Dear Family of friends,

As we watch our elected officials squander our inheritance and drive us into bankruptcy, we also endure, with utter dismay, the abuses by our legal system. We have a new slave population within our shores: prisoners. Money is being generated not only by a private corporation known as the Federal Reserve (owned by an international banking cartel, who have been given the power to create money out of thin air) but by incarcerating millions of people–many of them innocent of any crime. In coming articles I hope to reveal what is now happening behind the American curtain of deception.

Over 10 million Americans citizens are being arrested each year for any one of the 60 million laws we now have on the books. I grant you that this sounds radical. But isn’t truth the object of our inquiry–not how things sound.



Click on “Corruption in America” for prior segments for the full unfolding story about the crimes against David Hinkson by the criminals within the American Justice and Judiciary Departments. Also watch for articles on other inmate at ADMAX: Marcus Boyce, Malichi Z. York and others. I will try to reveal any abuses by government officials as I learn of them.

Sincerely, Roland

Had any of the jurors in David Hinkson’s case known the law, he never would have been convicted for the unimaginable charges brought against him. The Judge, Richard C. Tallman–a man we refer to as the “black-robed prosecutor” would not have gotten his way. Currently, he is an embarrassment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges.

David’s case was–I understand–Tallman’s first trial. He was appointed directly to the Appellate Court by Bill Clinton, never served as a judge on a trial court, was a prosecutor only. However, I give him credit for his suave performance on the bench.

In David’s Case Tallman instructed the jurors saying, “It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in this case. To those facts you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not.” In “Instruction No. E–What is Evidence?” the jurors were told they are to decide the facts from: “(1) the sworn testimony of any witness [like Perjurer Elven Joe Swisher–who is now in prison for various felonies]; (2) the exhibits that have been received into evidence; and (3) any facts to which all the lawyers have stipulated.

Nor did he allow the jurors to hear all the many witnesses who could prove that David was outside the Country when the non-existent “crimes” were supposedly committed. This judge told the jurors that “Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law as I have given it to you in these instructions [No. EE].” And (in “Instruction No. GG”) he said, “You may not consider punishment....”

Judge Richard C. Tallman swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet he sentenced David to 43 years in Federal prison. The truth is that Tallman participated in a RICO conspiracy, lied and betrayed his oath and calling.

Under the Constitution of the United States of America, if Tallman were convicted of violating his Oath with regards to David’s case he himself could go to jail. Having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the statutes of the United States and, if convicted of willfully and knowingly violating such Oath by means of “Obstruction of Justice of the Law” and by violating David’s Constitutional rights as a sovereign American citizen in upholding his “Bill of Rights,” he would have committed a felony.

Judges would like to have the American public believe that juries may consider only the “facts” of a case, but they may not consider the “law” or punishment. This is absurd. Judges and politicians want you to believe that too much freedom will result in chaos.

Historically the principle of a Common Law jury or trials was first established at Runnymede, England (June 15, 1215) when King John signed the Magna Charta (The Great Charter). This was the foundation of the English and American system of justice. Speaking to jurors in Early America, the First Chief Justice, John Jay, said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." In Sparf vs US (156 US 51), the court ruled that “although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware of the right to do so.” As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "un-reviewable and irreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)).

Regardless of the deception, the government, under the Constitution, cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty", without the jury's consent! David was held for two years without being charged with a crime. He was not told who it was that accused him while being held for trial. Once at trial, Elven Joe Swisher was the primary witness against him. Thirty-year Appellate Court Defense Counsel Dennis Riordan argued by brief that “By the close of David’s trial the Judge [Tallman], Prosecution Team and Defense Counsel were in possession of irrefutable confirmation that Swisher had perpetrated a fraud on the court.”

Judge Tallman barred admission of the records. In closing, “The Prosecution,” said Riordan, “relied on Swisher’s tales of military heroics without warning jurors that its chief witness had lied to them under oath.”

The sole so-called-witness, Swisher, prior to testifying at David’s trial had related to the prosecutors “the same lies concerning his combat experience he later repeated on the witness stand,” said Riordan. He further explained that

“The prosecutor [Michael P. Sullivan, along with his accomplice–Michael Taxay] told the jury in opening that Swisher was a combat soldier in Korea.... The evidence showed that Swisher was a pathological liar. He lied repeatedly over a course of many years about his military record.... He lied to the government to obtain benefits, he lied to the government again during the investigation of this case and he lied to the grand jury.... We know now that he even wore his phony Purple Heart while awarding that commendation to the father of a soldier killed in action....

“Later outside the presence of the jury the government admitted that it knew in advance of Swisher’s plan to produce the document on the stand....

“The Court [Tallman]: Have you seen this document?

“Prosecutor [Sullivan]:He showed me this document this morning about 9:00 o’clock.

“The Court: Do you have a copy of it?

“The prosecutor: I have a copy of it.

“Defense counsel [Wesley Hoyt]: Why didn’t you tell us?

“The prosecutor: Why should I.

“In its closing argument,” Riordan said, “The government had an obligation to correct its earlier false statement in opening about Swisher’s combat record and to inform the jury that Swisher had lied to jurors about his military record. Instead to the contrary it deliberately sought to capitalize on the false statements. It not only argued that Swisher had told Hinkson about his exploits it also used carefully worded phrases suggesting that Swisher’s claims were true.

“Prosecutors are subject to constraints and responsibilities that don't apply to other lawyers. See e.g. Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 88 (1935). While lawyers representing private parties may, indeed must do, everything ethically permissible to advance their clients' interests lawyers representing the government in criminal cases [must] serve truth and justice first.

“When a prosecutor has information that a jury lacks “the prosecutor must be particularly careful not to argue to the jury inferences he knows to be untrue in light of the evidence excluded”); United States v. LaPage 231 F.3d 488 492 (9th Cir. 2000). (‘Where the prosecutor knows that his witness has lied he has a constitutional duty to correct the false impression of the facts.’).

And yet in this case the prosecution once again engaged in the same sort of duplicitous “hard-bitten” tactics calculated to deceive the jury.

Attorney Riordan further quoted a Federal case (Young supra 17 F.3d at 1203 (quoting United States v. Agurs 427 U.S. 97 103 (1976) stating that “The Court declared that ‘a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have effected the judgment of the jury.’”

Having sat through the trial of my son, David Hinkson, I lost all respect for our current system of justice. My respect for our Federal Government was totally demolished. Because of what I saw, I set out to discover what was really going on in our Country. I do understand how reluctant people are to accept unpleasant reality, to deny the obvious, to take any action; this is called “cognitive dissonance.”

However, we no longer have the option to sit back and watch our freedoms erode. Now is the time for each lover of liberty to take a stand. First though, we must WAKE UP!

Samuel Adams said it best: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.