Principles In Liberty

My other blogs

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:38:00 -0800

Just a quick note, here are links to my other blogs (one of whch has now been censored by the search engines Google and Duck Duck Go: (I have no idea why nor was I informed)

Musings of a Rascal (Censored)

Meditations of Sanford Staab

Techno Dweeb Times

Lifewater Ranch

Sandys Music

Principles In Liberty

Comments on Anna Von Reitz

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Tue, 25 Oct 2022 13:06:00 -0700

A good friend of mine has gotten out of "the system" and is encouraging me to do the same in order to add to members of a local Jural Society that can clean up the mess we are in with massive fraud and theft.

He gave me this pdf article from Anna Von Reitz which I read and would like to critique here.

I still don't trust her because of the incomplete way she presents her case. Her articles are usually pretty long and she leans a lot on logic, rarely sites her evidence and sources in a way that is easy to verify yet her style and arguments on the surface are quite compelling.

For Example:

"We have assessed damages of $279 Trillion dollars against the American Bar Association..."

How did you come across that number? How do you hold that sum against the Bar Association? Is that the sum total of what they have charged for their services? If not, how do you tie the national debt to the lawyers? Did they conceive of the system we have or were they just tools used by others to construct it? Are all memebers of the Bar Association(s) even aware of what they are doing? How can they be held to such a respnsibility with justice?

Almost all her articles are really about one thing, attempting to show and prove that there is a massive conspiracy of fraud being perpetrated on the US and global public that has turned a free nation into a slave state and is enslaving the world.

There is no denying this fact. We can clearly see, if we look, that UPPERCASE NAMES are being used on all our official documents such as birth certificates, deeds, licenses, IRS forms, etc. and many of these are different from each other, likely representing different secret trusts that are named in a way to make one think that the trust is us. The legal definition of "person" adds to the obvious deception and one can look on any bank printed check to see the micro print of the signature line that says "authorized agent" over and over - meaning clearly that our signature is NOT the UPPER CASE name in the upper right corner.

The fraud can easily be proved.

The problem is, who committed this fraud with willful and cogent intent is a very hard thing to prove. The people that do this evil are very clever and always have plausable denyability in place to protect themselves. The criminals we face that have perpitrated and continued this obvious fraud are not lawful and will not comply with any legal or logical or moral argument that would rob them of their booty or stop them from continuing to steal from all of us. Even when congress passes a law, do they even understand or have time to read and digest and research it? All laws they pass are written by lawyers who know how to keep themselves safe from the laws they craft and then present, usually in a rush, to the congressional member who is ill-equiped to fully comprehend what they are voting on and are almost universally in bondage to blackmail or bribes to stay in office. The corruption goes completely down to the comman person that has no clue what voting is and most don't even bother to research who they are voting for much less understand that voting is different than being a lawful elector.

Anna's arguments go clear back to King Henry the 8th and she asserts that there are convicting documents in the Vatican that can prove the complicity of the Popes of the past - yet she can't get those documents into court or reproduce them for the public.

The sheer volume of her long articles (3800 she says in the referenced pdf) are not only long, and highly repetitive but also lack coherence and cross references. To have an effective argument, Anna needs to take every issue that needs proof and create a concise and focused breif on that one point and then link to it from her higher level arguments. It may be easier to do such a fix by starting all over and using what she has already published as a reference. The more words one uses in an argument the more likely one is to lose their audience.

Anna argues that the common law is where the true law is, and this is undeniably true. Yet the common law is based on the Bible and she rarely if ever presents arguments from this true and authoritative source.

The Bible does not say we as men will solve the problem of sin which is the root cause of all crime. Consider these verses:

Matt 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake....

Romans 5: 3-4: ... but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

1 Cor 14: 11-13: Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

2 Sam 23 : 6-8 : But the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands: But the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place.

Rev 19:15: And out of his [God's] mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Rev 2:10-11: Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that we men will overcome the sin of the world. This is God's job and to His Glory.

I am not saying here that we shouldn't try to fix the world but that it is not possible to eradicate the true cause, sin, from this earth. We will suffer in this life, that is a promise in the Bible.

The Common Law is the best we have to approach heaven on earth but it is not the solution to the problem, Christ is.

The image of the golden statue of Nebachadnezar in Daniel ends with a rock from the sky blowing the entire Babylonian system to bits - this is not a man-sourced thing.

The time of the millenium in Revelation happens when God comes to rule man personally on the earth with a rod of iron. It is not by a self-repenting world that finally comes to its senses and begins to do things lawfully.

Anna asks us to abandon all ties to the fictious entities that we were born into and leaves us as men without a country in the hopes of winning a war against corruption that has never been fully accomplished in history. If that war is not won, where does it leave the man without a country? Better or worse off?

Anna claims to be a supreme court justice but does not disclose to us how many people elected her and the distinction between the state which she works for and the State of Alaska - which she doesn't work for. She has reduced her use of this position to add to her own credibility but basically, she is not what at first she would appear to be.

Yes we generate all the true wealth but if a thief comes into your home and steals something and you don't know where that property is or who took it, can you ever recover that property without yourself comitting a crime? You could yell that somebody owes you relief - but who exactly? If the gold that was stolen from us in 1933 is all melted down and changes hands - how do we ever identify OUR gold that was stolen from us? We weren't all robbed of the same amount of gold and silver. Some are owed more than others - how can this ever be determined?

Anna - make your arguments as concise and complete as you can. Prove every point beyond a shadow of a doubt and make it super easy to verify. Identify who the criminals are by name and then present it to the authorities and the public.

Stop just saying the same arguments over and over and over. They will not change anything till an audience can fully comprehend and prove you are correct.

Perhaps God may raise an army to accomplish this massive correction and perhaps He will use the works of men to accomplish this, but I doubt it because:

Deut 4:24: For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

How your votes are counted

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Mon, 16 May 2022 22:54:00 -0700

Counting votes is one of the most difficult tasks to do considering the amount of incentive there is to manipulate and control the count.

A very interesting movie titled "The Battle of Athens" documents a true story that took place in 1946 where local vets had to resort to violence to uncover the truth of how the votes were really counted in their county in Tennessee.

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election and all the controversy over counting votes in that election and considering my experience as a election judge way back in the early 90s, I became curious as to how our votes are counted here in Idaho County.

Title 34 of the Idaho Code covers the process of elections. It is long and complex and I could not easily find anything in it that requires rechecking or proving the correctness of vote counts by either machine or by manual counting. This very much bothers me.

Title 34-304 gives the guidelines for observers of an election. An observer must have a letter sent from either a candidate or the Republican or Democratic party 12 days before the election to be allowed to observe the counting of ballots. Thus, by law, the observation of ballot counting is a closed affair.

Magicians do much of their magic by distraction. This is what I am seeing in our elections. My experience in King County, Washington back in the early 90s was a perfect example of this. As an election judge I sat at the polls all day watching the ballot box get stuffed with ballots by voters. All was in order. At the end of the day the ballots were locked up in a box with a soldier carrying an assault rifle to guard the box. I was allowed to travel with the box and the soldier in an armored car to the county HQ where the ballots would be counted. I was allowed to watch the ballot box unlocked and the ballots placed into a bag. All was in order. Then came the trick. The bag of ballots was then thrown over a Plexiglas wall to be counted by some mysterious process.

That was it. I was done. "You can go home now."

WAIT A MINUTE!

How do I know they were counted correctly? How is this verifying ANYTHING?

I felt that the process up to that point was all just a distraction!

So I was wondering how I could witness the vote counting in Idaho County. Finally, during this primary in 2022 I had the opportunity through Priscilla Giddings’s campaign to be allowed to watch what happens behind that Plexiglas wall I hit back in the 1990s.

The day before the polls were to open (Monday, May 16th, 2022) I went to a demonstration of the counting machine, by the county clerk, Miss Kathy Ackerman. The machine was an ESS Model DS450.

The machine is computer controlled and resembles a fancy copying machine. An uninterruptable power supply is used to prevent loss during counting. Access to all ports is locked during counting and there is only a power connection to the wall. The ballots are counted and sorted into different trays depending on the scan. Problem ballots can be re-inserted to try again. Write-ins are separated out for manual counting on those particular votes.

The machine is certified by the Secretary of State and the manufacturer.

Hey, isn't the Secretary of State on the ballot this election? Is there a conflict of interest here? I would say so. Trusting the wolves to guard the henhouse does not sound like a smart business practice to me.

20-40 years ago it was unimaginable that a simple ballot scanner or voting machine could be externally tampered with or rigged to count votes wrong. That was before the internet, WiFi, 5g, 1000s of satellites in low orbit, smart-dust, computer viruses, rogue chips, and all the other plagues we now face from technology gone crazy.

The County Clerk seemed to me to be unappreciative of today's technology and how powerful it has become. For example, in the Intel CPU family there is an interesting feature known as WiDi where the CPU chip, all by itself, can transmit display and sound information wirelessly and all a user needs to do is purchase the appropriate radio receiving equipment to display the screen and hear the audio remotely without wires.

This is public information. Could there be a secret receiver on the chip or hardware somewhere that could receive information as well? It simply is impossible to know for sure. Unless you put the entire counting machine in a faraday cage and monitor the entire frequency spectrum with an RF spectrometer during counting, there simply is no way to prove the machine could not be tampered with or monitored.

The documentation that the clerk gave me assured me that the machine had no modems. Modems are basically a D/A converter used to transmit data over phone lines. This does not guarantee that there aren't wireless circuits that could do the same thing without a modem, unknown to even the designer of the hardware. Heck the government makes RFID and nano-bots with 5G capabilities that are smaller than the thickness of a human hair and can talk to satellites in orbit. This is not Kansas anymore Dorothy!

Normally they test the machine with a test deck supplied by the manufacturer but I said, how do we know that the test deck isn't rigged in order to program the machine to make an un-hacked count? So, in response to this point, the clerk made up a random test deck of her own. They counted the deck by hand and by machine and they came up differently.

They came up differently. Hmmm.

Upon further investigation the clerk found that two ballots were marked in such a way that the machine would interpret the votes one way while a manual count would reveal that the voter intent was different than the machine thought. This results when a voter doesn't follow the instructions on the ballot properly, which the clerk admitted, happens a lot.

There was no look of shock or surprise on her face. Mystery solved.

She also discovered that if you draw vertical lines through the bubbles on the ballot you get a hit-or-miss situation depending on how close to the center of the bubble the vertical line is. The counting machine doesn't seem to care what kind of mark is in the bubbles and will not flag ballots marked with Xs or lines.

I really have no problem with electronic counting of ballots IF there are ways to validate the counts or to recheck them easily. But this is not how it is done. Ballots that are counted by hand at the precinct are then sealed and thrown into a vault, never to be seen unless an official recount is needed. There is no machine check on hand counts. Ballots that are counted by machine at the county HQ are not also counted by hand either. There is no hand check on the machine counts. They are then sealed and thrown into the same vault. There are a few test checks here and there before the counting begins but no second count is done, even on a subset of the ballots, to verify the machine or hand counts. Even just shuffling the deck of ballots and doing a second machine count or having a second counting machine from a different manufacturer to verify the first machine would be an improvement

There are some accounting procedures done to ensure that ballots don't appear or disappear but the ballots are all identical for each precinct. They are not numbered or distinguishable in any way.

I asked the clerk to make a Xerox copy of a ballot and try running it through the machine. It was accepted as real by the machine even though it wasn't on the same kind of paper as the real ballots were. Thus, counterfeiting ballots is quite easy to do.

The next day I watched the polls all day and then went to the county HQ to watch the actual counting. At last, I will learn the mysteries of ballot counting!

I must say here that the clerk and her crew were very professional and efficient and let me see just about anything I wanted to see. I could not see anything that resembled any kind of bias or attempts to change the results in any way. I think we are lucky to live in a rural area and, though every county is corrupt in my experience, Idaho County seems to have been spared the crazy issues found in more dense areas and counties.

If a ballot can't be machine scanned, a duplicate ballot is created which is done using a standard voting machine. The ballot that the voting machine creates is then fed into the DS450 and is added to the total count.

I noticed that the ballot created by the voting machine has the ballot printed in two parts. One part is human readable and the other is machine readable. There was no check done to ensure that the machine readable part matched the human readable. Without detailed technical knowledge about the voting machine, there simply is no easy way to know that what the counter reads is what the human readable part says unless you run an entire count on just that one ballot - a situation where fancy code to manipulate the result would not likely show up.

The absentee ballots were counted first and were more difficult for the DS450 to count due to folds and bits of tape occasionally put onto the ballots that prevented the reader from accepting the ballot. If you want to completely screw up the counting process just tear, fold, and gum up your ballot and add a write-in and the DS450 will prove to be useless.

But please don't do this as the county clerk’s job will be made ridiculously difficult and it might be days before the election results appear!

I also learned that even write-in candidates must get their names on a list of approved write-ins (IC-34-702A). This is so that Mickey Mouse won't win every seat - it's a conspiracy I tell you!!! If you write in a name that is not on the list, your vote will not be counted on that race.

The clerk informed me that the ESS Model DS450 cost around $50,000 and was paid for by the state.

Suggested Improvements and ideas:

Technology should be used to improve transparency and accuracy but not necessarily for convenience or efficiency. The more convenience we add, the less vigilant we become.

In general, it would be good to make it so that every record from the ballot to final report is done in a single form that is both human and computer readable. This way, human confirmation can easily be done as well as easy and error free transmission to other systems.

This is why I am against absentee ballots and early voting - it just introduces a huge problem that requires a lot of work to keep the process integrity intact. It is very sad to me that we add complications to the election process for convenience but won't add complications to guarantee the integrity of the process.

Ballots for machine counting are not designed for easy manual counting. For example, here is a portion of a sample ballot I found online:

Here is how I would modify it:

In fact, I would get rid of a middle column and have all the boxes along the edges for easier counting. I would make the tally sheets line up with the boxes on the edges with the same numbers as are in the boxes so that one could see the number in the box and easily tally the correct row of the tally sheet.

How it is done now is one person reads the ballot out loud and two others simultaniously tally the votes. Each tallyer calls out when they hit a 5th vote. This is a pretty good method but with the modifications I propose, a single person could do the count and that would gain the time needed for 1 or 2 re-counts to be done in the same amount of time as the old method. Adding redundancy to the counting process like this helps spot errors and brings more eyes to the process.

The counting machines are a powerful computer in their own right and should be utilized to the maximum extent to automate processes that support verification and integrity.

The DS450 can only output results with a printer. This forces a manual process to transfer the results from the counting machine to other computer systems. The clerk pointed out to me that the larger ESS models do have electronic ways to transfer the results. I do not know, however, if those formats are human readable.

Here is a sample of the DS450’s printed output:

Note that there is no running count or details that could be used to prove that the addition of the votes is correct or to check if a single ballot was read correctly or not.

If the clerk accidently re-fed a pile of ballots into the DS450 it would double count those votes and not notice a thing wrong. Only an adept clerk might catch this later when reconciling ballot counts and then an entire recount of the precinct ballots, which are all identical, would be needed. It would be impossible to discover which ballots were counted twice.

By designing an area of a ballot for the counting machine to print on, a simple string that shows exactly the count for that ballot that is human readable could be constructed:

000000000011111111112222222...
012345678901234567890123456...
..1..1...1..1.11.1..1.11.11...

Above we see two lines to show which box (with my proposed changes to the ballot format) the mark was associated with and the bottom line shows whether or not the bubble was counted as filled in.

Another, more easy way to do it for human checking would be for the counting machine to circle each bubble in a special color. However, the method used must clearly show that the ballot was scanned only once.

This information could also be used to more easily count the ballots manually and to check a subset of ballots to make sure the machine is scanning the ballots correctly.

The counting machine could note this printing and avoid double counting a ballot, but the more you trust the machine to do the right thing, the more a hack can skew the election. Human, manual checking of the machine is absolutely necessary to eliminate the possibility of hacking the counting machine. Multiptle humans must also be used cuz you can't trust them either.

If the ballots could be numbered, a lot of good things could be done like:

Follow the ballot from printing to archiving.
Make counterfeiting of ballots more difficult.
Allow for detailed ballot-by-ballot counting data that references the ballot number to ensure the counts and additions are correct.
The numbeed ballots could even be used to allow voters the ability to check their own ballots after the election online.

The one big downside of numbered ballots is the possibility that they could be used to know who voted how. I have been trying to come up with a way to print the ballots with a concealed number and at some point the voter and/or the counting machines could reveal the number long after the ballot left the hands of the voter. It could be done but I have not come up with a process that wouldn't introduce other problems. Scratch-n-sniff is cool till you have to scratch thousands of ballots. However, I think solving this will really improve election integrity.

We could have the counting machine number the ballots but adding a number at this point removes a lot of the benefits of having the number. It would, however solve the double counting problem I mentioned above.

Since the counting machine must scan each ballot, why not include the scan of each ballot and the counting machine’s printed interpretation of the ballot into image files which can then be offloaded onto a thumb drive and published on the internet? The counting machine could also generate tally sheets. Imagine ANYBODY being able to count any of the ballots themselves and check the counting machine online without having to compromise the integrity of the archived ballots? Now that's transparency!

I discussed this idea with the clerk and she made a good point that this creates a way for almost anybody to raise doubts and challenge the election process. Even though a voter could check that their ballot was counted correctly and the ballot was not tampered with, there is no way that this kind of discovery could be used to question the count unless many voters complained of tampering. It could create a mountain of work to accept voter feedback like this. Yet still, this would let voters know that something was wrong or not wrong with the process and a simple website could automate the feedback process. It would force a certain level of integrity on the system due to its transparency. The media could not simply declare that "this was the most secure election in history" without some blowback.

All this doesn't even consider the issues involved with early voting and absentee ballots.

If every 10th voter at the precinct had to come in for a couple of hours to count ballots or a kind of counting jury duty were created, we would have plenty of people to hand count the ballots and check each other's work. Ballots could be broken down in to packs of say 25-100 ballots each and counted multiple times by multiple people, each signing and certifying their counts. Ballots, tally sheets and summary spreadsheets could then be sent electronically to the next level up and published online both locally and centrally. Heck, election judges could take a copy of all the data on a thumb drive home for safe keeping, just in case there was a fire or some other disaster that caused the archives to be lost or come into question.

I mentioned this idea to the clerk as well and she has considered it. The downside is that the clerk has trained a crack crew of assistants that do this well. We wouldn't want people that don't want to do counting doing that job nor would we want to have some bum off the street doing it that didn't know or care about what they were doing or worse, was out to throw things off.

However, we need a system that doesn't need highly trained and high integrety volunteers to work. We need a system where even a 4th grader could count the votes and any errors are caught regardless of their skill level or intentions. Rudundancy, transparentcy and cross-checking are simply required to make such a system work.

The clerk pointed out to me that Idaho County has enough volunteers right now so that the current system of counting is working well. Other counties, however, may have problems getting enough people to participate in the election process to get sufficient oversight and help.

Incidentally, I discovered that the Kooskia precinct has the most voters voting of all the precincts in Idaho County! Interesting.

Precinct hand counts would rapidly add up the counts to come up with results probably faster than we get with all this machine counting. The community comes together as more people get involved and see the integrity of the system which would encourage more people to vote and remove the need for early voting and absentee ballots.

It amazes me that the photo at the top of this article is NOT the way we count our votes. Idaho County is actually a relatively safe county for vote counting. Several precincts still count the ballots by hand.

The clerk mentioned that decades ago, when everybody knew everybody, doing a public count with a pot-luck was cool and fun but those days are gone and there are just too many strangers around that we can't trust at that level.

But such thinking admits that trust in the people that do the process is necessary. I say, if you have a good, redundant, transparent, cross-checked, accountable and machine assisted count, you don't need highly skilled or trusted people to do this extremely important job.

I think it would be great to see Miss Betsy’s 4^th grade class be able to count the ballots. Counting ballots is not easy but impressing on our children the importance of doing such a job to protect our democratic system is very important.

It amazes me how little people seem to care about who and how the votes are counted. This is the core of representative government and it must be kept sacred and secure and transparent at all times for our freedoms to survive.

I hope this article has demystified the issue a bit for the average Joe and that it will spur improvements to the system. The best thing you can do to help here is to contact your county clerk and offer to become a volunteer election judge and counter. Get yourself trained and step up to be a part of the solution. That's what I did and it was a real eye-opener and made me feel good about doing what I could to help.

A Union can be dangerous

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:58:00 -0800

I wanted to respond to Dave Manley's letter to the editor last week. Dave makes the excellent point that the founders had "criminal minds" that decided to, instead of fighting one another for power, worked together to give us the Constitution and protect our rights for future generations. By "criminal minds" Dave meant that they understood human nature.

Unlike the common view expressed these days that men are basically good, the Deists (being students of natural law) and the Christians alike believed that men, especially if given too much power, were basically evil.

What troubled me in Dave's letter was this common perception that our founders, like Thomas Jefferson, gave us the bill of rights and invented the idea of a constitution. This is not true.

Patrick Henry, Mr. "give me liberty or give me death", was a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania which had just created their own new constitution that I believe introduced the idea of enumerating what rights the government was created to protect. Mr. Henry and his fellow delegates were given very specific instructions from their state not to allow the precious rights their new constitution protected to be compromised by a federal constitution.

Mr. Henry and his fellow delegates did NOT sign the Constitution that came out of the convention. What they DID do was to create The Pennsylvania Minority Report (PMR) which listed 14 flaws that they saw that threatened the rights they had secured by their new state constitution.

The Bill of Rights was created by the dissenters not by the Convention.

So this brings me to a pattern I see in history and that is the pattern of forced union. We saw in the Civil war how hard it was for the southern states to remove themselves from the union and we saw in Brexit how hard it was for Great Britain to remove themselves from the European Union and we see the natural glue that holds nations into the United Nations because if they leave they have no defense against possible sanctions the union may impose on outsiders.

