LOOSING OUR FREEDOMS IS A PUZZLE
By Wesley W. Hoyt
Idaho County Resident, Carol Asher faced 13 years in prison because she believed
in the presumption of innocence. In some courts today, the presumption of
innocence has been replaced with a new “Presumption of Governmental
Correctness.” When a judge says he/she “always” believes the testimony of law
enforcement over the testimony of a defendant, they are simply applying the
presumption of governmental correctness. When an individual is up against a
government agency in court, the presumption requires the judge assume the agency
is always correct. What that means is we must prove we are innocent or prove the
agency is incorrect. Given the vast resources the government has at its
disposal, such a reversal of the presumption of innocence makes it almost
impossible for an individual to overcome government regulation.
With regard to criminal prosecutions, the law has always been that judges and jurors alike, must start from the premise that the defendant is innocent and let the prosecution build up a case of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of Carol Asher, the juror who believed that everyone accused of a crime was innocent, she was prosecuted by Idaho’s Attorney General for perjury because she failed to disclose during jury selection, her “bias” in favor of innocence. Interestingly, the failure to make this disclosure supposedly was the “perjury.”
As Americans, aren’t we all supposed to be biased in favor of innocence? Isn’t it in our DNA to believe that mere accusations do not make a person guilty? But not so in Asher’s case when she was actually prosecuted for not voicing that she held dear to her heart this basic American value. At Carol’s preliminary hearing, the prosecution’s chief witness, and Asher’s fellow juror, openly testified that, during jury selection, did not disclose her “bias” in favor of law enforcement. Believe it or not, this other juror actually testified that whatever the cops would, without question, believe. In other words, she believed in the presumption of governmental correctness. Did the Attorney General prosecute her for “perjury” because she did not mention her “bias” during jury selection? Of course not, because she was biased in favor of the prosecution. Fortunately, in the Asher case, fair minded Judge Michael Griffin (now retired) dismissed the complaint against Asher, partly, I am sure because it would have been hypocrisy to continue prosecuting Asher for perjury and not prosecute the other juror?
Perjury is a serious crime. It is especially serious if a witness commits perjury in order to convict an innocent person and take away his freedom as did Elvin Joe Swisher, of Cottonwood, Idaho, in the 2005 prosecution of David Hinkson on false charges of Murder Solicitation. We were all relieved when Swisher was convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison. But, for some inexplicable reason, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the case once has not seen fit to confirm that reversal after an en banc hearing December 16, 2008, so David sits in prison.
As serious as perjury is, what if it is the judge who commits perjury in order to convict someone of a crime? Again, in David Hinkson’s case, Judge Richard C. Tallman committed perjury in the middle of trial by making a false finding of fact that there was in front of him, contained in Swisher’s official USMC military record, information to support Swisher claim that he had gone on a secret mission to Korea. You may recall that Swisher claimed that it was Hinkson’s knowledge of Swisher’s supposed heroic service record in the post Korean War Era that caused Hinkson to try to hire Swisher as a hit man to rub out some federal officials.
We now see, because of Swisher’s 2008 conviction for perjury, that no such information could ever have been contained in his official Military Record, which means, Judge Tallman made it up. So now, let’s track what happened next: Tallman, using the false finding which he fictionalized out of his own head as the basis, ruled that Swisher’s official USMC record could not be shown to the jury. Thus, Judge Tallman obstructed justice from the bench in the Hinkson case by excluding vital evidence showing Swisher was a liar. If you were sitting as a juror on the Hinkson case, wouldn’t you want to know that the story about Swisher being a war hero was a lie in order to assess whether there was any truth to Swisher’s other story that Hinkson came asking him to murder people? Especially, wouldn’t you as a juror want to know the truth about Swisher’s involvement in secret missions in Korea, if that was what supposedly attracted Hinkson to Swisher in the first place?
It's one thing if a judge uses his power to deny a person accused of the presumption of innocence, however it is the worst possible scenario when the judge manufactures evidence in the middle of the trial in order to ensure that the person is convicted and sent to prison as in David Hinkson’s case. The resounding theme is: if they will do it to David Hinkson, they can just as easily do it to you, or your friends, neighbors and loved ones.
Appalling is one descriptor for the way people are treated by the American system justice today. It is a system that has been morphed into expediency to force convictions by the likes of Judge Tallman and the two juvenile court judges in Pennsylvania who were caught taking millions of dollars in kick backs on thousands of innocent children they placed in detention. Statistics show that 15% or more of the prison population are innocent people, caught up in the frenzy to feed the prison industries of America. What are we as citizens supposed to do about it? As Americans we have an absolute duty to read up on these horrible atrocities and become informed so that we can make good choices at the ballot box. Only through understanding of the current issues facing us will we be able to demand commitments from our elected officials to make the changes necessary to restore the American system of justice to its once honored position in the world. If not, we by apathy will be giving up our birthright to fairness and true justice.
There are forces in the world that are trying to deprive Americans of their basic rights. Just who these forces are and what motives drive them are topics for future articles. To say that the freedom of the individual in America is eroding, is an understatement. Sadly, there are Americans who, for a mess of pottage, have sold this birthright. We have a Kenyon born man in the White House, we have the NSA snooping in our personal lives, innocent people are being sent to prison and 800 unoccupied concentration-style prison camps now litter the map from Maine to the Mohave. In the next article, we will begin to look at the puzzle of how all of this happened. This is a puzzle that only now is beginning to appear, as it has been kept secret from the American people, yet we now have enough information to put together pieces of the puzzle and the image we see is not very pretty.
