property arising out of earlier fraudulent representations that he had made to the Veterans Administration. His false presentation to the VA in June 2004 allowed him to obtain fraudulently disability and medical benefits by presenting false testimony of heroism with medals and forged military documents. Swisher used the exact same fraudulent statements about heroism, etc. six months later, in January 2005, to gain credibility with the jury when he presented fictitious allegations in the murder-for-hire prosecution of David.

The corrupt Idaho Office of the U.S. Attorney shielded Swisher from prosecution for his fraud on the VA until an honest prosecutor from Montana was assigned to the case by the U.S. Inspector General’s Office; otherwise, he never would have been prosecuted. It took over two years to indict, prosecute and sentence Swisher to prison. Although David was innocent, he was sentenced to 43 years in prison (which means that David will be almost age 90 when he is eligible for parole, or he will die in prison). Swisher for all his lies and fraud received less than a year in a “country club” prison.

In subsequent appellate proceedings, attorneys representing the government have admitted that Swisher lied to the Court and the jury in the Hinkson case, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
would not reverse David’s conviction because that would have embarrassed one of their colleagues who acted as David’s trial judge. It was more important to the Ninth Circuit to protect a colleague under the Crony System than to allow an innocent man to go free. David’s case now awaits Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are many political prisoners in America today because people are beginning to resist the grand socialist scheme developed by NWO groups. The chief power brokers of the world are in a NWO group of bankers known as the Bilderberg Group, a non- government organization (NGO) manipulating various government agencies to achieve their devious purpose, which is to form a “One World Order” with their own puppet as the dictator. Part of their agenda is to silence all opposition, especially those politically incorrect Americans who have the unmitigated temerity to criticize the NWO or say anything they feel any time they want.

The former U. S. Secretary of Agriculture under Dwight Eisenhower, Ezra Taft Benson, a man revered by many as a true prophet in our day, warned that such power groups would infiltrate our agencies (e.g., the CIA, FBI, FDA, IRS, DOJ and the Courts) with the intent to take away personal freedoms. In 1988, he testified of a secret combination that “seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries [that] is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world.”

This book, A Cesspool of Judicial Corruption-The David Hinkson Story, provides an anatomy of the government’s investigation, indictment, trials, sentencing and appeal in the David Hinkson case and shows the connection between the malicious prosecution of David and the Bilderberg-NWO agenda. It gives the reader a blow-by-blow account of the secret combinations at work and the pragmatics of how it is possible, in a free society, for police state tactics to operate in tandem with what has been termed: the greatest experiment in personal liberty in the history of mankind, i.e., The United States of America under The U.S. Constitution.

This book is a classic example of Preemptive Prosecution. Below is a list of how these secret New World Order forces have been and will continue to obliterate the U.S. Constitution unless they are stopped: First, they influence Congress and state legislatures to adopt new laws which subvert personal freedom in the name of enhanced security; second, they manipulate government workers to implement the new progressive socialism and blind them to the fact that it will be the same kind of tyranny like Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Communist Russia; and third, the very ones who should be protecting and enforcing individual liberties, the judges have sold out to the NWO, and these are the ones who interpret and apply the new laws used to override the Constitutional rights of the individual. The judges then pretend that they cannot see the injustice and therefore claim they are simply enforcing these new rigid, wooden and inflexible rules as if it is the will of the people–all of which defies both common sense and our Constitutional rights. But the net effect is that it silences the politically incorrect.

Prior to becoming involved in the movement to “take America back” before it becomes “Amerika,” the question that each of us should answer is: “Is it worth becoming involved when my expression of opinion may be considered politically incorrect and I may become the target of false accusations?”

My hope for all who read this work is that they will protect themselves by banning together with like-minded individuals as a force for good to overcome government corruption. May we ban together with people who believe in the U.S. Constitution and who desire to expose those who enforce this twisted revision of our precious God-given form of government that our Founding Fathers shaped for us. Remember, “Exposure is the first step in the cure for corruption.”

It is also my hope that those with good intentions will speak up and demand, en masse, the repeal of laws that defile our freedoms; demand the elimination of false prosecutions; and demand the release of all political prisoners, such as David R. Hinkson and Edgar Steele. Otherwise, the evils of bearing false witness against those who exercise Freedom of Speech will be at our doors with machineguns at-the-ready just as they were at David Hinkson’s door on November 21, 2002, but with no one left to stop it.

Wesley W. Hoyt, former prosecuting attorney November 21, 2010 (Eight years later)

Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A Cesspool of Corruption – The David Hinkson Story

  1. Mary Ann Dolce says:

    This makes me very angry and wish I knew what I could do. I worked in the courtrooms for nine years as a bailiff. I do not believe I have ever seen anything like this. And if I did, it was not due to the federal government being involved. Just sheer negligence on the part of the lawyers. I can only pray, as we are too old. Will pass this along to many other patriots that I know.

  2. Pingback: Did Ninth Circuit Violate Supreme Court Law in Hinkson Case? | Free David Hinkson

  3. Pingback: Open Letter to World Media about David Hinkson, Political Prisoner

Leave a Reply