This trend seems to now be pushing for a global new world order that all nations will be forced into eventually.

The PMR points out that no delegate to the Continental Congress was allowed to make amendments or alter anything in the proposed constitution. Things were fixed before the delegates ever got there. It was Yay, Nay. Henry and others smelled a rat and if you can find the full text of the PMR you will see there were many questionable shenanigans going on before, during, and after the Constitutional Convention pushing delegates to "take it or leave it".

Our pathetic government schools don't make our kids read the founding documents, much less the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and much much less the constitutions of the original 13 colonies under the Articles of Confederation.

Very few people these days have any clue that there were many good constitutions before the federal one. The US Constitution didn't introduce this idea, it created a UNION. There are merits to a union of course but ours was to be federated which means that the federal government deals with other nations and the states, NOT the people or counties/cities directly. It would never have been ratified if this weren't the perception of the people at that time.

Now our federal government is a corporate socialist empire that constantly meddles with the affairs of individual citizens more so than it does with the states creating huge bureaucracies to manage dealing with millions of individuals and businesses and dictating what they can and cannot do from a central hub. The federal government holds our medical and financial records and monitors our every phone call and email - for national security reasons creating clear vulnerabilities to our privacy and rights.

This all came out of the union.

The good things that are now happening at the state level all over this union are because the states are beginning to realize that this union is way out of line and that push-back is a good thing. I for one hope we will see some states put in place some checks and balances needed to offset the totalitarian power of our federal government that is now so dysfunctional as to have no resemblance to the original ideas that created it.

BTW Why hasn't Biden even given a state of the Union address yet like every other president in our history has? And why hasn't our "watch-dog" media even noticed this fact?

Why vote in person?

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:37:00 -0700

Mail in ballots seem to be the rage these days. Such convenience! Such efficiency?

It baffles me how naïve the public appears to be in this area.

First of all it is impossible to have an anonymous submission of a ballot by mail.

Second, even if the secret ballot is sacrificed, there are still too many ways to commit fraud in the process.

But let's ask this question. Why? Why do we want a secret ballot?

Imagine a corrupt local government that is hiring goons to go ruff up anybody that doesn't support their power. Would you vote your conscience if they could find out how you voted? Probably not.

Voting in person at the precinct level all at one time really cuts down the opportunity for a central power to manipulate the vote, especially if the votes are counted at the precinct level and in public all at the same time.

Remember how the Bush-Gore election count was held up for months while people debated how to count chads on a computer punch card? Technology doesn't really solve the basic problem. What is needed is local people that care enough to participate, not just to vote but to help monitor the voting and counting of those votes. If we can't find enough people to do that, then they clearly don't care about their own freedoms and the election should be canceled in that precinct.

Why is it so important for people to be able to vote absentee? What value does that put on your vote? What value does it put on voting? What value does it put on our freedoms? There are other ways to get shut-ins or the handicapped to be able to vote - it's called a limited power of attorney.

This year, if you have already voted absentee, just think of it like placing your ballot at the polls into a self-addressed stamped envelope before inserting your ballot into the box. Let's hope we don't need a secret ballot in the future to stop a truly tyrannical government.

Vote in person, or don't vote at all.

Things we can do to help

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:10:00 -0700

I got this list of things one can do to save our republic from the impeccable state representative for Idaho, Miss Heather Scott. I so appreciate her hard work to keep us free!

It takes everybody doing their little parts to keep government from encroaching on everything we do. Every time you avoid court, pay your own bills, don't steal from others (including the state), do something for someone or just help others understand what freedom is, you do yourself a great favor by taking some of the load that would otherwise fall on the state or the church or your neighbor.

Representative Heather Scott

110 Things You Can Do Now by Rep. Heather Scott

1. Understand where your rights come from, what they are, and what unalienable means and be able to explain this to another person.

2. Stop supporting any and all biased media or social networks that distort the truth, censor facts, and stifle free speech.

3. Support local businesses who provide local jobs, help local communities, and respect your rights.

4. Work to change the political campaign finance laws by pressuring your legislators for change and exposing special interest groups and lobbyists who use their influence money to promote increased government regulations, stifle competition, breed crony capitalism, and buy elections.

5. Understand and believe that our Constitution works because all power is in the people, not government.

6. Remind your elected officials regularly that they are there to serve you, the people. You are their boss, and when necessary use your vote to remove them from office.

7. Stop worrying about what others are not doing, or what you think they should do, and take action and responsibility for yourself.

8. Host or be a catalyst for regular gatherings to discuss current issues and solutions with friends and neighbors and develop a plan of action for uncertain times.

9. Turn off your TV and consider opening your Bible.

10. Understand the jurisdictional boundary of every government entity that collects tax or fee money from you to run government programs. Start by looking at your property tax statement.

11. Be educated about your local politics because these issues impact your life much more than national issues.

12. Take a state or federal Constitution class.

13. Respect, and demand respect from your elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, even if they don’t agree with you.

14. Take a civics class.

15. Donate to a candidate who shares your values.

16. Learn what legislative district you live in, who makes the decisions on your behalf at that state level and study their voting records.

17. Learn who your federal congressional representatives and senators are and what congressional district you live in.

18. Meet an elected official for coffee and begin developing a relationship.

19. Attend a school board meeting, observe if and how they respond to public input, and check out their school policies.

20. Take the lead on an issue that needs fixing.

21. Understand regional government and be able to identify regional governing bodies that are making decisions for you.

22. Share your knowledge and skills with others.

23. Know where your line in the sand is when it comes to defending your rights.

24. Build a network of likeminded neighbors and friends so there is strength in numbers when issues arise.

25. Learn how to communicate with elected officials.

26. Learn the state process of making law.

27. Understand state sovereignty and why it is critical to the future of our Republic.

28. Meet your sheriff, understand his authority, and make sure he understands it.

29. Understand the role of your county prosecuting attorney and how they prosecute or defend the current laws.

30. Attend your county commissioners’ regular budget hearings.

31. Help a home school parent with knowledge or a skill you have.

32. Get out of debt and stay out of debt. Live within your means.

33. Attend a town hall meeting.

34. Read your state constitution.

35. Attend a rally, protest, or event to fight for a cause you believe in.

36. Organize an event to educate.

37. Know what precinct you are in, who your committeeman is, and where you vote.

38. Educate your elected officials on your concerns through the sharing of concise facts and real experiences.

39. Run for an elected office or serve on a committee.

40. Support good elected officials that share your values with your time and resources. Recruit people who you trust to represent you at all levels of government.

41. Apply to be a poll watcher or poll worker.

42. Look at your county, city, school, and state budgets and provide input.

43. Look at the state executive budgets and provide input on spending.

44. Treat everyone as an individual, don’t stereotype or group people.

45. Help a candidate that shares your values through the use of a special skill set you may have.

46. Register to vote.

47. Vote.

48. Stop complaining about politicians that are outside of your jurisdiction.

49. Help an elderly or handicapped person get to the polls.

50. Spend a few hours a week with someone under the age of 25 and mentor them.

51. Research your current local elected officials and understand their voting record on all issues.

52. Do a records request to get information on government actions, government contracts or memorandums of understanding for regional agreements.

53. Understand the importance and difference between primary and general elections and share that information with two other people.

54. Understand how long the terms of the elected officials in your area are and when they meet.

55. Join a special interest group or political party that promotes a policy or cause you care about.

56. Home school your children.

57. Read the Declaration of Independence.

58. Work on talking about politics or religion in a respectful way.

59. Attend local meetings: city council, county commissioners, library taxing districts, etc.

60. Volunteer at a local charity and meet new people.

61. Rely on various legitimate media sources to inform yourself on the issues and performance of elected officials.

62. Read a book on history or civics. History will repeat itself so know and understand it.

63. Respect others thoughts and decisions, even if you do not agree.

64. Write a letter to the editor about an issue that concerns you or a candidate you support.

65. Sign wave for a candidate.

66. Help register a new voter.

67. Trade, barter, or share your skills.

68. Put a political sign in your yard.

69. Learn the structure and role of a state agency. There are plenty to pick from in Idaho!

70. Try to help yourself with an issue before running to an elected official (government) to fix your problem.

71. Attend a planning and zoning meeting and look at your county zoning maps.

72. Compare an elected official’s or bureaucrat’s words with his actions and demand an explanation if they conflict.

73. Speak the truth.

74. Stand up to bureaucratic bullying.

75. Encourage your church leaders to teach the whole Bible and address civic, cultural, and political issues.

76. Don’t be afraid to question comments, actions, or policies from elected officials or bureaucrats.

77. Understand “Critical Race Theory”, how it is destroying our country’s foundation and why it is being taught in most of our law schools and government run schools.

78. Educate yourself on who is influencing a candidate’s platform or voting record by looking at their campaign finance reports at the Secretary of State’s website.

79. Publicly expose corruption and crony capitalism any time you encounter it.

80. Put a bumper sticker on your car to promote an issue or candidate.

81. Strengthen your local neighborhood by focusing on issues you agree on, not disagree.

82. Don’t be discouraged when you realize how upside-down government is. Be patient and learn the process.

83. Try to focus on the system of government as much as you focus on the issues in government. The system needs maintenance!

84. Learn to navigate the legislative website to email or call your legislators to let them know how you want them to vote.

85. Build a relationship with a veteran and share their stories with others.

86. Help organize a homeschool co-op or alternative leaning center or donate your location for use.

87. Don’t get bullied by a bureaucrat. Stand up. #EndBureocraticBullying

88. Don’t ignore the little battles, stand up for what is right.

89. Push back on government overreach and do not submit to tyranny.

90. Remain vigilant.

91. Learn to be self-sufficient and provide for others.

92. End your support for businesses who don’t share American values

93. Understand what administrative rules are and how you can change them.

94. Understand how to influence your elected official.

95. Start being the leader you have waited for.

96. Simplify your message to bullet points.

97. Promote healthy conversations and debate.

98. Offer solutions, not problems.

99. Donate a book of stamps to a candidate or help them stuff envelopes.

100. Write a bill to change or eliminate a law.

101. Know what the law says and where to find it.

102. Understand the limitations and the authority of the elected official you are asking help from.

103. Visit your courthouse and sit in on a few trials to better understand the judicial system.

104. Establish your credibility by offering good, truthful information.

105. Defend our country.

106. Report disrespectful treatment by government workers to their supervisors.

107. Let government officials and bureaucrats know when they are doing a good job.

108. Don’t complain about things you are not willing to work hard to change.

109. Stop waiting for someone else to tell you what you should be doing, take initiative, and lead.

110. Pray for our country and state and our elected leaders daily.

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:06:00 -0700

The full story of Dave Hinkson as told by affidavit:

AFFIDAVIT OF WESLEY W. HOYT

In Re: Hinkson Petition for Habeas Corpus under 28 USC §2241, and

For the Establishment of a Right to Relief that is Satisfactory to the Court under Rule 55

STATE OF COLORADO

COUNTY OF BOULDER

)

) ss.

)

WESLEY W. HOYT, upon his oath, deposes and states:

I am an attorney who has been licensed to practice law in Colorado for the past forty

years and in Idaho for over twenty years; I am currently licensed and have an active practice in

both states. From 1994 through 1997, I served as the Deputy Prosecutor of Idaho County, Idaho.

The facts stated in this Affidavit are true, based on my own personal knowledge, except as to

matters based on information and belief; and, as to such matters, I believe them to be true

because they are derived from trustworthy and reliable sources.1 The cumulative effect of all the

evidence presented herein supports David Hinkson’s claim of actual innocence. Some facts were

excluded, some were not presented at Hinkson’s 2005 trial on the solicitation charges and the

remainder were not considered for their cumulative effect or ruled upon in accordance with the

actual innocence doctrine and false evidence standard.

I. BACKGROUND

David Hinkson, now age 57, has been incarcerated for ten years and eleven months on

false murder-for-hire charges trumped up by Elven Joe Swisher who, subsequent to Hinkson’s

2005 trial, was convicted in 2008 on perjury, forgery, theft and stolen valor charges. Hinkson

developed a dietary supplement product and founded a manufacturing and distribution company

located near Grangeville, Idaho in 1997. Swisher was a service-provider (assayer) for Hinkson’s

company, performing testing of the dietary supplement product(s) for mineral content. At some

time during the professional relationship, Swisher, recognizing the lucrative nature of the

business, attempted to extort both money and a share of the business from Hinkson. When

Hinkson refused, Swisher proclaimed publicly that he wanted to make sure Hinkson went to “jail

for the rest of his life”, and in order to make sure that happened, said that he “would go to Boise

to testify.” In fact, Swisher went to Boise and began a nightmarish scenario by testifying in front

of a Grand Jury in 2004. As a private attorney in Idaho, as the Deputy Prosecutor and as a

lawyer associated with Hinkson since 2003, I have observed the facts and am aware of the

information in this affidavit detailing the methodology used by Swisher and the Prosecution (the

1This Affidavit provides evidence about which I have personal knowledge that bears on Hinkson’s claim of actual

innocence as to events that occurred in Idaho County, Idaho, where I served as Deputy Prosecutor. Idaho County is

the home of both David R. Hinkson (“Hinkson”) and Elven Joe Swisher who was the only witness the jury believed

in Hinkson’s 2005 solicitation of murder-for-hire trial (the “Solicitation Case”, Idaho Federal District Court Case

No. CR-04-0127-C-RCT). Swisher’s testimony was the basis of Hinkson’s conviction of three out of eleven counts

of solicitation for the murder of federal officials under 28 USC §373 (the “Swisher Counts”) at the 2005 trial.

Swisher testified that the time period of Hinkson’s murder solicitations supposedly occurred in Idaho County on

three occasions, in (a) April 2002 (after April 16th); (b) in July or August 2002; and , (c) in mid-January 2003. The

evidence in this Affidavit shows that it was impossible for Hinkson to have held the solicitation meetings with

Swisher at the times and places stated by him. Therefore, the proof of actual innocence turns on the credibility of the

witness Swisher, without whom there was no case.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 1 of 78

United States Government) to wrongfully convict Hinkson.

This case involves ‘offsetting witness credibility’, i.e., wherein one said something happened,

and the other said it did not. It is a classic ‘he said – he said’ debate, and after accusations were

made by Swisher (the Prosecution’s ‘star witness’), Hinkson was left with having to prove a

negative. Therefore, the evaluation of Swisher’s credibility is critical, especially when it has

been clearly demonstrated that he has a pattern of lying relative to other facts in this case.

II CASE SUMMARY

1. David Hinkson---Extreme Intelligence/Asperger’s. Mr. Hinkson, like others with Asperger

Syndrome (such as Albert Einstein), presents with classic signs, such as high intelligence and

lack of social skills. He is extremely creative, unusually outspoken (sometimes to the point of

being irritating or offensive) and completely non-violent, having never harmed anyone (see ¶

11 below.) He is an in-depth researcher, voracious reader, has a photographic memory and is

considered by some to be a “genius”. He has been a radio talk-show host, inventor,

businessman and a paralegal in a Las Vegas law firm from 1990 to 1995, prior to developing

a line of dietary supplement products in 1996 along with his manufacturing and distribution

company, “WaterOz”. Hinkson has always been interested in and active regarding political

matters and was instrumental in “un-electing” several Clark County, Nevada Commissioners

whom he believed were corrupt2 and derailing the election-bid of Attorney Dennis Albers for

the office of Idaho County Prosecutor in 2000.

2. Hinkson’s Work as a Paralegal Trained Him to Petition for Redress of Grievances. As a

paralegal, Hinkson learned to prepare and submit complaints and petitions to his government

for redress of grievances; he also became skilled in ‘dispute letter-writing’ seeking

administrative action.

3. Hinkson Discovered the Ionization Process and Started WaterOz Business. Hinkson

made a significant contribution to the health-sciences in 1994 when he discovered the

process of “ionizing” minerals into angstrom-sized particles (smaller than nano) suitable for

human consumption in their most absorbable form. He perfected the method of suspending

the ionized minerals in highly purified water and bottled it for everyday dietary-supplement

use in mineral replacement therapy. The liquid mineral supplement product, useful for

addressing mineral deficiencies often caused by diet, lifestyle and mineral-depleted soils, is

produced from 99.9998% pure minerals that are non-toxic to the environment. After starting

his WaterOz company in Las Vegas, Nevada in 1994, Hinkson re-located the business and his

family to unincorporated Idaho County (twenty miles north of Grangeville) in late July 1997.

2 In connection with the mid-1990 Clark County Nevada election of County Commissioners, Hinkson explained

their corruption in 600,000 fliers he printed then recruited homeless people to pass them out. After moving to Idaho

County and in 2000 he sent out 10,000 letters in a campaign to remind Idaho County voters that Dennis Albers, who

was running for Prosecuting Attorney, had been sanctioned by a disciplinary decision of the Idaho Supreme Court

which told him not to run for Prosecutor again because of jury tampering by Albers in Swisher’s 1980 child

molestation case (involving the rape of his three daughters, each under age 10). When the mistrial occurred, because

Albers was seen “chatting” with one of the jurors during a recess, the case was not reset for trial by Albers, allowing

Swisher to escape justice. While I was Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Albers admitted to me that he had carried on a

conversation directly with one of the jurors in the hallway during a court recess which was the event that caused the

mistrial.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 2 of 78

Hinkson holds an honorary Naturopathic degree and, until his detention in April 2003, was

highly sought after as a speaker at various health conferences nationwide.

4. The “Tax Case.” On November 21, 2002, Hinkson was arrested and immediately

released on his own recognizance after the execution of a Federal Search Warrant at

his home and factory involving FDA product-labeling violations, failing to file tax

returns and structuring of currency transactions (herein the “Tax Case.”)3

5. WaterOz Profitability Attracts Those with Takeover Mentality. WaterOz products

gained recognition, popularity and acceptance in 1998, which resulted in gross

revenues accelerating from less than $80,000 in 1997 to over $4.0 million per year by

2000. The extraordinarily rapid rise in profitability of the company attracted the

attention of certain parties in Hinkson’s circle who schemed up a plan for a ‘hostile

takeover’ of the company since Hinkson was often physically absent from the

manufacturing plant in much of 2001 and 2002 while traveling abroad to develop an

international market for his product. Between 1998 and 2004, at least four separate

individuals or groups attempted to take over the WaterOz business (mainly employees

or contractors who seemed to think it was “okay” to take a business from a self-made

“science guy.” Each of these takeover people went after what they perceived should

be their ‘piece of the pie,’ and Swisher, the local mineral assayer became one of the

most persistent. On January 3, 2003, as a part of his attempt to take money from

Hinkson, Swisher schemed up a “cyanide-extortion” plan (see ¶ 28(e)) demanding a

one-half interest in WaterOz and $800,000 as his ‘slice’ of the pie (see Affidavit of

David R. Hinkson Ex A-2, ¶ 72). Swisher, who was unsuccessful at the extortion

attempt, joined up with some current and former employees who decided to file a

lawsuit to gain control of the company. Hinkson was required to defend this, and

various other lawsuits, to ward off these takeover attempts, including a 1998 lawsuit

filed by Annette Hasalone (daughter-in-law of Hinkson’s then general manager,

Bobbie Eve) who was represented by attorney Dennis Albers. When Hasalone was

unable to obtain an interest in Hinkson’s business, she sued for over $600,000. The

final result of her suit in August 1999 was a judgment amounting to $100,000 which

was paid by Hinkson in the fall of that year. Swisher later claimed that Hinkson was

obsessed with the Hasalone judgment and that it drove him to demand the torturemurder

of Hasalone’s attorney, Dennis Albers. However, by 2002, when Swisher

claimed to have been solicited by Hinkson, $100,000 amounted to less than 1% of

Hinkson’s gross revenues and Hinkson was consumed with building the international

side of his WaterOz business, inspecting sites for regional bottling plants in foreign

countries and had thus ‘moved beyond’ Hasalone’s victory.

6. Pending Cases: I was retained by David Hinkson on December 3, 2003, to handle

matters related to his dietary supplement business, including defending the company

against Swisher’s lawsuit that was in process at that time based on a Temporary

Restraining Order.