If you want to read more about David Hinkson’s case, you can pick up the details on the web at www.davidhinkson.com or www.rolandhinksonfiles.com. Hoyt is the former Deputy Prosecutor of Idaho County and helped to defend David Hinkson. He now practices law in Clearwater, Idaho.
With regard to criminal prosecutions, the law has always been that judges and jurors alike, must start from the premise that the defendant is innocent and let the prosecution build up a case of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of Carol Asher, the juror who believed that everyone accused of a crime was innocent, she was prosecuted by Idaho’s Attorney General for perjury because she failed to disclose during jury selection, her “bias” in favor of innocence. Interestingly, the failure to make this disclosure supposedly was the “perjury.”
As Americans, aren’t we all supposed to be biased in favor of innocence? Isn’t it in our DNA to believe that mere accusations do not make a person guilty? But not so in Asher’s case when she was actually prosecuted for not voicing that she held dear to her heart this basic American value. At Carol’s preliminary hearing, the prosecution’s chief witness, and Asher’s fellow juror, openly testified that, during jury selection, did not disclose her “bias” in favor of law enforcement. Believe it or not, this other juror actually testified that whatever the cops would, without question, believe. In other words, she believed in the presumption of governmental correctness. Did the Attorney General prosecute her for “perjury” because she did not mention her “bias” during jury selection? Of course not, because she was biased in favor of the prosecution. Fortunately, in the Asher case, fair minded Judge Michael Griffin (now retired) dismissed the complaint against Asher, partly, I am sure because it would have been hypocrisy to continue prosecuting Asher for perjury and not prosecute the other juror?
Perjury is a serious crime. It is especially serious if a witness commits perjury in order to convict an innocent person and take away his freedom as did Elvin Joe Swisher, of Cottonwood, Idaho, in the 2005 prosecution of David Hinkson on false charges of Murder Solicitation. We were all relieved when Swisher was convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison. But, for some inexplicable reason, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the case once has not seen fit to confirm that reversal after an en banc hearing December 16, 2008, so David sits in prison.
As serious as perjury is, what if it is the judge who commits perjury in order to convict someone of a crime? Again, in David Hinkson’s case, Judge Richard C. Tallman committed perjury in the middle of trial by making a false finding of fact that there was in front of him, contained in Swisher’s official USMC military record, information to support Swisher claim that he had gone on a secret mission to Korea. You may recall that Swisher claimed that it was Hinkson’s knowledge of Swisher’s supposed heroic service record in the post Korean War Era that caused Hinkson to try to hire Swisher as a hit man to rub out some federal officials.
We now see, because of Swisher’s 2008 conviction for perjury, that no such information could ever have been contained in his official Military Record, which means, Judge Tallman made it up. So now, let’s track what happened next: Tallman, using the false finding which he fictionalized out of his own head as the basis, ruled that Swisher’s official USMC record could not be shown to the jury. Thus, Judge Tallman obstructed justice from the bench in the Hinkson case by excluding vital evidence showing Swisher was a liar. If you were sitting as a juror on the Hinkson case, wouldn’t you want to know that the story about Swisher being a war hero was a lie in order to assess whether there was any truth to Swisher’s other story that Hinkson came asking him to murder people? Especially, wouldn’t you as a juror want to know the truth about Swisher’s involvement in secret missions in Korea, if that was what supposedly attracted Hinkson to Swisher in the first place?
It's one thing if a judge uses his power to deny a person accused of the presumption of innocence, however it is the worst possible scenario when the judge manufactures evidence in the middle of the trial in order to ensure that the person is convicted and sent to prison as in David Hinkson’s case. The resounding theme is: if they will do it to David Hinkson, they can just as easily do it to you, or your friends, neighbors and loved ones.
Appalling is one descriptor for the way people are treated by the American system justice today. It is a system that has been morphed into expediency to force convictions by the likes of Judge Tallman and the two juvenile court judges in Pennsylvania who were caught taking millions of dollars in kick backs on thousands of innocent children they placed in detention. Statistics show that 15% or more of the prison population are innocent people, caught up in the frenzy to feed the prison industries of America. What are we as citizens supposed to do about it? As Americans we have an absolute duty to read up on these horrible atrocities and become informed so that we can make good choices at the ballot box. Only through understanding of the current issues facing us will we be able to demand commitments from our elected officials to make the changes necessary to restore the American system of justice to its once honored position in the world. If not, we by apathy will be giving up our birthright to fairness and true justice.
There are forces in the world that are trying to deprive Americans of their basic rights. Just who these forces are and what motives drive them are topics for future articles. To say that the freedom of the individual in America is eroding, is an understatement. Sadly, there are Americans who, for a mess of pottage, have sold this birthright. We have a Kenyon born man in the White House, we have the NSA snooping in our personal lives, innocent people are being sent to prison and 800 unoccupied concentration-style prison camps now litter the map from Maine to the Mohave. In the next article, we will begin to look at the puzzle of how all of this happened. This is a puzzle that only now is beginning to appear, as it has been kept secret from the American people, yet we now have enough information to put together pieces of the puzzle and the image we see is not very pretty.
If you want to read more about David Hinkson’s case, you can pick up the details on the web at www.davidhinkson.com or www.rolandhinksonfiles.com. Hoyt is the former Deputy Prosecutor of Idaho County and helped to defend David Hinkson. He now practices law in Clearwater, Idaho.