Re: Letter to the Editor
 
    Former Idaho County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Wesley W. Hoyt recently submitted corrections to an article by Sandra Lee, published in the Lewiston Morning Tribune (LMT) on November 27, 2008, regarding Elven Joe Swisher. Hoyt pointed out that, by omission and misstatement, the article created the misimpression that Swisher was merely “accused” of committing crimes, yet he stands convicted. The deception was that in the title and first paragraph of the article (primacy) the term “accused” appears, creating the notion of unresolved charges. The article also disparaged David Hinkson by failing to state that his conviction had been reversed. The fact-based corrections offered by Hoyt are accurate and verifiable, but your paper declined to publish any of them for what appears to be political reasons.

    The article marginalizes Swisher’s conviction of multiple crimes of moral turpitude. It is obvious that the extent of Ms. Lee’s investigation prior to publication was probably nil–an honest reporter would not knowingly ignore compelling facts that tell quite a different story than the one published. As an example of biased journalism, Ms. Lee referenced statements by Swisher’s new attorney, Chris Bugbe, but failed (when attacking Hinkson) to elicit comments from his attorney.

When given accurate information by Mr. Hoyt and a chance to revise her article with the truth, her response was, “…we respectfully decline to publish a correction.”

    Of particular interest to many Veterans is that Swisher was convicted of (1) stolen valor–by falsely wearing medals of Honor, (2) perjury, (3) forgery and (4) theft of government property–he had gotten away with lying about his military record for the past seven years by drawing many people into his web of deception. His crimes were intentional, premeditated and committed with the intent to get personal gain as he fleeced the VA of approximately $100,000 (which belonged to veterans with real combat injuries). Once now caught, he is seeking leniency from punishment.

    When he learned that his bid for leniency will likely not work–because the Veteran community will not stand for it–Swisher shifted the blame for his conviction to his former attorneys (Brit Groom and Lynn Dunlap). This is yet another attempt to escape responsibility.

    As Attorney Hoyt explains, “The evidence in the Hinkson case clearly demonstrates that Swisher lied, blackmailed, committed fraud and sabotage of Hinkson’s business. Swisher’s fictional testimony about a solicitation of murder-for-hire and his false status as a “War Hero” caused him to became ‘invincible’ in the eyes of the jury–who could believe that a decorated combat veteran, who supposedly risked his life to save POWs, would lie in court?”

    Has your paper ever published the fact that Swisher suffered a massive heart attack and was in a wheel chair with a catheter while David was on business outside the United States (when Swisher claimed the solicitation took place)? Did your paper publish the fact that the trial judge denied David the opportunity to present his passport as proof that he was out of the country when Swisher said they had a secret meeting to discuss murder? Click here for More.

    Unless the details of the true story are told by the Fourth Estate (the press–both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues) showing that Swisher’s pathological lies (about being a decorated combat marine), the LMT simply becomes a part of the cover up. The true story can be found in the official court records. But so far, your paper only publishes the pabulum prepared by those attacking David Hinkson.

    The following facts are irrefutable: Swisher lied about his military record to the federal grand jury in 2002, to the US Marine Corp Commandant’s Office in 2003, to the VA Administrative Law Judge in 2004, to the Federal District Court in the Hinkson Case in 2005 and to the Federal District Court in his own case in 2008–to mention only a few.

    As Mr. Hoyt points out, the prosecution of Swisher for falsely presenting his military record stemmed (not from the Hinkson defense team–as inaccurately reported by Ms. Lee) from the five month independent investigation of the U.S. Marine Corp Commandant’s Office (August to December 2004). Any encouragement from the Hinkson defense team to prosecute Swisher was incidental.

    Has your paper published the letter that Swisher wrote to the Lewiston office of Veterans Affairs on September 10th 2004, where he attempted, unsuccessfully, to derail that investigation to again avoid responsibility? Would you like a copy of that letter, or any other information mentioned here to prove that each statement made by Mr. Hoyt is accurate?

    At what point, does LMT admit one-sided bias in its reporting of the Hinkson-Swisher odyssey against Hinkson and that it’s in favor of anyone who opposes Hinkson–even to the point of LTM’s tacit support of a scoundrel such as Elven Joe Swisher?

    Proof was presented at Swisher’s April 2008 trial by credible witnesses from the US Marine Corps that he (1) was too young to be in the Korean War, (2) never set foot in Korea, (3) never went on a secret mission, (4) never had war wounds, (5) never was hospitalized for combat injuries (as claimed), (6) was court-martialed for misconduct, (7) was demoted in rank and (8) never was decorated with medals. The forgery on Swisher’s military discharge paper (“Replacement” DD-214) is so obvious, even a third grader could pick it out. Yet the LMT retells Swisher’s fantasy story of his attorney supposedly losing that paper, as if it were true or even material (when it has been verified that Swisher’s story was false) and he was the last one to have it in his possession (another Swisher hoax to avoid responsibility). Note: in his testimony, Swisher never referred to his DD-214 as “reissued” that’s a recent fabrication by attorney Bugbee. Evidence proves that Swisher called it a “Replacement” DD-214. He borrowed that description from a real war hero, Mike Clausen, who lost his Medal of Honor and received a “Replacement” Medal of Honor. Thus, Swisher adapted that nomenclature to his situation (as a part of his overall plan to defraud the government and David Hinkson).

    You should take up Mr. Hoyt’s offer to provide you with documentation to back up these statements and publish them–instead of the propaganda prepared by the US Government and its lackeys. How can LMT claim that its journalism is fair and balanced if your collective heads are in the sand?

    This “Revised Letter to the Editor” is a serious rebuke of LMT for lack of professionalism. Hopefully, your editor will choose to publish this letter. Even now, it could air a disparate view; but if not, the refusal to report Mr. Hoyt’s corrections and the failure to publish this letter, ultimately will be communicated to your readership in other ways. It could erode readers’ confidence in your ability to be objective and/or to accurately report the truth. Certainly, once exposed, your readership will always wonder if LMT did its homework. They may ask, “Is its information correct?” and they likely will begin to demand better journalism, or they may just ignore your paper.

    Further, the failure of LMT to set the record straight in the Swisher matter (by publishing corrections or at least publishing the fact that there is other verifiable information) may cause the paper to be viewed in the larger context as untruthful (press repressing the truth in America). If LMT does not, in fact, correct its misleading article, it may lose the confidence of its readership–by violation of its fundamental purpose: to report the truth “So the People May Know” (the basic justification for all news-based media).

    Cognitive dissonance or the unwillingness of individuals to believe anything outside their present knowledge, and contempt without investigation are serious conditions. Such, shadows Americans today. As long as LMT is unwilling to print the truth, it is part of the problem of keeping the masses ignorant–this is an essential condition needed for tyrants to over take a Country. Ours is no exception.

Hoping you will choose to be part of the solution, as a fellow journalist, I remain, Very truly yours.

Roland Hinkson, Investigative Reporter