7. Swisher’s Motive Shown by Extortion Attempts and Hostile Takeover. On

3 The Tax Case: Idaho Federal District Court Case No. 3:02-cr-00142-BLW-RCT, involved a forty-three Count

Indictment set for trial in late April 2004 related to three subject areas: (a) Failure to File Tax Returns; (b) Improper

Product Labeling under FDA Law; and (c) Structuring of Currency Transactions.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 3 of 78

December 2, 2003, the date the TRO was entered Hinkson was defending the Tax

Case and had been in detention on false murder-for-hire accusations trumped up by

his former housekeeper, Mariana Raff (of which it was later proven he was actually

innocent) who used the charge to cover up her theft of $6,000 travel money that she

found in his home). For eight months (since April 4, 2003) Hinkson had been sitting

in a county jail because of these false Raff charges (see ¶ 21(a) and fn 30) unable to

actively manage his business while several of his employees and Swisher planned the

takeover.

a. Swisher Set Up Hinkson for FDA Charges. Hinkson had been ‘set up’ for FDA

violations by Swisher based on the mineral content in his products not matching

the amount specified on the label. Swisher turned in assay reports that showed his

product mineral content was accurate while another employee, Hinkson’s trusted

mineral-maker, ‘Chris’ deliberately made the product with less than the specified

amount of mineral content. As a result, when his products were tested by the

FDA, they were deficient, a misdemeanor law violation.

b. History of Hinkson’s Arrest and Incarceration. His initial arrest was November

21, 2002 supported by an indictment on FDA product labeling violations, failure

to file tax returns and currency structuring charges. Initially, he was released from

custody on his own recognizance, but five months later, the false Raff Charges

arose and he was arrested and placed in pretrial detention. Since the Raff charges

were only supported by her statement, the objective observer would expect the

FBI agent she spoke with to investigate the truth of the matter because it involved

the safety and security of federal officials. These were proven to be absolutely

false allegations but it took over a year to galvanize the FBI into taking a serious

look at the Raff accusations.

c. Hinkson’s Absence Opened Door to Takeover. The net result was that Hinkson

remained in jail from April to December 2003 when the takeover occurred (and

beyond). Hinkson had been absent from his business for eight months, by

December 2, 2003 when Swisher, WaterOz employees Lonnie Birmingham and

Richard Bellon (a felon who went to prison for assaulting an elderly female IRS

agent in California, see Ex A-12) and the other collaborators obtained a TRO by

fraud and commenced a hostile takeover.4 This group misrepresented facts to the

local Idaho State Judge, causing him to grant the TRO based on false testimony.

d. Defense of TRO Lawsuit. I was hired to defend that TRO lawsuit and to work

with Hinkson’s designated WaterOz management team on other civil matters and

4 In his 2005 trial testimony in the Hinkson Solicitation Case, Swisher pretended that he was not a part of the hostile

takeover of WaterOz; however, I defended the case and observed Swisher’s participation in every aspect of that

proceeding, providing the “expert witness” testimony to the Idaho State Judge at the TRO hearing, falsely stating

that the WaterOz products were unsafe for the public and alleging there were unclean working conditions, all in

order to obtain the TRO that permitted him and his co-conspirators to take over the business. Swisher, who

pretended to be an expert in “Best Manufacturing and Management Practices,” entered WaterOz with his coconspirators

on December 2, 2003, ejecting Hinkson’s management team, declaring himself to be CEO of WaterOz

and rifling through the WaterOz company records (see Ex A-9, Towerton Aff. of 04-15-12 ¶ 27-28) stealing

customer lists and trade secrets. Swisher, an assayer, who worked with minerals in the context of mining, was

seeking to clone the process for himself.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 4 of 78

business-related issues. Swisher and his co-conspirators were able to do a great

deal of damage in the week that they had control of the company. By December

10, 2003, the TRO was vacated and the ‘takeover conspirators’ ejected, although

it required several months of litigation to get the case dismissed.

e. Swisher and Cohorts Believed Lawsuit would Put them in Control of

WaterOz. During those months, as litigation was pending, Swisher and Bellon

actually believed that they would win the case and thus be able to obtain ultimate

control of WaterOz. Acting on that belief, Swisher stepped up his tactics and went

“to Boise to testify against Hinkson’ before the Grand Jury on February 10, 2004

in aid of his plan to send Hinkson to prison for the rest of his life (to keep him

from claiming his business). Swisher’s plan was to testify that Hinkson was the

mastermind behind a plot to torture-murder many people, including three

specifically designated, Idaho federal officials, IRS Special Agent Steven Hines,

Federal Prosecutor, AUSA Nancy Cook and Federal District Court Judge, Edward

Lodge (the “Designated Federal Officials”).

f. Plan to Imprison Hinkson for Life. These very serious charges were supported

by the Government and Swisher, who was certain that if Hinkson was locked

away and never got out of prison, leaving a void in the management of WaterOz,

the control would fall to him because of the lawsuit. Since part of Swisher’s plan

was to put Hinkson in “jail for the rest of his life” (see ¶23(c)(iii)) he wanted to

get Hinkson out of the way to avoid any claim by Hinkson related to his interest

in WaterOz. Thus, Swisher’s plan was to clear the way for the complete takeover

of the company.

g. Swisher wanted Hinkson’s Property. In that TRO lawsuit, Swisher made bogus

claims for over a half-million dollars of property which he said Hinkson owed

him, based on a ‘trade-out’ or ‘set off’ theory alleging that he had only partially

billed for, and only been paid partially in cash for mineral-testing services and

what he claimed was the remaining outstanding amount due, supposedly was to

be paid by “in-kind’ transfers of real property and heavy equipment plus $250,000

in cash to help Swisher start up a new business. When these false allegations of

‘in-kind’ property transfers were finally dismissed in October 2003, they were

reinvented by Swisher for the Solicitation Case as “verbal gifts,” which Swisher

implied were to be disguised payments in the murder-for-hire scheme Swisher

claimed Hinkson had developed to eliminate his “tormentors” (which consisted of

a list of anyone identified by Swisher that grew over time). Swisher chose the

same list of property that he wanted from Hinkson, but for the Solicitation Case,

put a different spin on it. In the TRO lawsuit, it was ‘trade-out’ for assay work, in

the Solicitation Case it was a ‘trade-out’ as part-payment on the alleged murderfor-

hire plot.

8. The “Solicitation Case.” The indictment in the Solicitation Case was served on

Hinkson in June 2004, after the May verdict in the Tax Case, and refers to eleven

counts of murder-for-hire solicitation, eight of which (the “Bates and Harding

Counts”) were ultimately dismissed. The three charges of murder solicitation that

were not dismissed (as to the Designated Federal Officials) and on which Hinkson

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 5 of 78

was convicted, form the basis for Hinkson’s §2241 Habeas petition and stem from

allegations by Swisher (herein the “Swisher Counts”).

a. The Swisher Counts came about because Swisher testified before the Grand

Jury in Boise on February 10, 2004 at a time when he believed he would be

able to get control of WaterOz via the pending TRO lawsuit (which had been

filed a few months before, on December 2, 2003).

b. The facts show that Swisher’s pattern of lying to various federal tribunals

revolves around what he believed would lead to his own financial gain. For

instance, Swisher lied to the Veterans Administration about his fake military

career to obtain over $150,000 in medical payment for his 2002 massive heart

attack, life-flight to Spokane, open heart surgery, ICU, double pacemaker,

therapy and recovery expenses) all paid for by the VA because Swisher

pretended to be a wounded combat veteran from the Korean War era. Swisher

also fraudulently obtained a substantial monthly disability income payment

for which he was also convicted.

c. Using the same lies he told to the VA, Swisher built of a false credibility as a

Korean combat hero, as a springboard to accusing Hinkson of soliciting him

to murder the Designated Federal Officials and that would put Hinkson “in jail

for the rest of his life;” clearing the way for Swisher to obtain a half-interest

of Hinkson’s business that, as of 2002 was producing $4,000,000 per year.

One of Swisher’s co-conspirators, Bellon, fraudulently claimed he had a

partnership agreement with Hinkson giving him half of Hinkson’s business

which also, Bellon claimed allowed him to take over the business. Ultimately,

all of these take over claims were defeated in the litigation process.

9. Hinkson’s Trial Counsel. As of December 2003, Hinkson’s former criminal defense attorney,

Britt Groom, had withdrawn from the Tax Case and I was asked to find Hinkson an Idaho

federal criminal lawyer to defend him. None of the dozen or so qualified attorneys in Idaho I

contacted would take the case, as it was considered to be too “icky” (a term used by a noted

Idaho criminal attorney who turned down the case because of what he called the “ick” factor)

due to the (false) allegations that Hinkson had plotted the murder of an Idaho federal judge,

IRS agent and prosecutor (i.e., the Designated Federal Officials). It was therefore necessary

to hire an experienced criminal trial attorney from out of Idaho. The same situation occurred

in 2004 when the Solicitation Case Indictment was served on Hinkson, i.e., because no Idaho

federal criminal trial attorney would accept Hinkson’s representation, an out-of-state attorney

was retained. This Affidavit is based on my knowledge of facts pertaining to the alleged

solicitation of Swisher acquired while acting as lead counsel in the civil TRO case and as cocounsel

in both the Hinkson Tax Case and the Solicitation Case. I assisted the two seasoned

criminal trial lawyers5 who represented Hinkson, both of whom appeared pro hac vice as lead

counsel in those cases.

10. Hinkson’s Sentencing in the Tax Case in 2004 Postponed. After Hinkson’s May 2004

conviction in the Tax Case for non-violent charges of (1) failing to file tax returns; (2)

structuring currency transactions; and (3) FDA misdemeanor product labeling violations

(mineral content of product found below label specifications) sentencing was postponed

5 In the Tax Case, Hinkson was represented by Sean Connelly and in the Solicitation Case, by Thomas Nolan.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 6 of 78

and combined with the Solicitation Case (the trial of which took place in January 2005).

The final combined sentencing on the Tax and Solicitation cases occurred in June 2005.

11. Hinkson, who did not Present a Risk of Violence to Anyone, was Convicted of

Crimes of Violence in the Solicitation Case. Hinkson recently (in January 2014) had a

Violence Threat Level Assessment performed at Atwater Prison, whereby it was

reaffirmed that he is a non-violent individual that presents no threat to others.

Nonetheless, in January 2005, Hinkson was convicted of three violent crimes (the

Swisher Counts) for soliciting the murder of the three designated federal officials (a

Judge, a Prosecutor and an IRS Agent) under 18 USC §373 based strictly on the false

accusations of Swisher as set forth herein.

12. Sentencing. At his June 2005 combined sentencing hearing, Hinkson was

condemned to what amounts to a life sentence of 43 years in prison (consecutive

sentencing of a 10 year term on the Tax Case and three 10 year terms on the Solicitation

Case, plus an upward departure of 3 years, of which he has served ten years, ten months;

he will be age 90 at completion). He was initially placed in solitary confinement in the

United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility (ADMAX) in Florence,

Colorado unofficially known as the Alcatraz of the Rockies at the direction of Judge

Richard C. Tallman (a federal appeals court judge who sat by Ninth Circuit Court

designation as the trial judge in both the Tax and Solicitation Cases).

13. Hinkson’s Previous Political Involvement in Petitioning the Government for Redress

of Grievances Held Against Him. Seven years after the sentencing hearing Judge

Tallman finally articulated his deep-seated antagonism toward Hinkson based on previous

activity in petitioning the Government for redress of grievances and for his political

activism. The following disclosure was made by Judge Tallman as he described Hinkson

in his August 28, 2012 Order Denying Recusal Motion6 as follows:

(a) “…demonstrated pattern of vexatious conduct”;

(b) “…a long history of obstructing justice…”;

(d) “…engage(ed) in protracted frivolous civil litigation…”;

(e) “…seeking to abuse the legal process and intimidat(ion) of federal

officials from performing their duties…”;

(f) “…filed…a number of administrative complaints…” and

(g) “…all [a]s a component of this general strategy to ‘game the system’…”

This rhetoric shows that Judge Tallman had-deep seated concerns about many extra-judicial

matters not a part of the Solicitation Case (some of his comments were related to well-taken

recusal motions involving other judges which had been filed by noted attorneys and were not

frivolous7). In any event, Judge Tallman’s statements listed above show that he had judicial

bias against Hinkson8 and reflect his inability to put such matters out of his mind. What

6 See Ex B-2, Order denying Recusal Motion dated August 28, 2012, pgs. 3-5.

7 Some of the recusal motions filed by Hinkson (that Judge Tallman found offensive) were submitted by Sean

Connelly, former Assistant United States Attorney who acted as Special Prosecutor in the Timothy McVey series of

cases, and is now a Colorado State Appeals Court Judge.

8 U.S. Philips Corp. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Calif., Case# 12-71696 (9th Cir. March 5, 2013).

Judicial bias was found: “The district judge had shown substantial difficulty in putting out of his mind his

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 7 of 78

Judge Tallman thought about Hinkson’s other administrative and court filings does not bear

on Hinkson’s guilt or actual innocence in the instant proceeding and a separate adjudication

would be required on those issues, which are extra-judicial. (Id., Ex B-2, Idaho Federal

District Court Case 1:04-cv-00196-RCT, Doc. # 17, filed 08-28-12 pgs. 3-5.)

14. Solitary Confinement was Retaliatory. During his five years of imprisonment in

ADMAX (home to some of America’s most dangerous criminals) Hinkson had virtually

no human contact, with meals shoved through a slot in the door of his 6’ x 8’ cell and

where the guards did not speak (except when taking him out of his cell in ankle and belly

chains). He used the time to learn Spanish and Russian and to design inventions for a

new generation of “green-energy” products. Retaliation is sign of judicial bias (see ¶ 34).

15. From Solitary Confinement to General Prison Population. The ADMAX staff learned

Hinkson was harmless and relocated him to the general prison population. He was then

transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Atwater, California, where he is housed at

present. He was recently removed from the Atwater general population and placed in

protective custody for his own safety after threats from a group of “white” inmates (who

practice racial discrimination) and believed they should receive what Hinkson paid to a black

inmate for legal research. The black inmate also protected Hinkson from prison violence.

Hinkson was removed from the general population in January 2014 as the “whites”

threatened to kill him if he declined their proposal to provide “legal research and protection.”

III ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CASE

16. Summary of Hinkson’s Present § 2241 Case. The facts in this Affidavit present

evidence that supports Hinkson’s claim of actual innocence9; if considered with all

available evidence, the cumulative effect would be that, more likely than not, no

reasonable juror would convict Hinkson on the Swisher Counts (assuming the jury was

also informed about Swisher’s false testimony as to his military career.)10 The Swisher

Counts, which are the only charges for which Hinkson now stands convicted, are based

solely on Swisher’s testimony that, in “mid-January” 2003 (Tr. 1013, at 7) in a one-onone

meeting, in Hinkson’s private office on the second floor of the WaterOz factory

building, Hinkson solicited Swisher to torture-murder the Designated Federal Officials.

Swisher went to great lengths to build his credibility with the jury based on falsehoods

previously expressed views" where the Appeals Court found that this was a good enough reason to assign a new

judge.

9 Alaimalo v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) “To establish actual innocence for the purposes of habeas

relief, a petitioner ‘must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable

juror would have convicted him.’"

10 The Swisher Counts are limited to solicitation for the murder of the Designated Federal Officials at a discrete

moment in time (at an alleged meeting between Hinkson and Swisher in mid-January 2003) which solicitation, if it

occurred, is within the scope of federal law. To avoid confusion, it should be noted that Swisher testified about

Hinkson supposedly soliciting him to murder many other people, none of whom were federal officials, including

Idaho District Court Judge George Reinhardt, former Idaho County Prosecutor, Dennis Albers and Hinkson’s exwife,

Marie Hinkson, a resident of Idaho County. Hinkson, in filing his §2241 Habeas Petition recognizes that there

is a connective thread between all of Swisher’s allegations, and for that reason this Affidavit briefly addresses all

murder-for-hire allegation by Swisher. Once the modus operandi of Swisher is understood, and his capacity to

weave extensive and elaborate tales is exposed, it is believed that the objective observer reviewing this case will be

convinced that Swisher added additional names to the list of possible victims in order to increase the seriousness of

his allegations to make it appear Hinkson was masterminding the murder of many and in order, in a very sick way,

to aggrandize himself and elevate his sense of self importance.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 8 of 78

and forgery to put Hinkson in prison in order to obtain a piece of Hinkson’s lucrative

WaterOz business. Swisher stated in public that he wanted to make sure Hinkson went to

prison for “the rest of his life” if Hinkson refused to pay his extortion demands as

discussed below. With Hinkson out of the way, Swisher believed (although mistakenly)

that he and his cohorts could win the TRO lawsuit which would give him control of

WaterOz.

a. Without Swisher There was No Case. In the words of Ninth Circuit Court

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, “[w]ithout Swisher the Government had no

case.”11

b. Swisher’s 2008 Conviction. We now know what the jury in the Hinkson 2005

Solicitation trial never could have known, i.e., that Swisher was convicted of

perjury in 2008 for having told the same lies in July 2004 to the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) at a Veteran’s Administration Disability

Benefits hearing12 as he told to the jury in the January, 2005

Hinkson trial—i.e., that he was a decorated veteran, wounded in combat during a post-

Korean War secret rescue mission for POWs in North Korea.

c. Swisher’s Parallel Deceptive Schemes. The elaborate deceptive scheme that

Swisher presented to the VA in 2004 in order to obtain unearned benefits

mirrors the elaborate scheme Swisher presented in order to deceive the

Hinkson jury which caused Hinkson to be convicted of soliciting Swisher as a

‘hit-man,’ in Swisher’s purported murder-for-hire plot. Common to both

schemes was Swisher’s false claims of military combat experience in Korea;

the truth of which was that he had never set foot in Korea during his military

career and was never in combat never wounded and never killed anyone (see

¶16(j) and Miller Aff. Ex B-9).

d. Fake Military Heroism was Leverage in Both Cases. Swisher claimed VA

benefits he had no right to receive by leveraging his bogus claims of military

heroism, just as he leveraged those same fake heroism claims that cause the

jury to believe that Hinkson solicited him to torture-murder various people.

Both the ALJ in the 2004 VA case and the jury in the 2005 Hinkson case were

favorably impressed with Swisher’s military credentials and believed his false

testimony (i.e., he was awarded VA benefits and Hinkson was convicted.)

e. If Juror had Known, he would not have Voted to Convict. One of the

Hinkson jurors, in a post-trial affidavit, stated that he would not have voted to

convict Hinkson on the Swisher Counts if he had known that Swisher was

lying about his military career.13

f. Correction of Known False Testimony would have Prevented Hinkson’s

Conviction. If the prosecution had corrected Swisher’s false testimony, as it

was required to do (see fn 17 and 18), it is likely that the jury would not have

11 U.S. v. Hinkson, 611 F.3d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 2010).

12 US v. Swisher, 760 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Idaho 2011) see also 360 Fed. Appx. 784 (9th Cir. 2009).

13 See Ex A-8, Aff. of juror Ben Casey.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 9 of 78

convicted Hinkson (especially considering juror Ben Casey’s resolute state of

mind; see Ex A-8).

g. Mistrial Justified. When the myriad of lies became apparent during the 2005

Hinkson trial, the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion for a

mistrial (see ¶ 34).

h. Applying the Cumulative Effect Doctrine. When all known facts are

considered together, the cumulative effect of the evidence supports the

proposition advanced by Hinkson’s §2241 Habeas Petition, which is that he is

actually innocent because he did not commit a crime and that no crime was

ever committed, except in Swisher’s furtive imagination.

i. Swisher’s Motive in Testifying against Hinkson. As shown below (see ¶

21(c)(iii)) Swisher’s principal motive was greed; he was seeking financial

gain by attempting to acquire an interest in WaterOz. Coupled with Swisher’s

greed was revenge because Hinkson would not agree to make extortion

payments to him.14

j. Obtaining Justice after Swisher’s VA Fraud took Years. The evidence

shows Swisher was highly skilled at forgery and extremely experienced at

concocting elaborate stories and giving false testimony in order to bolster

fraud schemes that were in his own self-interest. Swisher used perjury, forgery

and stolen valor claims as the tools of his trade, in order to steal VA medical

and disability benefits that involved expertly-crafted Government documents

that took the United States Marine Corps Commandant’s Office at least five

months (August–December 2004, see Ex B-13) to figure out and discredit.15

Over a dozen of Swisher’s deceptive statements were also presented at the

Hinkson trial (see ¶ 22(d)) which contributed to the jury’s high (but false)

regard for his credibility. It was two years after Hinkson’s conviction (in

2007) before Swisher was charged through the US Inspector General’s Office

with the VA-related crimes, and took another year to convict him for the theft

of over $150,000 in VA medical and disability benefits (see fn 12).

k. Report on Swisher’s Fraud Available During and After Hinkson Trial.

During the Hinkson trial, the prosecution obtained a copy of the “Dowling

Report” (see Ex B-5) which discredited Swisher’s rendition of his military

history and proved he did not serve in Korea and had lied during the 2005

Hinkson Solicitation trial. Although the prosecution tendered a copy of the

Dowling Report to Hinkson’s defense team in the second week of trial, the

Government failed to correct Swisher’s false testimony and false evidence that

had already been presented to the jury.

l. Court gives Jury “Limiting Instruction” as an attempt to Cover Up

Swisher Lies. The Court, in an attempt to cover up the effect that Swisher’s

lies had on the jury as to his Korean military combat experience eventually

14 See Ex B-1, Aff. Towerton ¶ 16; and Ex A-2, Aff. Hinkson ¶ 72.

15 See Ex B-5, Dowling Report of December 30, 2004 (issued four business days before Hinkson’s 2005 trial.)

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 10 of 78

gave the jury a limiting instruction16 and told them to “disregard” all

testimony concerning the Purple Heart and commendations, which by no

means undid or reversed the damage from the Government’s vouching for

Swisher as a combat veteran from Korea, nor did it negate the effect of the

other false testimony and evidence presented. The limiting instruction failed to

point out the untruthfulness of the entire “Swisher Story” and it specifically

allowed the jury to consider Swisher’s testimony on direct examination where

Swisher had falsely testified, as follows:

[Prosecutor Sullivan] Q: “Did Hinkson ever ask you about your service in the Armed Forces?

[Swisher] A: “Yes.”

[Sullivan

]

Q: “What branch did you serve in?”

A: “United States Marine Corps.”

Q: “Did you ever discuss that with Mr. Hinkson?”

A: “Yes.”

Q: “And what was the nature of your discussion with him?”

A: “He [Hinkson] asked if I had served in any combat situations. I explained – or told

him, “Yes.”

Q: “What else did he ask you about combat situations?”

A: “He asked if I had ever killed anyone.”

Q: “What did you say?”

A: “I told him, ‘Yes.’ He asked, ‘How many?’ I told him, “Too many.”

(Emphasis added.) (Tr. pg. 988 lns. 12-25 and 989 lns. 1-6)

To be clear, the prosecution brought up and discussed “combat” with Swisher on direct.

In this segment of direct testimony, Swisher ratified the Government’s theory that he was

a combat soldier. The prosecution represented to the jury in its opening statement that

Swisher was a “veteran” from “Korean combat.” Thus, Swisher’s direct testimony

ratified the prosecution’s statement and expanded on it by claiming that he had, prior to

being solicited by Hinkson, informed him that he had killed “many” in combat; which we

now know, unequivocally, was a blatant lie. Thus, the limiting instruction was ineffective

on its face because it did not deal with Swisher’s direct examination testimony or any

other false Swisher-testimony that also supported false evidence as well as fake-facts

relied upon by the Government in presenting its theory of the case to the jury.

m. Swisher’s Forging of his DD-214 (Military Discharge Document)

Officially Confirmed. During trial there were two official letters presented

that showed Swisher’s military claims were fraudulent, the ‘Dowling’ (Ex B-

5) and ‘Tolbert’ (Ex B-11) letters. In addition, after the verdict in the Hinkson

16 The trial court’s limiting instruction: THE COURT: “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s been a long day; and I now

realize that I made a mistake in allowing the questioning with regard to the Purple Heart Medal. So I am going to

instruct you to disregard completely all of Mr. Swisher’s testimony with regard to that military commendation. You

certainly are entitle to consider all of the rest of his testimony. Just everything from where I (sic) asked Mr. Nolan to

re-open, please strike that from your minds; and you are not to consider it as evidence in the case.” (Tr. 1131, 23-25

and 1132, 1-9.)

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 11 of 78

case was rendered, Hinkson submitted a Motion for New Trial to which an

affidavit from Chief Warrant Officer, W. E. Miller was attached (see Aff.

“CWO Miller,” Ex B-9). Miller was the individual at the National Personnel

Records Center charged with determining the authenticity of military

documents submitted by veterans, such as Swisher’s “replacement DD-214.”

CWO Miller’s Affidavit (Ex B-9) explains in detail why the Swisher

“replacement DD-214” was a forgery and why Swisher’s tale of serving in

combat in Korea and receiving war wounds as presenting to the jury was

fraudulent.

n. Hinkson’s Motion for New Trial Denied by Judge Tallman Despite Undisputed

Evidence that Swisher was a Liar and a Forger. The case law requires a new trial if

the false testimony and evidence used to convict a defendant was not corrected.17 But,

Judge Tallman, who participated in the Hayes decision (fn 17) denied Hinkson a new

trial.

17. Lack of Unobstructed Procedural Shot. Hinkson has never had an unobstructed

‘procedural shot’ at presenting his actual innocence claim, which was ignored when his

§2255 Habeas Petition was considered in 2012 by Judge Tallman. No opinion was

rendered applying the doctrines necessary to have a complete adjudication under the

actual innocence doctrine and the cumulative effect doctrine, nor did Judge Tallman enter

a ruling concerning the effect that correcting Swisher’s false testimony would have had

on the jury (because he did not recognize Swisher’s testimony as false, in fact, throughout

the trial, Judge Tallman continually made his personal views known, that he believed the

Swisher Story was trur, that Swisher was a combat veteran who served in Korea). Further,

Judge Tallman revealed judicial bias (see ¶ 13 above) by reflecting his deep-seated

antagonism toward Hinkson which obstructed his Constitutional right to procedural and

substantive due process. Judge Tallman also disregarded the Ninth Circuit standard set for

the materiality of the false testimony and his own higher standard for materiality18

because, by either standard, the false evidence met the materiality test and it was

imperative that it be corrected.

18. No Reasonable Juror Would Have Convicted. Reducing the above to its essence, the

cumulative effect doctrine is essential to Hinkson’s claim of actual innocence, which is that

no reasonable juror would have convicted him based on the “Swisher Story” if all the

17 Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28, 32 (1957) constitutional due process requires a prosecutor to correct false

evidence when it appears; see Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2005) the Government violates

constitutional due process when, although not soliciting false evidence, it allows false evidence to go uncorrected

when it appears.

18 Hayes v. Brown at 979 (9th Cir. 2005) see also Judge Tallman’s dissent on materiality; where the Tallman dissent

in Hayes suggests a different materiality test be applied than the one used by the majority in Hayes, which is, despite

the false evidence, did the defendant receive a fair trial and was the verdict worthy of confidence. Hayes, at 989-90.

The facts in this Affidavit demonstrate that Hinkson did not receive a fair trial, which eliminates the first prong of

the Tallman analysis. To satisfy the second prong, Judge Tallman would have the reviewing court ask the question

whether, in the context of all the evidence, there was a reasonable likelihood that the false evidence could have

affected the jury’s judgment. (Id.) In the Hinkson case, the Affidavit of Ben Casey (Ex A-8) shows empirically that

the jury’s verdict would have been different if the false evidence about Swisher’s military history had been

corrected. Thus, using Judge Tallman’s higher standard, the evidence presented in this Affidavit is material and

supports Hinkson’s contention that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 12 of 78

evidence had been considered, and the false evidence contained therein had been corrected

by the prosecution during the trial. Although the Government did not elicit the dozen lies

from Swisher on direct examination (for the dozen lies, see ¶22(d), which came out on cross

examination), the prosecution opened the door by vouching for his credibility based on

military service in Korea as presented in its opening statement (see ¶22(a)). Then on direct

examination the prosecutor asked about “combat” and Swisher testified that he had

previously informed Hinkson about killing “many” in combat (see ¶16(l)). The objective

reviewer now sees that Swisher’s criminal conviction proved he was never in combat. Under

US Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law, the prosecution had a duty to correct the false

testimony from its own witness whether or not the dozen lies were elicited by the prosecution

or not (see fn 17 “…the Government violates constitutional due process when, although not

soliciting false evidence, it allows false evidence to go uncorrected when it appears”).

19. Swisher’s Lies Inextricably Connected to the Government’s Case. Swisher’s lies about

his military valor were inextricably connected to the Government’s case, as was

demonstrated when the prosecution vouched for Swisher as a Korean combat veteran in its

Opening Statement. We know now, as the prosecution knew then, that the opening statement

was based on a complete falsehood (see fn 12 and ¶ 22(a) below). Given that Swisher was (a)

vouched for by the prosecution in its opening statement, (b) wore a Purple Heart medallion (a

crime) throughout his testimony asserting that he was a wounded veteran of a foreign war, (c)

testified he told Hinkson he killed “many” in combat in his direct examination, (d) told the

jury a dozen lies (see ¶ 22(d)) about a secret mission that never occurred, (e) presented a

forged DD-214 (Government document) and (f) informed the jury the forged document was

‘certified’ by the Commandant’s Office of the US Marine Corps in Washington D.C., a mere

limiting instruction (see fn 16) from the court to “disregard” the testimony about the Purple

Heart and commendations was not enough to wash the effect from the juror’s minds as

proven by juror Ben Casey (see Ex A-8). Both the US Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit

Court held that justice demands that the prosecution must correct false evidence (see fn 17

and 18).

II. OVERVIEW AND COMPREHENSIVE

STATEMENT

20. New Evidence. The new evidence supporting this §2241 Habeas Petition is Swisher’s

2008 conviction for perjury, forgery, theft and stolen valor, establishing that Swisher lied

under oath, pretending to be a wounded and disabled veteran from post-War combat in

Korea on a secret mission to rescue American POWs in order to obtain over $150,000 in

Veteran’s Administration medical and disability benefits to which he was not entitled.

a. Credibility Based on Lies Used to Convict Swisher. Using the same lies

that he used in the VA case, Swisher established virtually unassailable

credibility as a Korean combat hero in the eyes of Hinkson’s 2005 jury. The

full extent of Swisher’s lies are set forth in ¶ 22(d) below. Since Swisher was

subsequently convicted of perjury for testifying as to these same lies, it is

important to chronicle them for the objective reviewer in this Affidavit. In

order to view the cumulative effect of all the evidence, whether previously

excluded, actually presented or new evidence that has not yet been considered

to see whether Hinkson meets the Alaimalo standard that no reasonable juror

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 13 of 78

would have convicted him based on a full account of the “Swisher Story;”

provided the false evidence is corrected (see fn 17 and 18) it is necessary to

look at all of the available evidence.

b. Limiting Instruction Not Enough. Further, as detailed in ¶ 19 above,

Swisher’s lies were inextricably connected to the Government’s case, and

given his direct testimony about killing “many” in combat and illegally

wearing a Purple Heart medallion throughout the entire time he presented

himself before the Hinkson jury, a mere limiting instruction to simply

“disregard” the testimony regarding military commendations (see fn 16) was

not enough to wash the effect of Swisher’s lies about being in combat in

Korea from the juror’s minds (see Aff. Casey, Ex A-8).

c. Swisher Violated Criminal Law. The wearing of the Purple Heart, combined

with Swisher’s tale that he had previously informed Hinkson he had killed

“many” in combat (see ¶ 16(l)) as a part of his falsified military career,

together with his forged ‘replacement DD-214’ and the dozen lies Swisher

told about his fabricated military history were each separate criminal law

violations that needed to be corrected by the prosecution (see fn 17) to take

away the effect that the false testimony had on the jury, rather than merely

relying upon a inadequate limiting instruction (see fn 16) that only requested

the jury “disregard” part of the offending litany of falsehoods. A full statement

as to what the jury must consider as false testimony was needed.

d. Courtroom Became a Crime Scene. Swisher’s wearing of a Purple Heart violated 18

USC §704(a) and was a crime, known as stolen valor. It along with all of his other lies

constituted felony perjury before a federal tribunal under 18 USC §1621. The

“replacement DD-214” was the felony crime of forgery. Swisher’s law violations

converted the Courtroom into a crime scene. Swisher’s claim to have killed “many” in

combat violated 18 USC 1515(a)(3)(A) knowingly making a false statement; submitting

his “replacement DD-214” violated subsection (C) of 1515(a)(3) as knowingly submitting

a writing that is forged. The prosecutor’s opening statement violated 18 USC 1515(a)(3)

(A) and the statement by Swisher that his “replacement DD-214” had been “certified by

the Commandant’s Office” of the USMC in Washington D.C. when it had not, was

perjury under 18 USC §1621. It was prosecutorial misconduct for AUSA Sullivan to

claim later in the proceeding that he never raised “combat” on Swisher’s direct, which

was a lie (compare Tr. 988, ln 25 Sullivan in a direct examination question to Swisher:

“Sullivan Q: What else did he ask you about combat situations”; then, said Sullivan to the

Court, at Tr. 1114, ll 21-22: “The Government never went in on its direct about …

combat”). (Emphasis added).

e. Swisher, as the Government’s Star Witness, Subsequently Went to Prison for

Perjury, Forgery, Theft and Stolen Valor, all part of Falsely Testifying to the VA of

the Same Fake Heroic Military History Presented to the Hinkson Jury. In 2008,

Swisher was convicted of perjury, forgery, theft of VA medical and disability benefits19

and stolen valor and went to prison for telling the same lies used in the Hinkson trial, to

19 US v. Swisher, 760 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Idaho 2011) see also 360 Fed. Appx. 784 (9th Cir. 2009).

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 14 of 78

the ALJ at the VA Disability Benefits Hearing. (See ¶ 22(d).) The lies he told to the

Hinkson jury, were buttressed by the prosecutor’s vouching20 based on the prosecutor’s

claim that Swisher was a Korean combat veteran. In so doing, the prosecution lent its

prestige to enhance Swisher’s credibility by clothing him as a military combat hero. Once

on the pedestal of a military combat hero, Swisher’s tale of supposedly being solicited by

Hinkson to torture-murder the Designated Federal Officials was virtually impossible to

rebut, that is until the fraudulent ‘cloak’ of a military hero could be removed and the false

testimony corrected.

f. Fraud Permeated the Government’s Case. By relying upon Swisher as the sole

source of all information regarding the Swisher Counts (alleging Hinkson’s

solicitation of torture-murder of federal officials) the Government allowed fraud to

permeate its case; which fraud has now been conclusively proven by Swisher’s 2008

conviction; i.e., the new evidence.

g. Cumulative Evidence Presented in this Affidavit. Facts are presented in this Affidavit

regarding the prosecution’s theory that were either (a) not available to the Hinkson petit

jury; (b) available but excluded at trial; or (c) have come to light since the 2005 verdict,

all of which bear upon Hinkson’s claim for Habeas relief under the actual innocence

doctrine of 28 USC §2241. Under the Cumulative Error Doctrine in the context of a

§2241 proceeding, a reviewing court looks at all evidence, whether admitted or not, and

the effect of all rulings that frustrated efforts to develop a defense through exculpatory

evidence; basically, anything that could have been raised to discern if multiple errors

accumulated to deprive a defendant of a Constitutionally fair trial.21

e Government’s Theory in Prosecuting Hinkson Required Eight Fundamental

Elements. The Government’s theory of the case with regard to the “Swisher Counts”

rested on the jury trusting and believing the following eight fundamental facts. (If one

had been disproven, it is likely the prosecution would fail, because the basis of Swisher’s

murder solicitation allegation was ‘wafer-thin.’)

i. Profiling. Hinkson needed to fit the profile of a violent ‘mastermind’

soliciting the murder of many people;

ii. Credibility. Swisher needed to be viewed as credible based on his heroic

military history;

iii. Opportunity. Swisher needed to show he had the opportunity to be solicited by

Hinkson in a close, personal relationship as a “best friend;”

iv. Experience: Swisher needed to be perceived by the jury as ‘experienced,’

having killed “many” in combat and having conveyed that message

to Hinkson;

v. Ability: Swisher had to possess the ability to perform as a ‘hit-man based

on strength, health and stamina;

20 US. v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1539 (9th Cir. 1988) Vouching places the prestige of the Government behind a

witness through personal assurances by the prosecution of the witness’ veracity and is considered to be prosecutorial

misconduct. US v. Weatherspoon , 410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005)

21 Chambers v. Miss., 410 US 287, 302-03 (1973); Perle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2007); and see Killian v.

Poole, 282 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2002) “Even if no single error were prejudicial, where there are several substantial

errors, their cumulative effect may nevertheless be so prejudicial as to require reversal.”

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 15 of 78

vi. Compensation: Swisher had to have been (or was to be) compensated by Hinkson

for torture- murdering various people;

vii. Motive: Hinkson had to have a motive to want his “tormentors” torturemurdered;

and

viii. Solicitation: Hinkson’s solicitation of Swisher had to occur at a certain time

and place.

21. Element 1 –Profiling – Preface - Definition of Terms:

A. Violent Mastermind. Below is a table showing the names of the confidential

informants used to accuse Hinkson of murder-for-hire. On seven occasions, Hinkson,

a non-violent person (per USP Atwater Threat-level Assessment, ¶ 15, above) was

accused of plotting to murder others. It was essential to the Government’s case to

create for the jury a picture of a mastermind, repeatedly plotting the violent death of

others in order for Swisher’s accusation to be believed by the Hinkson jury. The

objective followed the old adage, ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’ The

Government’s approach by sponsoring seven CI’s, created enough complexity and

confusion that it would be difficult to unravel all the accusations. By blaming

Hinkson for multiple murder for hire plots, it was the Government’s plan that a jury

would likely pick at least one and convict. Some of the plots fell short of

prosecutorial indictment standards and had to be abandoned. Others, were part of the

Indictment but dismissed. One became F.R.E. 404(b) evidence at trial. Swishers

accusation involving the Designated Federal Officials formed the basis for Hinkson’s

conviction in the Solicitation Case. It was the FBI’s modus operandi to paint Hinkson

as a violent mastermind killer in enough murder-for-hire schemes that it improved the

odds of a conviction. All but the Swisher Counts were proven false.

B. Six Times Hinkson was Proven Actually Innocent. Hinkson’s actual innocence was

proven six times in the seven ‘trumped-up’ schemes listed below (with the exception

of the Swisher Counts) all others were (a) proven to be false reports; (b) dismissed by

the Court; or (c) abandoned by the prosecution.

Confidential

Informant

Claim End Result of Accusations

1. Raff Murder-for-Hire, Pre-Indictment Fictitious Crime – Abandoned

2. Bates Murder-for-Hire, Two Counts Fictitious Crime – Dismissed

3. Harding Murder-for-Hire, Six Counts Fictitious Crime – Dismissed

4. Swisher Backwoods Shooter-Murder Contract False Report - Per Sheriff’s Investigation

5. Croner Jailhouse Murder-for-Hire Fictitious Crime – 404(b) Evid-Abandoned

6. Nicholai Jailhouse Murder-for-Hire Fictitious Crime – Abandoned

7. Swisher Torture Murder-for-Hire, Three Counts Convicted (Issue: Actual Innocence)

a. Raff Accusations. At the time I was retained as counsel for Hinkson in December 2003, he

was being held in federal custody on a detention order in the Tax Case, which was based on

murder-for-hire allegations raised by Confidential Informant Mariana Raff from Idaho

County in which she informed SA Long that Hinkson, while on a 2001 business trip to

Mexico, solicited her two brothers (who lived in Mexico) to murder federal officials in Idaho.

Ms. Raff (a repeat felony offender) claimed this incident to be a serious threat to the safety

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 16 of 78

and security of federal officials in Idaho because, as she supposedly put it, they, (her

brothers) had “done this before.”

i. No Investigation for 15 Months-Then Hinkson Cleared. SA Long did

not investigate Raff’s allegation for over a year22 which was

unreasonable, a dereliction of duty and leads the objective reviewer to

believe that if the threat had been legitimate, he would have

investigated it immediately to protect the federal officials who

allegedly were the target of the purported murder plot. The Raff

scheme was disproven when I called Raff’s brothers and discovered

they were credible business men, who were irate that their sister had

falsely accused them (they reported she was a known liar who

frequently contrived stories for her own personal financial advantage).

When they learned they were the target of an international terrorist

investigation, the Raff brothers stated that if FBI SA Long did not

immediately clear them of any wrong doing, they would seek a

diplomatic resolution of the matter. SA Long immediately cleared

them as suspects, which cleared Hinkson as a suspect, which he easily

could have done 15 months earlier.

ii. Raff’s False Accusations Caused 15 Month Incarceration. Ms. Raff

did not testify about the alleged plot at Hinkson’s detention hearing,

but rather, SA Long recounted the fabricated “Raff Story” and it was

the basis for Hinkson’s initial 15-month detention (which commenced

April 4, 2003 and continued until another detention order was entered

in the Hinkson Solicitation Case on July 7, 2004).

iii. Government Abandons Raff Accusations-Hinkson Actually Innocent.

Because the fraudulent story was eventually discredited and

abandoned by the Government. It was not used as a Count in the

Solicitation Case Superseding Indictment or brought up as 404(b)

evidence at the Hinkson Solicitation trial, which shows that the

Government knew that Hinkson was actually innocent of any

wrongdoing in reference to Ms. Raff’s accusations.

b. Bates and Harding Accusations. It is significant the Ann Bates and J.C. Harding’s false

accusations made up eight of the eleven Counts of Hinkson’s Superseding Indictment but all

22 SA Long has never explained the delay that lasted over a year in investigating the Raff Story, but if he truly

suspected Ms. Raff’s Mexican-national brothers of having “done this before” he should not have waited to find out

because there were unsolved murders of two Assistant US Attorneys pending at the time, one in Baltimore and one

in Seattle. As is turned out, Ms. Raff’s brothers had not recently traveled to America and were not and had not

previously been involved in international terrorism or the murder of federal officials and never had a conversation

with Hinkson about plotting to murder federal officials in Idaho. The only explanation is that the year plus delay in

investigating this crime is that it fulfilled the “agenda” of keeping Hinkson in pre-trial detention. For SA Long, not

investigating was supported by a commonly used government shield from taking responsibility known as: ‘plausible

deniability’…which means that, so long as he avoided doing the actual investigation, he could continue claiming

that the Raff Story presented a credible threat to federal officials and was a valid basis to keep Hinkson incarcerated,

then he could claim actual ignorance of the truth. Once he knew the truth, of course, he had to discredit, reject and

abandon the Raff Story as the basis for charging Hinkson because the Raff brothers proved the story was a fraud.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 17 of 78

were dismissed; again proving Hinkson’s actual innocence. Both Bates and Harding were

confidential informants whose handler was also SA Long, and both claimed that they were

witnesses to murder-solicitations by Hinkson when they were guests in his home for a short

period of time in the first quarter of 2003. Even though their ‘stories’ were similar to each

other in that they both alleged that they witnessed Hinkson offer money to kill federal

officials, their stories were inconsistent in several material respects and thus, the jury simply

did not believe them.

i. Hearsay, ‘He Said – She Said’ Accusations Insufficient. The collective common wisdom of

the jurors discerned that when the actus reus and mens rea were combined derived from

the same hearsay source, Bates and Harding, who lacked credibility and their stories were

inconsistent, the jury could not convict. When there was no corroboration that a crime

occurred, no physical body of a crime (no corpus delicti) and the only evidence of a

crime was the supposed hearsay statement by Hinkson’s words alone, that means in

technical terms the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime were merged. Harding’s

father came from Southern California to testify that his son was a chronic liar who could

not be believed as to anything he said and Bates changed her story making her

unbelievable. Because there was no independent corroboration and the credibility of

Bates and Harding as prosecution witnesses was the paramount deciding factor, the jury

could not convict on these eight Counts. Here, the jury recognized that when the

witnesses had no credibility and the entire case depended on what the witnesses recalled

of what the accused said, and their statements were inconsistent, there was no foundation

for a guilty verdict; hence, no guilty verdict was rendered on the eight Bates and Harding

Counts.

ii. Analogy to Swisher Counts. By analogy, no guilty verdict should have been entered with

regard to the Swisher Counts which presented the same scenario to the jury. The

difference was Swisher’s credibility as a “Super Hero” vouched for by the Government.

c. Swisher Accusations-“Backwoods” Shooting. Swisher’s claim made during trial that

Hinkson put out a “contract” to have some unknown person shoot him while he was at his

gold mine in the backwoods of Idaho (Tr.1069, ln. 12) was contemporaneously investigated

by Idaho County Sheriff’s Deputy Herbert Lindsey (now retired) who found it to be another

false report by Swisher (see Ex B-4) who had a long history of making false reports.23

23 Swisher’s History and Reputation as a Liar. Not only did Swisher lie to the Grand Jury, in 2002 stating that

he had been wounded as a US Marine combatant at the end of the Korean War (2002 Grand Jury: Answer: [Swisher]

“I’m an old disabled veteran and that was all caused by a hand grenade at the end of the Korean War.” (Swisher

grand jury testimony, April 16, 2002, pg. 4, lines 21-23.) Answer: [Swisher]: “... I guess that my lower spine from

the grenade is pretty fouled up....” (Swisher grand jury testimony, April 16, 2002, pg. 14, lines 22-23.) Swisher also

had a reputation in his community for being untruthful that spans a period of over 35 years. By 1997, when I left the

Idaho County Prosecutor’s Office, Swisher, who had lived in Idaho County for over 20 years at that point, was well

known among law enforcement personnel in Idaho County as a habitual liar who frequently made false reports to

authorities. Among many other things, he was known to have defrauded numerous doctors from California out of

hundreds of thousands of dollars of investments over a phony gold-rendering process that he invented; he had told

inconsistent stories about the disappearance of his gold-mining partner in the 1980s, whom Swisher said was “lost,”

possibly underground, which made him a person-of-interest, but since no body was ever found, the case did not

result in a criminal prosecution. By 2004, Swisher was generally regarded by his community as untruthful in

virtually all his dealings. He also was known as a child molester since the 1980 child-rape case involving his own

daughter and two step-daughters, who were all under the age of ten when violated. Swisher escaped conviction in

that case because, as attorney Dennis Albers, then the Idaho County Prosecutor, said to me, he was simply “chatting”

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 18 of 78

Deputy Lindsey said in his Affidavit, “[i]t was my opinion Swisher manufactured the whole

story.” (See Ex B-4, Affidavit of Deputy Lindsey.)

i. Swisher Gets Away with False Reports. I have observed over the years that Swisher often

used his influence with one branch of law enforcement for his own protection from

adverse action by another. In this instance, Swisher used the imprimatur of SA Long to

legitimize his false “backwoods shooter” report not prosecuted in Idaho County as false

reporting (Ex B-4)

ii. Investigation Shows False Report. Deputy Lindsey’s official incident report attached to

his Affidavit (Ex B-4) noted that while the event supposedly occurred on August 31,

2004, Swisher didn’t report it to the Idaho County Sheriff’s Office until a week later

(September 7, 2004) because, as Swisher stated, he needed to consult with SA Long in

the interim. Swisher blamed Hinkson, who was incarcerated at that time 200 miles away

in Boise under a detention order. It is obvious that Swisher concocted the story with the

assistance of his FBI handler. Deputy Lindsey made a finding that the incident was

baseless and it appeared that Swisher himself shot through the walls of his own metal

outhouse with a small caliber hand gun so that he could use a welder’s rod to fit through

the holes and establish the trajectory of the bullet. Swisher was then able to locate the

place where he (the shooter) stood when the trigger was pulled but there was no disturbed

ground, making it obvious to Deputy Lindsey that the shooting was self-inflicted. One of

Deputy Lindsey’s key issues was that Swisher had no concern for his safety, since

Swisher and his buddy who were at the gold mine were expecting their wives to arrive for

a social event that afternoon and Swisher had no safety plan to avoid being the target of a

repeat shooting. Logic would suggest that if someone was hired to shoot Swisher and

had missed him, that person might try again. Neither Swisher nor anyone else whose life

was threatened by a shooting would have waited until September 10, 2004 to meet with

local law enforcement regarding such a murder-attempt, making this incident another

example of Swisher getting away with making a false report to the authorities. It also

stands as another instance of Hinkson being actually innocent.

d. Croner’s Accusations. The evidence is clear that, shortly before the Hinkson

trial, the FBI concocted the Croner ‘jailhouse murder-for-hire plot’ which was

refuted by four eye witnesses. Again this was an attempt to promote a violent

profile for Hinkson. It was a “late-breaking” accusation and came

immediately before trial, involving yet another unfounded, illogical and

fabricated murder-for-hire plot. For this purpose, the FBI engaged the services

of Chad Croner (a felon looking for a ‘break’ for himself and his mother, both

of whom had pending criminal charges) who happened to have been an inmate

at the Ada County Jail, in Boise, Idaho at the same time as Hinkson.

i. Witnesses Proved No Solicitation Occurred. The “story” was that

Hinkson solicited Croner, who was his cellmate, to murder a list of

people. The allegation was immediately rebutted by the four other

cellmates that were housed in the six-person cell, who provided their

statements and affidavits showing that Hinkson spoke with Croner

with one of the jurors in the court hallway during a trial recess, which caused a mistrial. After the mistrial, Albers,

who was reprimanded by Idaho’s Supreme Court for jury tampering, never re-set the case against Swisher for a new

trial date, which means Swisher got off scot-free.

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 19 of 78

only once in the few days Croner was placed in the cell, and only had a

brief discussion with Hinkson regarding a tax-related matter. The

third-party witnesses testified that there were no other conversations

between Hinkson and Croner.

ii. Witnesses Observed Everything. They stated that the rest of the time

Croner was in the cell that he sat ‘cross-legged’ on one of the upper

bunks, staring across the room and spoke to no one, and that because

they were in such close quarters (three bunk beds in one small cell)

they could at all times overhear the conversations between any of the

six cellmates. They specified that neither Croner nor Hinkson ever

talked about killing anyone or about murder-for-hire, and if it had of

happened, they would have heard it and stopped it immediately

because of their fear of being implicated as accessories. The thirdparty

witnesses also reported that the FBI pulled Croner out of the cell

regularly during that period to talk to him (giving the impression they

were “up” to something.)

iii. Croner’s Testimony Worthless. While the Government presented

Croner as a 404(b) witness of Hinkson’s “other bad acts” at his 2005

trial, his testimony was worthless because of (a) the testimony of the

other four cell-mate witnesses; and (b) because a venirman in the

original jury pool who was from Croner’s hometown, who recognized

his name when the witness list was read, and although that prospective

juror was excused, he came back to testify that Croner was known in

their small community as a liar an nothing he said could ever be

believed. The Croner story is another example of Hinkson being

actually innocent.

e. Nicolai Accusations. Because I was able to obtain statements and affidavits

from the third-party witnesses who debunked the Croner accusations, the

Government went to one of them, Frank Nicolai and had him accuse Hinkson

of plotting to murder 23 people on a list, one of whom was Judge Tallman, the

sitting judge. Nicolai eventually recanted his statement, but it raised conflict

of interest issues. The statement was a bit garbled, but implied that I, as

Hinkson’s attorney, plotted with my client and Nicolai for the murder of the

people named. Even though this was a false accusation, I filed a Motion to

Withdraw as counsel. Judge Tallman entered findings that neither he nor the

Government ever believed the allegations were true, but that as a result of

those allegations, the Court found that I had an irreconcilable conflict of

interest with my client and new counsel substituted into the case. (See Ex B-

14). These accusations were abandoned which is another example of

Hinkson’s actual innocence.

f. Failure to Show Hinkson was a Violent Mastermind. In summary, the

Government failed miserably in its attempt to profile Hinkson as a violent

mastermind of murder because of multiple other accusations, all of which

were shown to be false and fictitious crimes and can be seen in retrospect as

evidence of a pattern by the Government to repeatedly falsely accuse Hinkson

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 20 of 78

when he was actually innocent. It also shows that the Government uses illegal

methods to remove from a case an attorney who sees through their false

accusations and is willing to call them on their unlawful activities; i.e.,

governmental misconduct.

22. Element 2 – Credibility – The essence of Swisher’s claim to credibility was military valor

that elevated his credibility to the level of a “Super-Hero;” as one presumed to be above lying,

deceit and deception. Swisher’s heightened credibility came from vouching by the prosecution.

a. Swisher Story. Swisher concocted an elaborate false

tale of being a Korean combat veteran which was

supported and vouched for by the prosecution in its

Opening Statement; “Swisher Story.” The Swisher

Story solidified him as a credible witness, and in

essence, put him on a ‘pedestal’, which resulted in the

jury believing whatever he had to say about Hinkson

soliciting him to murder the Designated Federal

Officials.

b. Conviction would have Defeated Swisher Story.

Swisher’s 2008 conviction for perjury, forgery, stolenvalor

and for theft of benefits from the Veteran’s

Administration should have eliminated any reliability

that Swisher’s trial testimony would have had against

Hinkson when he used the same “Story” as in the VA

case. The story against Hinkson unfolded in four steps:

i. Step 1: the Government vouched for Swisher during its opening statement when it said,

“Mr Swisher…was…a Combat Veteran from Korea during the Korean conflict [Korean

War].” (Emphasis Supplied.) (See Ex B-3, Prosecutor’s Opening Statement, 2005 Trial

Tr. Pg. 291, lns. 16-17).

[Counterpoint: Even though the prosecution became aware, during trial, of official

Government-issued letters24 proving that its three above statements were false (i.e.,

Swisher had never been in ‘combat,’ never went to Korea, thus was not a ‘veteran from

Korea’ and never served in Korea ‘during the Korean conflict’) the prosecution failed to

correct its false statements during trial. If there was any doubt about the falsity of these

statements, Swisher’s 2008 conviction (fn 21) absolutely proved these three statements

were lies.]

ii. Step 2: During his direct testimony, Swisher stated he had told

Hinkson that he had killed “many” while in combat (see ¶ 16(l)),

which, under the prosecution’s theory, was Hinkson’s basis for

selecting Swisher as a ‘hit-man.’ We know that the prosecution was

aware, at least by the middle of Hinkson’s trial, based on the two

Government-issued letters (fn 3) that Swisher had never seen combat,

nor had he ever gone to Korea, and he did not serve in the Korean

24 The two Government issued letters that came to light during trial are: the “Tolbert Letter” (Ex B-11) and the

“Dowling Report” (Ex B-5).

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 21 of 78

conflict. The prosecution also knew that Swisher lied to the 2002

Grand Jury testifying that he had been injured “at the end of the

Korean War”25 when he had not. However, in order to perpetuate the

prosecution’s theory, Swisher told the 2005 Hinkson jury that he had

previously informed Hinkson, that he had killed “many” people in

“combat,” when he had never been in combat or in Korea. (One may

ask how the jury could discern the truth, if the prosecution’s case was

based ‘one lie upon another.’ Hinkson’s testimony was that he did not

hear of, or know about, Swisher’s (supposed) military history until his

2005 trial, see Hinkson Aff. Ex A-2, ¶ 33.) Therefore, not only was

Swisher lying about his secret mission rescue POWs in Korea, it

follows that he also lied about having told Hinkson he had killed

“many” in combat, because he never was in combat. The prosecution

expected Swisher to be believed when he said he told Hinkson he

killed “many” in combat, when it became apparent that Swisher lied

about being in combat and the prosecution then took the position that it

didn’t matter whether Swisher lied about his military history, its what

Hinkson thought about his military history that counts.

[Counterpoint: if the jury had been told the truth that Swisher was never in Korea and

never in combat and never killed anyone in a military battle, then the jury likely would

have concluded that his trial testimony was full of lies about his military career and likely

was full of lies about the murder-for-hire solicitation. The credibility of both witnesses,

Swisher and Hinkson, was crucial to the outcome of this case, and the jury only heard it

through the lense of Swisher’s elevated status, as promoted by the prosecution. Swisher

prevailed because he had been ‘cloaked’ with the “Super-Hero” status by the prosecution,

which raised the reliability of his testimony several notches above Hinkson. Had the

prosecution corrected the false testimony, as it is required to do by US Supreme Court

and Ninth Circuit law (see fn 17), Swisher would have been exposed as a liar and it

would have been, more likely than not, that no reasonable juror, possessed of all the facts

would have convicted Hinkson.]

iii. Step 3: Swisher elevated his credibility even further and perpetuated

his image as a wounded “veteran from the Korean conflict” by

wearing the Purple Heart medallion, which constantly testified to the

jury as he was on the witness stand that he was a wounded veteran

from a declared foreign war. Swisher committed a crime by wearing it

on the lapel of his black leather coat on the witness stand (with a white

background and purple coloring, it stood out like a neon sign, and was

a crime in violation of 18 USC §704(a)). If he had been in the Korean

War and had been injured in battle (as he said he was in his 2002

Grand Jury testimony, see fn 34) he would have been entitled to wear

25 Swisher lied to the Grand Jury, in 2002 stating that he had been wounded as a US Marine combatant at the end

of the Korean War when he was age 15. Swisher (DOB 01-13-37): “I’m an old disabled veteran and that was all

caused by a hand grenade at the end of the Korean War.” (Swisher grand jury testimony, April 16, 2002, pg. 4, lines

21-23.) Answer: [Swisher]: “... I guess that my lower spine from the grenade is pretty fouled up....” (Swisher grand

jury testimony, April 16, 2002, pg. 14, lines 22-23.)

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 22 of 78

the Purple Heart (if actually awarded to him). When in trial, Swisher

changed his story from being in the Korean War (see ¶ 24, 2002 Grand

Jury) to being injured in a post-War mission (see ¶ 22(d)), he made

himself ineligible to wear the Purple Heart. Once he asserted that he

was on a post-War mission, he disqualified himself from entitlement to

wear the Purple Heart because the Purple Heart is only for individuals

who have been injured in an officially declared war and Swisher did

not enter the US Marine Corps until after the 1953 Armistice when the

Korean War was over (Swisher’s date of birth is January 13, 1937,

making him sixteen years old at the end of the Korean War).

[Counterpoint: From his colloquy with the trial court, AUSA Michael Sullivan, chief

prosecutor in the Hinkson Solicitation Case, said he knew that Swisher was wearing a

Purple Heart medallion prior to Swisher mounting the witness stand on January 14, 2005.

Because the prosecutor knew his witness was wearing the Purple Heart and knew he was

not claiming to be an actual Korean War veteran (because he had been forced to change

his story due to his age) then it was a double law violation for Swisher and the prosecutor

to enable Swisher to perpetuate the fraud, and for Swisher to have worn the medallion

illegally with the knowledge and consent of the prosecutor, as that was the crime of

Stolen Valor. Thus, prosecutor Sullivan was aiding and abetting this crime when he said

(on the record) that the Purple Heart medallion was “…a little…something stuck in his

lapel.” (Tr. pg 1115, lns 10-13.) Minimizing one of this nation’s greatest honors given to

a wounded veteran of a foreign war, he called it “a little..something stuck in his lapel.”

which was to say, ‘the Purple Heart is insignificant’ and ‘don’t look at what is really

going on here.’ It was an attempt to ‘cover-up’ a crime, and AUSA Sullivan was an

accessory before, during and after the fact.]

iv. Step 4: While it is true Swisher did not testify about the Purple Heart

award on direct examination, he wore the Purple Heart which silently

conveyed a message of heroism and credibility while he testified

(prosecutor Sullivan made the following false statement: “The

Government never went in on its direct about winning medals or

combat.” Tr. 1114, lns. 21-22. It was the “or combat” that was a direct

misrepresentation, because the record is absolutely clear that the

Government asked Swisher about what “combat situations” were

talked over with Hinkson, this was the question and answer:

Sullivan Q: “What else did he ask you about combat situations?”

A: “He asked if I had ever killed anyone.”

Q: “What did you say?”

A: “I told him, ‘Yes.’ He asked, ‘How many?’ I told him, “Too many.”

(Emphasis added.) (Tr. pg. 988 lns.19-25 and 989 lns.1-6).

c. Forged Document Authorized Swisher to Wear Purple Heart. Swisher’s testimony that he

had killed “many” in combat on the Government’s direct examination was a lie, because he

was never in combat. On cross-examination, when Swisher (falsely) testified that he was

authorized to wear the Purple Heart, he simultaneously pulled from his pocket a forged

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 23 of 78

government document as “proof that he was entitled to wear it” (i.e., his (so-called)

“replacement DD-214”, his discharge paper). When questioned about his document, he

proceeded to tell a dozen lies.

d. Swisher’s Dozen Lies. Swisher then proceeded to perjurer himself further by telling

the following dozen lies about his fictitious military history:

(1) that he had authority to wear a Purple Heart medallion [false] (id., Tr. Pg. 1115, lns. 7-

9);

(2) that he had earned the right to wear a Purple Heart while serving in Korea [false] (id.

Pg. 1116, lns. 16-25 and Pg. 1117, ln. 1);

(3) that he served in combat, not during the Korean War (contrary to his testimony before

the 2002 Grand Jury) but following the Korean War [false] (id. pg. 1117, lns. 2-4);

(4) that he had been engaged in the field of battle as a part of a special Marine Corps

expeditionary unit [false] (id. pg. lns. 6-7 and 10-11);

(5) that the combat he engaged in was after the Armistice [false] (id. pg. 1117, ln. 12);

(6) that he was on a secret mission to free POWs in secret prison camps in North Korea

[false] (id. pg. 1117, ln. 13);

(7) that the information regarding his secret mission remains classified [false] (id. pg.

1117, lns. 14-15);

(8) that when he was awarded the Purple Heart and was also given a document reflecting

his entitlement to wear that Purple Heart [false] (id. pg. 1118, lns. 13-18);

(9) that he had a valid document entitling him to wear the Purple Hear in his pocket

[false] (id. pg. 1118, lns. 19-20);

(10) that the document produced from his pocket was an authentic [although proven to be

a forgery] official U.S. Government document, which he called a “replacement DD-

214”(id. pg. 1118, lns. 21-22);

(11) that the document produced from his pocket had an Idaho County certification on it,

but Swisher insisted it was certified as authentic by the Commandant’s Office of the U.S.

Marine Corps in Washington D.C., [false] (id. Pg. 1118, lns. 25, Pg. 1119, ln. 1); and

(12) that because of the classification of his official military record, along with the other

purported survivors of that mission, all records had “pretty much been purged;” [when no

such records existed in the first place] (id. Pg. 1119, lns. 2-4). (See Ex B-7 from 2005

Trial, excerpt of trial record pgs. 1116-1119.)

e. Forged Document Part of Government’s Case. The four steps mentioned above

made Swisher’s lies and forgery an integral part of the Government’s theory of the

case, which was that Hinkson had decided to hire Swisher (who purportedly was his

“best friend” (see “Element Two: Opportunity” ¶ 23) to commit a series of torturemurders

because Swisher had “done this before” (that is, Swisher had been in combat

and killed “many” human beings previously, and therefore, the Government presumed

that Hinkson believed that such experience would cause him to be willing to kill

others for money).

f. Limiting Instruction Ineffective as to the Dozen Lies. Because these falsehoods

were inextricably connected to each other, and also inextricably connected to the

Government’s theory of the case, merely telling the jury to “disregard” part of

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 24 of 78

Swisher’s lies in the limiting instruction was ineffective because it could not erase

from the juror’s minds the overwhelming effect of Swisher’s false testimony that

Hinkson was a ‘mastermind’ who arranged for the torture-murder of other people.

Even if the limiting instruction had been comprehensive (which it was not, it

specifically gave the jury permission to consider the rest of Swisher’s testimony,

including his lies on the Government’s direct such as killing “many” in combat) there

was no way that the limiting instruction could “un-ring the bell;” i.e., once the jury

heard all of Swisher lies in the context of his claims of heroism there is no way they

could “disregard” it as seen in the Affidavit of juror Ben Casey (see Ex A-8).

g. Court Compounded the Felony. The limiting instruction actually compounded the

felony committed by Swisher, because it covered up Swisher’s false statements with

what appeared to be officialism, and did not bring to light the fact that Swisher had

never set foot in Korea, had never been in combat anywhere, had not killed anyone

during his military service, and in fact, had lied about all of this to the jury. In

addition, the forged government document (‘replacement DD-214’) was false

evidence and Swisher falsely claimed it had been certified by the USMC. The

limiting instruction did not deal with these lies. The objective observer would ask,

what was the jury supposed to believe if everything Swisher said was untrue?

h. Government Finally Admits Swisher was Lying. The Government (at the Ninth

Circuit en banc oral argument hearing in 2009 on the Hinkson Appeal, after Swisher’s

2008 conviction) conceded that it knew the truth, that Swisher was never deployed to

Korea and never served in combat and was never on a secret mission, was never

wounded and never received any awards and that the Government never informed

Hinkon’s jury of this. The question in retrospect concerns what form the corrective

‘statement should have been given and how should it have informed the jury of the

truth that Swisher was never in Korea, or never in combat or never decorated for

valor? The Government’s statement to the Ninth Circuit would have been a good

start as to what should have been told to the Hinkson petit jury.

i. What Should have been Disclosed to the Jury? Swisher lied under oath to the 2002

Grand Jury, the 2004 Grand Jury as well as to the Hinkson petit jury in 2005. Should

the advisement to the jury also have included a statement that the prosecution offered

false information in its Opening Statement? (See ¶ 22(a) “Step 1”.) The answer is

that, according to the case law, both were necessary, and a reviewing court needs to

determine if these false statements violated Hinkson’s constitutional due process

rights and whether the falsehoods were material.26 Hinkson’s position is that these

falsehoods were material as they affected the outcome of the case, and if exposed, it is

more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have voted to convict Hinkson.

j. Credibility of the Witnesses. Once the high level of credibility had been ascribed to

Swisher, it was easy for the jury to believe the gruesome tale that Hinkson solicited

Swisher to torture-murder various people.27 However, had they been told the truth

26 Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 985-86 (9th Cir. 2005) and Judge Tallman’s dissent on materiality at 977 (see fn

18).

27 Swisher testified: "He [Hinkson] would like to see them stripped, bound and gagged, and then burned with

Affidavit of Wesley W. Hoyt Re: Hinkson 28 USC §2241 Petition For Habeas Corpus Page 25 of 78

about Swisher’s lies, the playing field would have been leveled so that Hinkson’s

denial of soliciting murder and of ever having attended any meetings where murder

solicitation was discussed, coupled with Hinkson’s explanation as to his whereabouts

(out of Idaho, out of the USA) at the appointed times would likely have been given

equal weight and consideration by the jury. Further, had Hinkson’s United States

Passport been allowed into evidence, Hinkson’s creditiblity and truthfulness would

have been established as it related to his whereabouts.

23. Element 3 – Opportunity – The essence of Swisher’s assertion that he had the

“opportunity” for confidential communications with Hinkson regarding his supposed desire to

murder others was his claim of being “best friends” which justified access to Hinkson’s private

office and gave Swisher insight into Hinkson’s innermost thoughts and feeli

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

ReplyReply allForward

The "Strawman"

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:44:00 -0700

While working to defend myself from a criminal charge, (see my last post on "The Power of an Emergency") I have delved deeply into law. On one great website I found (https://youarelaw.org), I got back into the strawman issue. This video explains it better than I have ever heard it explained in the past and proposes a process better than I have ever heard of in the past as well.
I have been aware of this idea for over 20 years but have never pulled the trigger and I have many good reasons for not doing this... but I digress....

What IS this STRAWMAN?

Watch the video for a really good deep explanation.
But the simple one is....

The STRAWMAN is a method of theft used prior to the advent of the FED.

Yup. That's all it is.

How it works is, they take you and create a legal fiction from your Certificate of Live Birth called your Birth Certificate. Yes these are two separate things. You get the Birth Certificate you THINK is yours but it's something generated by the state before you are even born these days.

Its a way of allowing you to participate in commerce.

Ah yes, that little hole in the
Constitution for the united states of America
that the Pennsylvania Minority Report
noted before the ink was even dry.

I have a strong feeling that this whole
commerce scam
was in the works when the Constitution
was written but couldn't be implemented
till after the Civil War.

Your fake self is a "Transmitting Utility" into commerce.

Then your Certificate of Live Birth is used to create a bond which holds your physical person as collateral (called surety in the bond world) and from that they hypothicate all the fake money (I.O.U.s) from that bond to profit the government or whoever is behind this.

All kinds of government entities like the DMV, Banks, Credit Unions, municipalities, courts, etc. create or use variants of your name to create more bonds and create tons of fake money (FRNs) all based on your living person.
This effectively makes you a debtor slave so they can legally counterfeit all the FRN's they want to against your pitiful body.
(I'm not sure how they did it prior to the FED though - it just created some form of credit the elites could use to further enslave us.)

Now some people have tried to get their hands onto this mechanism to help themselves, and such a thing would seem righteous on the surface -

"Hey it's my body and I'll use it's bond if I want to!"

(Nice lyric!)

But after thinking about this for a bit, I realized the whole thing is a trap. This whole STRAWMAN mechanism is just another mechanism for theft. It's no different than the FED. Do you really want to break God's law (Thou shalt not Steal) so you can clear your mortgage or get out of a lawsuit or whatever? Yes its all a scam but are you sure you want to join it?

I am still considering using this to free myself from a victim-less crime action, but I am hesitant to do so. God IS my protection and my inheritance. Do I really think I am smart enough to use Satan's own system against him? (No)

But a nice private letter to the Judge telling him I know about this stuff could help and the nice term subrogation seems like a legit way to solve the problem. (Yes I am on the fence on this)

Anyway, realize this: The last commandment is "Thou shalt not Covet". There is a reason for this.
It's probably the hardest one to keep (besides the first) especially if you have attained financial independence and are bored with all you have.

I am learning (finally!) that one of the greatest blessings you can have in life is to simply

Be Content with what you have!

The power of an emergency

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:11:00 -0700

A change has happened to America in the last 60 years or so and has accelerated dramatically since the 911 incident in New York. That is the power of an emergency to unleash the full force of government onto a particular target.
Examples of this are:

The creation of FEMA
Katrina
Any natural disaster such as an earthquake, flood or fire
Any economic disaster
A plague such as Ebola or AIDS
Even election tampering

I have experienced this personally many times when fires on my property have gotten out of control.

How is it that at one moment I am at home and feel quite secure that no one will trespass on my property and that the Sheriff will support me in protecting my property should I need help and the next moment, the Sheriff tells me the fire department is taking over my property to put out a fire I personally lit for reasons of fire safety that I don't consider to be out of control.

No one asks me if I want their fire suppression services. My property is overrun by fire fighters and sometimes my own roads are blocked so I can't even inspect what is happening. This may go on for several days till every ember is extinguished from a fire who's purpose is to burn fuel that could become a danger to me and my neighbors during a true wild fire.

The answer is: someone called 911.

The 911 call system is not just a way for people to report an emergency. It is also a way for the government to justify taking emergency actions. When a country is at war or life is in danger, any individual, and thus any collective power, is authorized by common sense to take whatever actions are necessary to address the emergency. This is, on the surface, a very obvious necessity and is absolutely required to protect life and property.

However, this power has been routinely abused by government authorities to usurp powers normally not allowed by constitutional limits.
Now I am fighting a criminal charge of "burning without a permit". This happened because the burn permit website gave me a different permit than what I asked for and expected. They SAY this is not supposed to happen but the IDL (Idaho Department of Lands) says they don't keep http request logs on their server so I can PROVE that I asked for a burn permit that was not allowed at that time.
Trespass and property damage have been caused to me not to mention leaving my property in a less fire-safe state - yet I am charged as a criminal!

Nuf said for now.

The Amoeba of Socialism

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Thu, 4 Oct 2018 18:29:00 -0700

They talk about "creeping socialism" and its very true. So true in fact that I thought I would write an article on how much socialism is like a creeping sickness. Cancer is like that. Life is fine... for years... and then all of a sudden your doctor says you have cancer or you feel a lump or you just don't feel well. The problem was growing inside you for many years but you felt nothing. Sugar is like that. It's really a poison but its also very addicting. That's partly because the bad guys in your system, those anaerobic, acid creating parasites and bacteria, love sugar. And so they will emit toxins into your body that make you not only crave more sugar but also give you a high when you eat it.
Somehow, God seems to have designed little things that can overwhelm the big things when conditions are right.
The same thing goes for social organisms. Mankind is very much a social creature and managing society can be difficult. The individual is the smallest unit of society and has very little power to stop a mob from killing him. So government was invented, usually run by the most powerful war-lord in the area. Refinements have come over time and typically a visible or invisible oligarchy forms to control the society either openly or secretly. In our historically unique society we managed to create a social contract that limits the government and uses laws and legislatures to determine how exactly that government will prevent society from destroying itself by crime, collectively or individually.
One of the insidious ideas for social control is democracy. It's a method of governing by the least amount of pain. If the majority agrees, it tends to quiet the minority and usually seems to work out well. But democracy is very much like the sugar addiction and over time it creates social structures that actually damage society in the long run. Pursuing the least pain is not always the best way to go. Pain has a reason for existing but just killing the pain is not fixing the problem that caused it.
A case in point I would like to elaborate on is how fire departments become one of the ways a creeping socialist agenda can get into a community and control it. I live in a rural area of Idaho County that was for many years protected by a volunteer fire department called the "Ridge Runners". This was a free association of neighbors that all took responsibility for protecting their own homes and land from fires and banned together to stop the a fire on one person's property from affecting the rest of the neighborhood. For several decades the "Ridge Runners" effectively fought fires with a perfect safety record and for an amazingly low cost.
Over time, however, we have seen in this area a series of incidents and situations that have made fire protection more costly, less effective and has actually divided our community into warring factions over issues we never had to deal with before.
Around 2007 the RRFD (Ridge Runners Fire District) was created and a board structure came into being manned by local people that wanted to help by "leading". When the 2015 Kamiah fire storm hit, I attended a few meetings brought together by these "leaders" to mobilize the community to fight possible fires in our area. Everyone was anxious to help but it appeared over time that the "leaders" deemed much that was offered as unnecessary or not effective and much of the community was turned off by this kind of attitude. It seemed that the local "leaders" were a bit miffed at this animosity and turned control of the district over to people that were not from this area and didn't even own land in the district. Then came an offer from the RRFD to solicit voluntary subscriptions for fire protection. Seeing very few people respond to this request the RRFD then proposed to the county commissioners that a taxing district be set up. In response to this, the next county commissioner meeting was full of community members telling the county that we did NOT want a taxing district. Despite the overwhelming popular opposition to the idea the county commissioners decided to put the issue on the ballot.
Today we are soon to vote on that issue and local community members have been getting together to try to stop this from passing.
Our area is rapidly growing in population and this is giving a sign to many that this is an opportunity to begin to administer this area in a more standard way that towns and cities are run and the first thing to establish is a well funded fire department.
The people in this area are used to doing things their own way and they do not like the creeping bureaucracy and taxes. Many are poor and on limited incomes yet own significant amounts of land. Tax increases will force many out of the lifestyle they are accustomed to and many will simply have to leave or split up and sell of their property to survive under these costly practices.
Imagine trying to stop an Amoeba from crossing a line. It's tentacles slowly proceed, a little here, a little there and before you know it you have bits of it on your side of the line. You try putting up a fence but it seems to just flow through it. You warn it by chopping of pieces of it and it retreats... for a time... only to later on continue its process of creeping across the line. Eventually the Amoeba has completely crossed the line and the only way to stop it is to chop it in two with an axe.
We have a line for government not to cross. It's called a constitution. We also have a weapon of last resort to stop the government from crossing that line - our guns.
The problem is, Amoebas move slowly and deviously. They can go through the tiniest cracks and they move so slowly that you don't see them even moving at all when you take a quick glance at them. The other problem about fighting these kinds of creeping monsters is that when you respond, it is relatively quick and violent. It makes you look unreasonable. The Amoeba was there for a long time before you finally responded - sometimes creeping over generations. It had established long precedents of trespassing its boundaries and no one objected. And because our social Amoeba of government is actually US, it appears even more that resisting the will of the system seems like an unreasonable crime against the collective, even if such resistance is meant to fix a problem.
This is why republics were invented - a way to limit the majority's power so that it wouldn't eventually eat itself with greed. The core of a republic is a social contract that only gives specific powers to the government and often splits the powers of government among separate branches to force it to compete with itself instead of with the people.
Alas, over time, even the best social contracts can have a flaw. Even the tiniest flaw enables the Amoeba to escape eventually. Our US Constitution, for example, had 14 flaws in it pointed out by the Pennsylvania Minority Report not long after the ink was dry. Of those 14 flaws, 10 were addressed in the bill of rights but unfortunately the last 4 were not. Those 4 flaws have now been used to completely breech the contract and we have the Amoeba creeping into everything these days.
When citizens are vigilant and awake, the Amoeba can almost appear to be petrified. It moves so slowly or sometimes even waits for a new generation to appear before it creeps on in again. This is why "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom".
The Amoeba is fed by human nature. This is why it cannot be completely eliminated - it is the dark side of US. But it can and must be fought constantly and YOU are who must stop it on your watch.

The next wave

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:35:00 -0700

I couldn't say this any better then Stefan Molyneux:

This video explains the history of human management or human farming. It's very clear and concise and I can't offer any improvement to it. We are coming into possibly a new phase of human management or the complete removal of it.

I wonder if a theocracy is next?

Dimension A and B

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 06:22:00 -0700

The NoAgenda show, a popular media deconstruction podcast, has invented the terms "Dimension A" and "Dimension B" to describe a complete separation in worldview that has happened within America. The separation between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" has become so wide that each sides' perception of the facts are completely different and a new vocabulary has evolved for Dimension B that has increased the divide even more.
I recently had an exchange with an old work friend of mine on facebook and the divide between us is so great that it is nearly impossible for me to discuss political issues with him in a rational manner. This is because our opinions of what is true and right are so different.
The evolution of the Dimensions
Having come from an extremely conservative family with membership in the John Birch Society at the age of 9, I can give you a pretty aware perspective from Dimension A of what has happened.
In the late 50's, prayer and saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" in school was a regular thing and was uniform throughout the country and of course we were only teaching in the English Language at that time.
As I grew up within the public education system things slowly moved away from the American centric view of life and history as the Education system, the mass media and Hollywood steadily emitted data to push people to a more world-oriented multi-cultural viewpoint. In the 60s this was gentle. In the 80s it was getting pretty blatant. By 2000 it was crazy.
I give you some cases in point from a few experiences I've had over my lifetime.
Experience 1 - truth lost from the textbooks
Having been an avid member of the John Birch Society I was very up on all things published by them and had met most of the leaders in the society personally. I knew what a "Bircher" was inside and out. Our Social Studies teacher was going over our textbook's description of the JBS which flatly labeled the society as "racist", "fascist", "anti-semetic", "extreme" and "right-wing". These are labels were invented by the media and were used to trigger readers into an emotional response. They do not have accurate definitions and indeed, in class, these labels were never clearly defined except by association. This is known as "Neural Linguistic Programming" (NLP). Just ask yourself, right now, what EXACTLY do these terms mean? Ask a few people for a definition, you will find vague and differing responses - mostly emotional based.
I explained to my teacher that we had "black" speakers on the JBS speakers bureau - trying to thwart the "racist" label. I explained to my teacher that "facism" is a form of socialism where the government works with business to control the means of production and distribution of wealth and that the JBS was completely against all central control of the means of production and distribution of wealth. This was to thwart the "facist" label. I explained to my teacher that the JBS was not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel in any way to thwart the "anti-semetic" label. I explained to him as well that "extreme" is a term that is very much relative and doesn't really have any kind of accurate meaning in and of itself. At best this term could mean that something is "very different" from "normal" which has no true connotation of good or bad - it's just different. And finally the term "right-wing" is poorly defined by the school system on a scale of left (wants change) to right (doesn't want change) which is equally an arbitrary relative term that in and of itself means nothing.
In response my teacher said his favorite line: "I don't want to get into semantics" and then posited that "It's in the textbook so it must be true'. My many years of JBS membership and intimate familiarity with its teachings and leadership was of no effect to him, and so my class gets a biased input from the textbook.
NLP is used in the media all the time and was developed by advertisers to get people to buy things without thinking. I believe Dimension B people are all victims of this NLP from their youth. Critical linguistic analysis has been obliterated from their brains. This is the "new speak" of George Orwell's 1984 and causes a person to accept "Cognitive Dissonance" within their thinking without realizing it.
Experience 2 - secret curriculum
I had a social studies teacher in my junior year of High School that began showing us an Alan Toffler video called "future shock". I remember it positing how terrible it was that we had so many choices to make in our free society. This was simply overwhelming the minds of people as they walked down the deterrent isle of their local drugstore. I knew most parents had no idea their kids were being subjected to this crap (this was in the early 70s) so I decided to write an Op-Ed article in the paper informing parents of this curriculum and simply asking them to visit the school and check it out. Everything in the article was true. I was simply reporting what I had seen and experienced.
The next day the principle told me to retract the article. I asked him what was not true about what I said. He couldn't give me any examples of inaccuracies in my article but insisted I retract it. I suggested he write a rebuttal. There was nothing he could do and the teacher's experimental curriculum was quickly canceled as parents were asking what was going on. All I did was blow the whistle so ignorant parents could be alerted to check into what their kids were being subjected to.
Experience 3 - blatant media bias and election tampering
When I was attending junior college at Diablo Valley College in Walnut Creek California, in the 80s, I witnessed something quite striking. Ronald Reagan was running for president and the local TV media was looking for a way to smear him. Election tampering I would call it. They approached our local "American Opinion Bookstore" which is a JBS reading room and book sales outlet. I knew the owner personally. They asked the owner if he would let them interview a local conservative and politically active pastor at the bookstore. They also asked him if he knew of any active Birchers of college age. This brought me into the picture. They called me up and asked me if we had any "activities" they could film. I explained that all we did was meet once a month on campus (there were only 3 of us) to write our congressmen. They wanted something more "active" so I offered to put our books on sale on campus a few weekends from that time so they could film us selling books.
On that same weekend they scheduled the interview with the pastor at the American Opinion bookstore.
I showed up at the early appointment at the bookstore and met the cameraman and interviewer from the local TV station. They asked the bookstore owner if he has a meeting room with a conference table. There was one located on the second floor so we all went up there for the interview. The room had a long conference table with a bookshelf at one end and the interviewer expressed that this was "perfect".
I sat behind the cameraman who set up his camera at the end of the table opposite the bookcase and the pastor sat at the bookcase end of the table. I then saw how the cameraman set up the shot to go low along the table towards the pastor. It made the pastor look quite important with the long reflective table in front of him and the books behind him.
All of a sudden, the interviewer pulled out a large American Flag and placed it vertically behind the pastor in front of the bookshelf.
This was a complete set-up. The pastor now looked like Patton (the movie had just come out) and no matter what he said he would look like a super-patriot. I saw the shot through the camera - it was amazing! That pastor could say anything and would still look like a wacko. Who talks in front of a giant American flag except some right-wing nut?
After that fiasco I went to college to set up our book table with our 2 other birch students. We were pretty excited that we might be on TV!
After awhile some youngish guy who definitely was not a student at our small college showed up about 200' from us and began to shout out what I would describe as "sound bytes" of provocation. He was yelling about the Vietnam War, economic issues, whatever. It didn't really make sense to me but it was beginning to attract a crowd. All of a sudden the TV camera crew showed up and started filming this guy and now the crowd became huge.
I saw what was going on and told my fellow members not to argue with him but just smile and stay at the book table.
As time went on the guy yelling sound-bytes began to work his way slowly towards our book table. He was clearly a professional agitator and we refused to fall for it. We just smiled and listened to his nonsense, giving him no ammo to argue with us.
Finally he gave up and went away and the interviewer appeared with the camera crew to interview us.
We were each interviewed one at a time and the interviewer had a specific question for each of us. I don't recall what he asked of the others but for me he asked me this question. "Do you believe a Communist can be President of the United States?"
I tried to explain that such an idea makes no sense because communism is antithetical to a republican form of government such as ours. The interviewer kept asking me to "shorten the answer". As hard as I tried to explain that the question was simply preposterous, he kept asking me for a shorter "sound byte". Eventually I simply had to answer the question as "no".
That evening, on the TV news, was a short story on "Reagan Supporters" and our interviews followed, all cut to just what they wanted us to say. The pastor as well was shown with just a short few words but the imagery of the table and flag said it all.
This was a clearly premeditated attempt to influence the election by interviewing the most right-wing type people they could find and boxing them into questions and imagery that gave the idea they wanted the audience to get. There was absolutely no real interest in our views at all. It was a complete show.
Experience 4 - a setup media event at UC Berkeley
UC Berkeley is well known as a hotbed of leftist activities and protests. Drugs, sex and rock & roll all the way. I was attending UC Berekley in the early 80s pursuing an engineering degree.
One evening as I was walking home from class I passed through a quad area and noticed that there were carpenters building small shacks all over the area. I also noticed they were building several open stages that allowed someone to stand about four feet higher than anyone else.
I decided to bop by this quad the next day and saw several buses arrive with hippies. They appeared to be from Santa Cruz, smoking pot, long hair, and clearly not UC Berkeley students at all.
By that evening the media was set up with TV cameras on the open stages all facing a building on the west side of the quad. The hippies had taken residence in the shacks and the quad was full - but I didn't see a single person that looked like a real student to me.
That evening on the news was a big story of a protest at UC Berkeley over some announcement the Dean of the collage was making. I don't recall the gist of what he said but the whole event was apparently an attempt to pass some kind of legislation at the state level.
The next days the hippies were all gone and the quad was a mess of shacks and trash. Janitors and construction crews were dismantling the shacks and stages and cleaning up the quad. Within a few hours, you'd never know anything had happened there.

These two media events are the most blatant first-hand examples I have witnessed of media bias. They were planned and executed by the media, for the media (or their sponsors or owners) to alter our elections and effect legislation. These were political actions designed to accomplish specific tasks with no regard for truth or honesty.
The textbook event was a blatant example of lies in the textbooks using NLP techniques to program student's minds to accept preconceived notions that had nothing to do with truth or honest history.

I find it hard to explain these things without a conspiratorial context.

Since that time the bias has become worse and worse. The lies on lies on lies have piled so high that unless a person takes extra effort to learn the truth of things on his own via alternate sources of information, it is impossible to know the truth.

So this has now created two different world-views.

Dimension A are those that have done a bit of homework and have found that the majority and the media and the movies and even the schools are lying to us. They are naturally seeing conspiracies everywhere because the media as a whole makes no sense. They see the cognitive dissonance as simply scams and lies.

Dimension B are those that have accepted the NLP programming and have accepted enough lies to believe the carefully orchestrated history painted for them over decades of mis-education and mis-information fed to them. Because it appears that the vast majority of people agree with them, they rest in a state of sleepy fuzziness not even realizing that that "majority" of supporters are merely an image projected by the mass media, movies, and their education. They are emotionally committed to their views and cannot step-back enough to question their base information because it threatens their entire world view. It is simply not possible to accept the idea that "everything you know is wrong".

Enters Trump
Now enters a winner of an election that none of Dimension B thought could ever have won. All of a sudden, it appears there are a LOT of people out there that don't agree with all the NLP media bias Dimension B has been fed. The media is doing everything it can to trash this man and the DBers are swallowing it. Because they rely on their NLP induced emotional responses, they are becoming violent in protests and abusing anyone that might oppose their views with an alternative view. All the NLP inputs over their lives are kicking in and they are going mad with cognitive dissonance. To them the world is collapsing and all the socialistic "good" built up in the past 70 years is appearing to dissolve before their eyes. Trump is insane. He is racist. He is sexist. He is every label they can come up with.
Trump grabbed a ladies crotch (a fact I am not sure is really true) and is despicable in every respect. Meanwhile his predecessor, Obama (real name Barry Satoro) has been living a secret homosexual life with a transvestite, takes drugs, and has broken most of his campaign promises and lied (proven) publicly on many occasions. The two men are not held to the same standard. This blatant bias is simply not even perceived by the DBers.

Thus I get a facebook post like this: (NLP labels marked in red)

Your definition of racism is too narrow. Racism is judging and treating others differently based on their race, in particular when those with privilege continue this pattern against a historically oppressed group. Racism can be unconscious, and is systemic in our society (why do blacks get longer prison sentences for the same crimes? Especially when the judge is republican?) Referring to alleged racism of (some) blacks is sheer whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right, and doesn't justify trumped up white grievance. Trump is hated because he is a horrible person, a pussy grabber, a bully, an egomaniac, a swindler, a crook and a liar. He is hated for his obscene racist lies against Obama. He is hated for his destructive roll back of aid to Africa which is killing hundreds of thousands, he is hated for his petty vindictiveness. People hate him for appointing people like Zinke and Pruitt who are destroying the agencies they head and undoing all their progress over recent decades. They hate him for his cruel policies that separate children from their parents. I personally strongly object to his position on climate change. What he has done against the environment is inexcusable. He has set back our progress in tackling climate change horribly, and many people will suffer as a result. He is objectively the worst president we have had in recent history.

Most of these words are emotional in nature. They are not objective. The writer does make some objective points which to correct here for a DBer is impossible because I must undo layers of lies injected over decades of propaganda. I don't say Trump is perfect or even "good" necessarily, but he is a typical politician like the last 6 presidents we have had - but this one is getting blasted by the media constantly while the others were held up as "respectable" even though their sins are certainly no less than Trump's. Trump appears to me to be at least attempting to keep the promises he made during his campaign, something that to me is refreshingly unusual.
Just trying to undo the bias and emotionalism around the word "racism" would take an entire post or more to just explain how this term has become so emotionally overloaded as to trigger violent outbreaks from DBers and to bypass all rational thinking.
So with that, I suggest my readers start listening to the NoAgenda Podcast for some good media bias analysis that MAY, in time, help to reunite us as a nation with a set of facts we can agree on or at least a healthy skepticism of the media that prods us into looking a little deeper before going off the deep end. No agenda isn't right or left. They are two guys that look at things differently but both trying to find what is true behind the stories we are peddled every day by the M5M (mass media).
Enjoy your education - it will take some time.

A review of some patriot ideas

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 08:20:00 -0800

I warn you before I ate you

This video is an excellent example of the common-law patriot arguments I have heard for decades.
I have been sympathetic to this message for years but have always had reservations, which is why I still pay my taxes and still have a social security number and am still out of jail.
If you want to view this first, that might be helpful. It's ok, I'll wait....
...
Ok now you see that this video introduces a lot of history and new definitions for words we commonly use, especially those involved in commerce.
I have no objection to these ideas but they are just that, ideas.
There is evidence to show that the conclusions of this video are possibly true in that we have actual acts by governments that subjugate the common man to criminal acts by the elite.
But this is not new. This is how it has been since Nimrod.
The core problem I have with this kind of message is that it is not doing justice nor is it granting mercy. It is calling for rebellion.

The evils we live with are so deeply entrenched, even into our own subconscious, that it appears impossible to extricate ourselves from it. Even our justice (Just-Us) system is simply so corrupt that even the best patriots can't break through to truth and justice. (Bob Schultz comes to mind)
But rather than "trust and obey" and wait for God to invoke his wrath and judgment upon the earth, we patriots are determined to "fix" it. That is not bad if you do it like Schultz does but that is not how much of the patriot fighters generally behave.
This video sites no sources. It's language comments site no etymologies. It doesn't name names. It simply presents an argument that we have been enslaved. It seems to think there is a solution but it does not specify what that might be.
The only way to properly do justice is to present evidence of a crime by someone to a victim before an objective judge that has authority to execute that judgment. The criminal must be named.
The problem is, we just don't have such a judge to appeal to at this time.

King David said on his death bead (2 Sam 23)

6 But the godless are like thorns to be thrown away,
for they tear the hand that touches them.
7 One must use iron tools to chop them down;
they will be totally consumed by fire.”

We see that the evil we have to fight with harms anyone that tries to stop them and must be handled with a rod of iron. This means that the only way to remove this evil from us is in the hands of a benevolent dictator - a righteous king.
This tells me that we will defeat this foe only with the help of Jesus after his second return when He will rule this world with a rod of iron.
I look forward to that day (which may be coming to fruition even now).
All this understanding of the Babylonian system of trickery and slavery we are under cannot be removed by our efforts. I think it is good to teach the precepts in this video to help people avoid the system as much as possible but realize that rebellion will not free us - it will only make things worse.
We are in the second great captivity and that age is soon to come to an end. Not by our works but by the will of a much higher authority.

Live honestly and humbly and, with as much justice and mercy as you can muster, wait patiently upon God to fix it all. Look up for your redemption draws ever closer.

The overwhelming issues we face

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:48:00 -0800

The other day I realized that even though I continue to learn new things every day and much faster than I ever did in the past due to resources like search engines and YouTube, I know a smaller percentage of what is known each day due to the rapid rate of overall knowledge growth.

I must admit, I may be done trying to understand this world - it is a hopeless task.

It is easy to just complain about stuff and to create a list of problems the world has that need solving. It is really hard to fix them.

But the first step is to identify them.

I have always felt I was pretty good at identifying core problems and finding solutions to them. I am going to attempt that here.

We live in the middle of a huge paradigm shift. Our society (at least the non-evil subset) I believe is truly trying to solve their problems. Due to technology advancements, we are now under a huge stress to solve these problems quickly - before we are all dead.

Normally things advance generation to generation with the old guard having to die off before the new guard can really move. Today, we don't have the time for this. We have probably less than 10 years IMHO before the problems we face will utterly crush us as a civilization.

But all is not lost! I believe God is moving in these times and we are coming into a great new world, the millennium in fact, but to get there we are going to have to cross some really rough territory.

For the morose in the audience here are some of the main issues I see a major problems in order of importance:

Lack of Justice
Around the world, the courts are not administering justice but simply facilitating theft and corruption.
Juries no longer have any power
There almost no checks on the judiciary
Lawyers work within a monopoly called the BAR association that creates effectively private law.
Restitution is hardly ever practiced. Punishment is instead used which extracts wealth into the justice system without really offering a deter ant to crime.
Its corruption is accelerating and the entire system is almost completely non-functional.
The shift to AI
For a long time I was a disbeliever in AI. I still maintain that it will never replace human creativity but it appears it will replace normal human cognition and logical processing.
AI systems can far out-learn people because their ability to input data far exceeds a person. Thus they can grow more experienced far faster than men.
This shift will remove almost all jobs for men to do - except fix the AI. I know when the industrial revolution happened, many feared the same result, but each time we advanced, there became more advanced jobs to do.
I hope I am wrong because what I see coming is the complete dominance of machines over men and soon men will be disposable and slaves.
Global Governance
It has long been a goal of the evil elite to centralize control enough to reduce the population yet preserve the technology so that a very small elite can rule the world. I think these people are deluded and will lose in the end along with all of us.
What I see happening is a race of controllers against anti-controllers. The new technology of the internet has briefly given the anti-controllers an edge but once the technology is mature enough, I see a war coming that will simply decimate the population and leave the evil controllers advantaged.
Cultural Stress
These problems and especially the simply overwhelming advancement in technology is driving many people nuts and totally disfunctional.
This is exacerbated by the drug and food companies that are polluting our minds and bods with toxins that are leading to insanity, dysfunction an death.
Education, a tool of the elites for control, is producing people that are so out of tough with reality that the work-force is breaking trying to figure out how to assimilate them.
Untstopable
All these trends are accelerating and feeding themselves. Our collapsing economy is driving businesses to better exploit their customers and use immoral approaches simply to keep afloat.
The lack of true individual integrity is driving this engine into the ground of a new dystopia.
How to fix it

Increasingly, from all corners, I am hearing people say "God will have to fix this" and I tend to agree. Will we see a miraculous coming together of events and people that brings us justice and peace? That's historically a pretty rare thing to see. I am hoping God is up to it.

Secret yet ac-"count"-able voting

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Wed, 9 Nov 2016 22:40:00 -0800

This is a kind of short version of the http://principlesinliberty.blogspot.com/2016/03/does-your-vote-count.html post.

There is a simple way to fix our election process to almost completely remove fraud, count it quickly and make it easy for anyone to review and check the counting of the votes. Computers can be used to assist in adding columns of numbers by using well-known common tools like Excel yet with personal and public oversight of every single vote.

Here's how its done:

Print up each ballot with a random number that is long enough to not easily be memorized yet short enough to conveniently write down. It only has to be non-repeating for the precinct and for that vote.
At the polls count the ballots by entering into a spreadsheet the ballot random number and how the votes were cast for each ballot.
Do this with as many (at least 3) independent backup counts as desired and simply compare the spreadsheets by saving them as .csv files sorted by ballot random number and then comparing the .csv files using a standard diffing tool programmers use all the time to note changes in files.
Once all the spreadsheets jive (all discrepancies have been resolved among the various counters), post one of them for the precinct up on a website which the county uses to show everyone the votes for each precinct. The entire spreadsheet is posted along with a summary of the counts that is easily verified by summing the appropriate columns in the precinct spreadsheet.
These summaries are in turn entered into another spreadsheet to add up all the precinct votes for the county. This summary spreadsheet is posted as well on the same county site.
Do the same thing for the state and federal levels by having them simply copy the summaries from the lower level sites and summarizing those as needed.

Now what you have is a public record anyone can double check in as much detail as they might like. The physical ballots would be stored at the county level and anyone can go and check that they jive with the precinct spreadsheet publicly posted online. Any voter who decided to write down their random ballot number can verify their votes were entered correctly online and can call the county election people to report anything that doesn't fit with what they remember voting for. There could even be a way to electronically report any discrepancies you see with either the sums or your personal voting record. If multiple people report problems with the same random ballot number - we know somebody screwed up. If many people find the sums aren't right, we can fix that pretty easy.

A recount can be done very quickly and check to any depth at any time by anyone with little bothering the government at any level with the exception of viewing the original ballots. Even these could each be scanned into an image file for public scrutiny while the physical ballots are kept safe to verify the images are correct.

With such a system, we can't necessarily correct all errors but we can know how many there are and can quickly get statistics comparing precincts to know when fraud is likely.

Also, all absentee ballots should go away. It is of critical importance that all votes be made on the same day in person with ID required and at a local precinct where most voters will be recognized.

Anyone that knows they can't make it to the poling place can simply grant a specific power of attorney to another individual who can use that and the IDs of both the voter and his/her proxy agent with the desired votes noted on the power of attorney letter which must be signed and notarized for acceptance. Dead people will never be able to vote if this is enforced.

This is so simple and it is so efficient and "transparent" - I hope we can make this a reality.

Pass this on if you agree -especially to your representatives at the city, county, state and federal levels.

"The most dangerous superstition" by Larken Rose: a retort

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:00:00 -0700

An anarchist friend of mine highly recommended the book "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose.
This will be a difficult argument to make because we live in a world with so much ignorance concerning rhetoric and law that few are able to work around the numerous pitfalls we all face.
I believe Larkin's definition of "Authority" is more accurately termed "Unlawful Authority". The concept of lawfulness is something we have lost almost entirely.

So let me try to describe a lawful form of "Authority" first.

I believe there are only two types of lawful authority:

External Lawful Authority - the authority derived from the simple maxim of law that states "The Creator is greater than the Created". This defines private property.
Internal Lawful Authority - the authority derived from a promise.

To understand External Lawful Authority, one must accept the primary maxim that some intelligent and powerful force or person created all that we see. If this is not accepted, there simply is no basis for External Authority. Specifically, External Lawful Authority is derived from the Torah laws from God himself - or you could call it the natural morality written on men's hearts. If you don't except the concept of a creator and you don't accept his right to make the rules for what he made, then you will never be able to justify private property or the maxim that gives us External Lawful Authority because it must come from a creator to be self-consistent.

To understand Internal Lawful Authority, one must simply agree that promises are worthless unless they are kept. This is actually derived from External Lawful Authority because we accept that God keeps his promises and thus so should we.

If you don't except either of the above premises, you can stop reading here. There is nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you that any kind of "Authority" is legitimate. But before you leave this blog article, consider what mankind will have if a promise need not be kept and private property doesn't exist. This is the anarchy people fear and it is precisely these two things that civilization, even a small clan, cannot exist without. I doubt even Larken would oppose private property or keeping promises as these are the foundations of what his Utopian idea of anarchy would use to operate.

So lets build on this a bit with some basic examples:

Parent-Child Authority

Clearly the parents are the direct creators of the life of their children. They are not the ultimate cause, as this gift of reproduction was given to them by their creators and on up the generations to the first man who was created by ???. A baby clearly does not have the ability to even survive without someone around to feed, clothe, nurture, house and otherwise take care of it. This parent-child relationship is probably the most obvious, most universal example of external lawful authority one can find. It even translates to the birds and the bees. Only in the case of cell division or parasitical reproduction is the child immediately an independent and fully responsible being with no dependencies on its creator.

Though our current society would like to pervert this into the extreme opposite of "reproductive rights" the consequence of doing this for all people is extinction. If one values death over life then one would not want external lawful authority to exist.

Private Property

My body is under the sole authority of my mind and spirit. My will is exercised by invoking neural commands to my body to perform actions that effect my world. Without this ability to exert my will unhindered upon my body I would instantly die (from not breathing among many other possible causes). When one exerts labor to create a tool of any kind or to secure a resource, this extends my control beyond my body to whatever it was I created or secured. This is very simple until two people both want the same resource. This is where property rights end and where some external collective structure is needed to decide who gets the resource. Without such a collective structure, violence or complete dominance of one party is almost assured.

Larken would argue this is not true. That the collective structure is far more prone to exert violence than the two parties trying to control the resource.

How ever the collective structure determines who gets what, there needs to be some kind of enforcement of the decision, else the contest for dominance simply continues with another challenge or one party clearly dominates, not by right but by might. How ever you color it, the stronger party wins, and the more a stronger party wins, the stronger that party gets, till you eventually have a single party with all the power and everyone else his slave. This is what happens when you have no government (collective structure) to decide and enforce such things. War becomes a constant at all levels.

This is what makes government such a useful servant but a fearful master. The collective structure must have enough power to do its job and no more. It must constantly be watched to prevent its growth outside of the desired limits - this is exactly what the founders of our constitution understood.

They were, however, faced with the same kinds of wrong ideas that Larken points out in his book. I agree with Larken that the acceptance of unlawful authority is a very true bane to freedom and keeping this collective structure useful. Those that have given some thought to the maxims of law will understand how we can create and maintain such a proper level of government and not get burned.
We lost control of our government probably within 20 years of its creation in the United States. It is now so far out of its box it does not resemble the servant blessing our fathers gave to their posterity. This happens so quickly because of the maxim that all men are naturally evil - something most atheists and Larken don't accept.

Without an external collective structure there is no way to keep any boundary in place or to have private property without violence or at least the immediate threat of violence. Larken would say that this is fine - and it is true with or without government, but limited government minimizes violence when restricted to lawful authority. See my articles on this blog on the Micro Republic/Jury governance for one possible solution to this very difficult problem.

The Contract

This is simply the structure of a pair of promises. Lets say I have a fence that needs to be built and I hire someone to built it. I obtain the materials needed (through other contracts of course) and my worker agrees with me on an exchange of his labor for a price.

The promise is in place but not yet consummated. We have expectations accurately set but not yet met. This is the precarious situation that determines how strong a civilization can be. If the character communication skills, and integrity of the parties is strong, the odds are very high that the promise will be consummated completely by both sides and the transaction completed within a short period of time without even the threat of violence. The longer the time period of this precarious situation, the lower the probability is that it will be completed. If one side of the transaction is completed, the longer the time is that the other side is completed also increases the probability that the entire transaction will not complete. When we have a half-breach of a promise we have a damaged party to deal with.

Presumably, such a promise is made with an eye to a win-win situation, where both parties benefit from the transaction, otherwise why would such a contract be created in the first place? Thus, most contracts will result in the production of wealth overall and this is how society grows.

If no transaction is ever completed within a society, that society simply does not exist. It is a collection of isolated individuals working independently and from scratch on every goal they may have. It is near impossible for a person to live on this earth without any cooperation from someone else for very long. Thus, such a society would be extremely likely to be dead in a short period of time if it didn't make and honor its promises.

The bigger the promise the harder it is to keep and large societies depend regularly on huge promises being kept all the time.

During this intermediate period of time, we have a lawful internal authority of each party upon the other to perform what they promised to do and when they promised to do it. Recognizing this authority as a society strengthens every contract made and thus the society itself - simply by peer pressure. This universal authority of the promise is what authorizes the use of force by others if necessary - it is in a real sense, a self-defense right of the society to enforce the promise and thus support its own existence.

Now governments almost always get in the middle of this and extort fees, taxes, regulate what promises can be made, and generally interfere with this whole process that creates wealth for society.

Our constitution holds the right to contract as an absolute right - which has been violated almost constantly even before the ink was dry - but is really the core of social progress and the most precious right we can have. All other rights derive from the right to contract.

As a side note, our constitution created a limited government and the ratification of the people of the constitution was evidence of the consent to the contract - but the minute government breaks one tiny piece of that contract - the whole promise is broken. This we have failed to realize, rather wanting to keep things as they are (recall this point in the declaration of independence) we allowed the promise to degrade over time into the despotic socialist empire we have today. Really, the minute government breaks any of the requirements of its constitution, is the minute it must be considered to no longer exist lawfully and thus a new one must be made to take its place immediately or the offence corrected and its re-occurrence made more difficult by adjustment of the system. We in fact live in a de-facto rather than a de-jure world so lets not condemn the entire idea of government simply because this is so today.

Punishment by incarceration is not useful

We have a very confused idea that somehow incarceration is the way to correct behavior to prevent future crime or to isolate an offender to protect society. This doesn't work because it is itself a crime against society because it creates a burden with no compensation to those paying the bills to execute incarceration. It is an unlawful form of punishment on its face.
I have written in this blog about two types of punishment that actually solve the problem - restitution and death (or exile) of the offender. Restitution attempts to "right" a wrong by compensation - and this must be compensation that satisfies the victim. It must be sufficient that the victim is happy to repeat receiving the offense over and over along with the compensation. This could include indentured servitude which is sometimes necessary to fulfill this requirement for some crimes.
A crime, by the way, is a contract broken by one party to the agreement.
Death or exile simply removes the offender from the society so it cannot cause more harm. This is less desired than restitution but nevertheless is a legitimate solution for crimes that simply cannot be restored by compensation. It is also a very strong behavior modifier in itself. This would be the point of violence by a lawful authority over another party without their consent that Larken so detests. It is only lawful to do such violence when restitution cannot be made and it must be done lawfully at all points of the process.
The common law creates a process where a conflict is resolved by allowing a "fair fight" between the parties without the need for raw violence. This has been completely lost in our litigious society of lawyers that use unlawful tricks usually based in mala-prohibita color of law.
Remember law is not law if it was not both created and administered lawfully - and that simply boils down to not violating any contract in the process.

Conclusion

I heartily agree with Larkin in that unlawful authority is of no use at all. But unlike the anarchist, I see lawful authority as absolutely necessary to the survival of mankind and thus the necessity of some government (that is lawful) is absolute - no matter how difficult it may be to create and keep one that is limited sufficiently to allow the right to contract and private property to go unhampered.
It is our abandonment of the concept of a creator that is creating this trend towards anarchy. Without the acceptance of a universal lawful authority, society will fragment into chaos and mankind will perish.

My experience in a Cayman Jail

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:47:00 -0700

Something you may never see in the Cayman Islands - Justice.

This audio testimony I recorded shortly after an incident I suffered in Cayman Islands in the spring of 2012. I just rediscovered this recording and decided to publish it here.

Download

Justice is broken for sure

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sun, 24 Jul 2016 05:57:00 -0700

I was able to connect with my friend Steve Pidgeon again (he is a very busy man!). I was asking him for some guidance on a perjury issue. He said perjury means nothing. The court's don't care about the truth. He also shared that judges in both King and Snohomish counties (in Washington) have told him he will no longer receive any fair judgments by them. Steve can exaggerate at times but from my own personal experience with judges I can believe this. Look at Kent Hovind going to Jail for 10 years for "structuring" (i.e. for the heinous crime of paying his employees daily in cash) and look at how the IRS uses the penalty of perjury to bind us to testify against ourselves while criminals like Obama and Hillary get completely off. This is strong evidence of corruption to the core and is, as I keep saying, our chief problem of the day. It greatly saddens me that I have no remedy to my own issues through the courts.
My recommendation: It is time for the church to step up and begin to mobilize the body of Christ to begin "doing Justice" as commanded in Micha 6:8.

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

All mala-prohibita laws are pre-crime

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sat, 23 Jul 2016 01:05:00 -0700

I think it really is a true statement. I'm not just talking about smoking pot either. Speeding, Drugs, Alcohol, Concealed Carry, building permits, vehicle registration, osha requirements, handicapped parking, jay walking, failure to file, forced education, hate speech, forced insurance, sign ordinances... it goes on and on and on.
A mala-prohibita crime is really any crime that isn't listed in the Torah, or basically has no tort or trespass. If you do no harm and are presumed innocent until proven guilty, anything is lawful so long as it doesn't hurt someone else or violate the basic laws of 1) tell the truth, 2) keep your promises and 3) mind your own business and stuff. The law of love (Do good to others as you would have done to you) is really all we need to have a happy and safe world.
Our situation comes from the long growing idea that being responsible for yourself is not necessary. All of these mala-prohibita laws came about because some individual caused real harm in the course of doing something else that only had the potential of causing harm. Because our justice system does not use biblical restitution, it has failed to appropriately punish true crime while at the same time punishing non-crime.
Heck breathing could cause potential harm. Once you accept ANY prohibition that is outside true harm and intentional mallace as a legitimate idea, you have given the state complete power over you. This idea has slowly and completely perverted our justice system.
At the same time, it is probably impossible to codify every possible crime. It takes a common sense jury of peers to sort out true evil from accident from non-crime and it takes consistent justice to train people to be good jurors.
Let's fire the lawyers and get back to self-government via jury and remove the shackles. It will be a shocker for many, but it is the road back to sanity and freedom and happiness.

Without personal responsibility for your own behavior

you cannot be free.

Thoughts on Memorial Day 2016

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:41:00 -0700

Thoughts on Memorial Day 2016

I almost didn’t write this. It was too depressing. It was so depressing that it might seem like commercializing the holiday.

Many have fallen for the cause of freedom. These men and women were for the most part innocent casualties of the human condition of sin. They played a valiant role in a rigged game and for that they should be honored and remembered.

But what the holiday reminds me of is the fact that almost all the wars of the 20^th and 21^st century were started by false flag operations:

WWI – The Lusitania

WWII – Pearl Harbor

Vietnam – The Gulf of Ton-kin

Since those wars we now enter wars that are simply to support oil interests or other private parties like:

Afghanistan – Control of the opium crop

Korea – Military Industrial Complex weapons sales

The Arab Spring – Control of oil pipelines

Now we are in multi-national global wars:

911 – The mother of all false flags, practiced at OKC, supported by multiple interests for multiple reasons, executed with high tech experimental weaponry for and by the Military Industrial Complex, Used to launch a host of aggressive actions and more wars, Used to justify massive intrusion into our privacy and lives, and the ultimate psy-op leaving so many people so confused that they have completely given up on watching or trying to figure out what is going on.

The men and women that died in all these wars died senselessly in most cases when you know the bigger picture. They died to make someone money or give someone power.

This is not new but the scale is.

Memorial Day should be the day we shoot a random government official as a payback for playing patsy to special interests hiding in the shadows. Every single war has been caused by governments, not by the people – but the people pay the price while the shadowy oligarchs, whom we will never know, collect their massive paychecks. All the blood is being shed with no effect for good. It is very depressing indeed.

I hate to end on such a negative note. These men were innocent and courageous and somehow we want to make them heroes simply because they were pawns with no choice and no way out. We love the underdog. God forgive us and grant us relief from this perverse generation. Let us honor the great creator who will somehow make all things new and right and who gives us hope to live through another Memorial Day intact.

Fighting another traffic ticket

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:52:00 -0700

This was a very cheap shot where I turned right onto a highway and didn't quite come to a full stop. I was cited for a $90 ticket.
I have a policy of fighting every ticket. It can greatly delay payment of the fine, will cost the authorities to process you, is an excellent education in the courts and law, and what the heck, I might even win or get a break!
My initial intent was simply to beg for leniency and lay out my reasons why I see the whole Motor Vehicle Code as a scam. I figured I could at least warn the Judge that he will someday himself be judged by God.
My preliminary meeting with the prosecutor was delayed about 1.5 hours from my time to appear and I hadn't noticed that I never signed the ticket - technically I was under no obligation to appear. I told the prosecution I would be pleading not-guilty and contesting jurisdiction.
A few weeks after this meeting I read a traffic citation package that said how to beat any traffic ticket. It was based in CA but I figured I should read it and see if there were any arguments I could make.
It pointed out that the CA civil procedure does not allow a party of the case to serve a summons. I tried to look for the ID equivalent rule but had a hard time searching it - they purposely format the rules in a way that is not searchable or easily navigated - it really makes understanding it difficult but looks like its all laid out for you. This trick appears to be done by all the states.
I found the ID equivalent of the CA rule and went back to the clerk and gave her a written letter asking to see the Magistrate on this ticket matter and made the argument I found in the ID rule. She denied my request without explanation so I asked her to write on my letter the gist of her response. She said she wasn't comfortable with doing that so I just asked her to write down that she had read it and date it.
With this I felt I had a pretty good chance of wining based on the traffic packet's info.
Well, when I got to trial I brought this up and the judge said that an infraction is done under the criminal code. That was interesting... something changed since that packet was written.
Not knowing the criminal code at all threw me and I was on my own.
I then pointed out that there was no damaged party, not tort and no trespass so this cannot be a crime. The judge said I was under obligation, having a driver's license, to obey the traffic laws - throwing it into a civil matter. I pointed out that my driver's license was entered into under duress and thus that contract was invalid. He said that this was a criminal matter and that the argument was not applicable.

So there you have it. An infraction is one of those sneaky in-between things where the judge can play whichever side he wants to to get you. If you argue no crime - it becomes a contract issue. If you argue under duress, it becomes a criminal issue.

Although I had a lot of things I wanted to say to the judge, mainly from a common sense argument from conscience I could see this was a laundry room and not a court and my dry throat would be wasting its efforts. The judge nor clerk would allow me to submit the written argument due to it not being formatted properly. To read it aloud would have worn my dry mouth out and the judge was already prompting me on the stand for factual points of the incident - he cared not about the law and its proper application.

I was toast.

I paid the fine and am wondering if its worth trying to appeal.
After the trial I investigated a few things. I could not find the same technical argument in the Idaho Criminal Rule or the Idaho Infractional Rules that I found in the Idaho Civil rules. The appeal process also appeared quite daunting. I have 42 days to appeal so I will sleep on it for awhile. Before leaving the court I asked the clerk what forms I needed to fill out to appeal - naturally that was considered legal advice and she said I needed to look it up on the internet for myself - thanks for all that help madam!

What drives me mad is that the infraction fine is just low enough to make it not worth your while to fight these things. I know every ticket can be beaten - I had a wonderful lawyer in the Seattle area that did so for me and many others and won every time.
On principle I feel I should fight this but is it really worth all the grief?
It's just like a game of chess, except the game is stacked against you and full of traps. You can pay the fine or you can pay the lawyer or you can really feel the pain and try to figure this crap out. They will never help you in any way and they will change the rules midstream to trip you up.

My head hurts.

Just for the record, here were my written arguments:

Statement of defense for infraction 5908

This statement is my defense against the charges leveled against me in this court. It is a witness against the court, the law and its enforcement that I wish to express to the court. It is my hope that this statement will grant me some leniency from the court concerning this infraction.

My Plea

My plea for this case is “Not Guilty” mainly because making a plea to this court is the only way to contest this infraction and I realize that doing so admits jurisdiction of the court over me and this infraction. My real plea would more accurately be labeled as “The Emperor has no clothes”. I would normally ignore this petty infraction, which I never signed, and let it sit, but the state would further hassle me with higher fines and attachments to my driving record that would cost me more in required insurance costs and possibly eventually get my license revoked, so under duress, I appear before this court and grant their pseudo-jurisdiction over me so I may explain why I hold this whole charade in low esteem.

Technically guilty as charged.

The allegation of the officer is correct. I did, by accident, fail to stop at the designated location of this charge due to distractions at the time. I was observing my speed and the traffic but due to the nature of the preceding intersections, the darkness of the evening, and due to distracting thoughts in my mind at the time, I failed to notice the stop sign or perceive that I was passing through it till I was half-way into the intersection. I therefore kept going to get out of the intersection and proceeded safely towards my destination.

Why this charge should not be enforced

No crime was committed

No tort or trespass was involved in my actions and therefore no damages caused to anyone by them. The prosecution itself has termed this as an infraction which would appear to be a technical term falling outside the definition of a true crime. Indeed IRCP 2 states that all actions take the form of a “civil action”. This implies a violation of contract which I have no knowledge of being a party to. Since I did not sign the citation (nor was asked to) I submit there is no contract involved here to support a civil action.

Denial of rights

Denial of due process

IRCP 4(c)(1) (By Whom Served) states:

Service of all process shall be made by … not a party to the action.

Since the officer consists of the sole accuser, witness, and prosecutor he is a party to this action and cannot be the server of the summons.

Upon discovery of this error I immediately came to the court to attempt to resolve this with the magistrate. I asked the clerk if I could see the magistrate to resolve this matter and was denied the ability to do so.

See Exhibit A for proof of my communications with the clerk. I asked the clerk to write on my letter her response refusing to grant me access to the magistrate. She said she was “uncomfortable” with stating her response in writing and did not give me any explanation as to why I was not allowed to see the magistrate. I did manage to get her to note that she read the letter. If the court has a problem with this being sufficient evidence of my being denied access to the magistrate on this matter, I would like to call Deputy Clerk Nicole Kinzer to testify on this matter.

This is a further violation of due process.

Denial of jury trial

The ticket I was given clearly states that I am denied a jury trial (although a sign posted on the clerk’s office window states that traffic violations can have a jury trial). No reason is given for this but it is presumably because the value of the fine ($90) is insufficient to warrant one. The constitution states that a jury trial will not be denied for issues in excess of $20 but because of the perversion of our currency (using Federal Reserve Notes rather than lawful gold and silver as legal tender) it is no longer easy to determine where that true $20 value line exists. Further we know that congress has officially set the price of gold far from the natural market value (See public law 92-268 (http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/92/268.pdf ) where congress authorized the US Treasury to value gold at 38FRNs/oz which would make $20 in gold = $640 in FRNs) so this further blurs the line.

The jury is one of the most powerful of instruments devised by the people to keep a rogue government in check. The policy of denying the right to trial by jury is evidence that the court is not interested in upholding the rights of the accused but rather in its expediency in processing cases.

The true common law Jury has jurisdiction over determining both the validity of the law and the facts however, because the law cannot be judged until a guilty verdict is reached, it is rare that a jury issues any statements concerning the validity of a law. An acquittal may mean that the law is in fact in error, but again, as far as the case is concerned, the point is moot. Thus over time the jury has been reduced to only concerning itself with the facts of the case. Further, through procedures such as voir dire, the jury is typically gutted of all thinking individuals and should some sneak through to hear a case, courts routinely restrict what the jury is allowed to see and hear so as to further corrupt the purpose of the jury – that is, as a check on the court and law itself. Thus even in cases granted a jury, the process is far from the common law ideal that produced juries in the first place.

It is very simple to logically show that a jury, being a sampling of the people, has an authority that outranks that of the judge – even in matters of law. Our courts are established by the constitution (either state or federal) and the constitutions are established by “we the people” and so by the simple maxim of law that the created can never be greater than the creator we can clearly see that the authority of a jury exceeds that of a judge.

Denial of the right to travel

It has long been argued that travel is a fundamental right of men because we are a communal creature that must cooperate with each other in order to live. Men simply cannot survive completely independent of each other and so methods of both communication and transport have been devised to allow for the necessary commerce between men. In this case I was traveling in a private capacity, serving the community on a volunteer basis as a chess coach to Kamiah High School. This forces me to use the public right of way often.

The state sees the roads as it’s domain and thus it’s property (usurped) and uses this as one of the arguments to gain jurisdiction over traffic violations such as this infraction. The argument goes that public safety is important to the public and thus justifies regulating travel.

Regulation is by definition a pre-crime type of idea and has no place in a truly free society. Like the hypocritical pharisaical traditions of bible times, it attempts to prevent harm by building a fence around the true law of God and enforces it with fines and punishments, creating a behavioral modification program for its subjects. By doing so it often steps over the line of what is really state business in an effort to enforce regulations designed to prevent harm or true crime.

The constitution grants the state the right to regulate commerce. This sounded good to the signers of the constitution but the minority that refused to sign that document soon after produced the Pennsylvania minority report (see the Anti-federalist papers or http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/pa-minority-report/ ) which listed this clause as a door to tyranny. In their words “… we .. found it to be .. surrendering up your dearest rights”. Our bill of rights directly came from this report but the commerce clause was not purged from the document by those amendments. The commerce clause is the nexus of much of our current system’s pre-crime laws.

In order to accomplish it’s regulatory goals the state has devised several ways to force its citizens into its jurisdiction.

Registered Automobiles

The first method is to force car dealers to surrender the bill of sale, the only evidence of true private ownership, to the state in exchange for a certificate of title which constitutes a declaration of mutual interest between the state and the new caretaker of the automobile, now designated a motor vehicle, which is a commercial legal term. This is the owner’s only allowed proof of ownership by the state and such regulations constitute theft by the state of private ownership on its face. This can be bypassed by building your own car or by resurrecting a car no longer considered as viable and thus free of this state title status but doing so is tedious and costly.

Thus I am denied private ownership of a non-commercial automobile by state policy.

Notice of Vehicle Registration

The state requires that all registered vehicles have license plates on them which uniquely identifies them, granting law enforcement the information needed to identify the likely driver even before taking action. It can require this because the automobile has been registered with the state as stated above. This is a violation of our right to privacy on its face as this license plate number is associated with the registered owner whom a law enforcement officer will presume to be the driver per SOP.

This license plate also openly declares to all that the car being operated is an interest of the state and immediately places its operation under (presumed) state jurisdiction. I am thus denied the right to privacy by state policy and denied the right to privately travel outside of a commercial status.

Driver Registration

Now that the state has obtained a near-forced interest in the automobile it requires that its operators become drivers and obtain a driver’s license. A license is permission to do something that is normally illegal and thus driving a commercial motor vehicle must be a commercial activity which the flawed commerce clause gives jurisdiction to the state. Clearly if “driving” was not a commercial term but a common law equivalent of “traveling” then it would not be the state’s business how I travel so long as no trespass or tort arises.

Showing a law enforcement officer your driver’s license now becomes declaring to him that you are using a commercial vehicle under a commercial license, further granting evidence that you are operating under commercial law and thus applying statutes based on the commerce clause to your activity.

However, should I not obtain a driver’s license or refuse to surrender it to the officer, I will be guilty of not cooperating with law enforcement and will likely be hassled and possibly charged with more serious offenses than an infraction. So now I am being forced to testify against myself via my commercial documents.

Driver’s licenses in the past were clearly marked as commercial entities, then just abbreviated as a CDL and finally completely omitted from the document as being essentially commercial in nature. This is evidence of fraud in that it hides the nature of the document I am carrying and must sign when obtaining.

Thus I am under duress when I obtain and sign my driver’s license and give it to the officer. This renders the document void as a contract. I am denied the right to claim private travel rights because I am forced into commercial contracts by state policy.

Perversion of the law

The law in this case is clearly perverted in the following ways:

Confused language

Legalese is a term often used to describe the language of lawyers. Law dictionaries are available to help understand this language but they have changed significantly over time giving clear evidence of perversion of the language. Also the law itself will frequently re-define its own terms internally and so the meanings of sometimes very common English words will have entirely different meanings depending on its context within the law. Add to this the fact that section titles of law are not to be construed at all as part of the law and we have another instance of deception foisted upon the un-initiated reader. Thus just understanding the true meaning of law requires computer or legal assistance in many cases.

The language of the motor vehicle code is clear on its surface but vague when trying to identify jurisdictional issues. The definitions of such terms as “driver”, “vehicle” and “operation” have changed significantly over the years to hide the commercial character of the law and its true source of authority.

Copious volume of the law

The sheer size of the code, even locally, often requires large volumes to contain. State and federal statutes and regulations fill a library. It is nearly impossible, even for lawyers, not to specialize because knowledge of the whole law is now virtually impossible.

Public availability obfuscated

While doing research for this case I came across the public website containing the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (IRCP). I was trying to find where it says a party of the action cannot be the server of the summons as sited above. Because the site breaks up the code into sections and subsections it becomes difficult to search. Even section references within the code are not cross-linked. This formatting also makes it difficult to navigate and understand. Luckily, search tools on the internet allowed me to bypass this obfuscation – with some difficulty. I left a note at https://www.isc.idaho.gov/main/contactus asking if there was raw text of the code available for searching but received no response. I was unable to find a raw text version of the code on the internet.

Denial of interpretation

A common statement from the bench in pro-se cases like this is I am not allowed to give legal advice. This is often confused with legal information which is typically what I would ask of a judge but often am denied. I have actually asked judges questions such as “what is the cause and nature of this charge?” and have been told that answering this question constitutes giving legal advice and am denied a simple quo-warranto response which is one of the main purposes of having a judge in the first place. This denies the questioner an interpretation of the law in the context of the case from the bench and thus forces the burden of understanding the law’s true meaning and applicability onto the pro-se defender. Because it is illegal for anyone but a Bar Association approved lawyer to give legal advice we have a forced monopoly on understanding and using the law – denying its full usage by the people, the true creators of the law.

The use of private code

The law is so perverted that the courts routinely use “the code” as if it were the law rather than the true law which are the statues at large as written by the legislature. The code is actually a private interpretation of the law published under copyright by private institutions such as West Law and are not in themselves law at all, yet the code is routinely sited by government officials as if it were the law.

The code became necessary due to the law’s corruption. The existence of the code is further evidence of the law’s corruption and the failure of the legislature to publish law in a form easy for the courts to use.

Perversion of the court

Collusion between officers of the court

Because all lawyers and judges are members of the “Bar Association” and because both defense and plaintiff attorneys are considered officers of the court, all three parties have a vested interest in the process of fine extraction being maintained as is. Their loyalties to their clients take a back seat to their loyalties to the Bar Association and to the system as a whole. Seeking truth and justice or even restitution is no longer a priority with the court because of this collusion.

Loss of separation of powers

Some statutes now do not allow a judge to grant any leniency on the fine of an infraction. This removes the independence of the court from the legislature and its ability to independently judge the law for the case and determine a just punishment for the crime.

Most officers of all three branches are members of the common Bar Association further eroding a true separation of powers.

Which law am I under

Because the court shows evidence of operating as a part of the judicial branch, it would appear that I may be under the common law in a case.

Further, court rules are typically issued by the legislature which would make it appear that the court is under the jurisdiction of the legislature rather than a separate branch of government.

Because the court shows evidence of being under the legislative branch, it would appear I am being tried under statutory law applicable by the commerce clause as an administrative action.

Most courts show a gold-fringed flag in their courtrooms which is defined by title 4 of the U.S. Code as not a flag of the united states but is in fact used for military jurisdiction which implies that the court is acting under the control of the executive branch.

Because the court shows evidence of operating under the executive branch, it would appear that I am operating under admiralty law.

Because I have typically been unable to get a judge to declare to me which law I am under (common, statute or admiralty), I am denied knowledge of the nature of the charges which is fundamental to forming a proper defense.

Not doing justly

The true definition of justice is the ability of the weak to hold the powerful accountable to the law and to obtain restitution from the offender to repair the damage done by the crime.

Because the courts are routinely involved in enforcing regulations and statutes instead of dealing in the common law, and because fines and incarceration are the typical form sentences take, and because of the expense and time involved in winning a case via lawyers, true justice is not being served.

When I lived in the Seattle area, I had a lawyer that I could pay to get me off of any and all traffic infractions. She never lost a case and I used her probably a dozen times over a 20 year period. I watched her at work one time successfully dismiss 50 some cases within an hour using various technical arguments or creative negotiations. It is clear to me that with sufficient legal resources all of these motor vehicle statutes can be beaten. We often see clear and public high crimes go unpunished by our highest officials and yet have thousands of people in jail right now under punishment for mala-prohibita classes of crimes (ie: pre-crime) sometimes receiving decades of incarceration for issues that caused no one any harm.

On the other side of things, I have people that have robbed me personally of very large amounts of money by fraud and negligence. I have found I cannot get justice from these people. Prosecutors are corrupt and the system has no interest in helping me to obtain redress – it is only interested in getting your money. Some cases of crime are big enough to warrant the expense of lawyers and they can result in some compensation but more often than not, the lawyers take all the money and both sides lose.

Our current justice system thus provides neither restitution, nor the ability of the poor and weak to truly use it. It is the primary reason for the existence of government and it is the least well done aspect of most governments.

Taking bribes

I did some investigation on a previous case that showed that our counties typically obtain the lion’s share of their fines from traffic infractions. I can produce what I found for Latah County on request but was unable to obtain this same information for Lewis County in time for this hearing.

I do not know the exact course that these fines take but I suspect that both law enforcement and the judge’s retirement would be adversely affected if all traffic violations were dismissed by a court.

Perversion of law enforcement

No longer under local control

Today our law enforcement is no longer locally controlled. Homeland Security typically funds much of what our police and sheriffs officers use. All money received from this and other government agencies outside this district have or will have strings attached. This constitutes a foreign influence on our local law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement is thus not really free to obey their oaths of office and protect the rights of individuals. They have been co-opted into becoming enforcers of the will of entities and interests outside of their proper jurisdiction.

Typical violations of rights by policy

I am pretty sure that my confession to the officer of my guilt concerning technically not stopping at the stop sign was recorded electronically without notice and will likely be presented by the plaintiff as evidence. This is another typical policy of law enforcement that violates our right to privacy and engages them in getting us to testify against ourselves even before being placed on the stand in court.

This country is in near-riot state over issues such as police brutality and it can be easily shown from internet testimonials (see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html for an example) that police officers commonly lie in court all the time in order to get convictions.

But what will happen if we just let people drive crazy?

I got a chance to have a private conversation with the officer that gave me the citation for this case. He expressed a point which I am sure most law enforcement officers have. That being that people out there are crazy and if we didn’t stop them, people would be killed and property damaged.

Officers rarely realize that a collective right is derived from and not higher than an individual right. We are raised in public school from a very young age to give credence to the idea that democracy is good and that we are in one.

But a group such as say the Bar Association has no more right to tell me how to handle my own affairs than do I to meddle with its internal affairs. Just because the government is one of the largest collective agents there is does not grant it rights superior to any individual’s. It is only through contracts like constitutions and voluntarily signed permits and licenses that we grant rights to others over us. This was how this fundamental violation of equal protection under the law was breached.

If proper restitution were used as the punishment for real crimes, the consequences of our actions would be made clear and the public would be allowed to mature into people that can govern themselves and thus be free.

Something that is practiced all the time in our society, yet never open labeled as such, is involuntary servitude – like when you pay your income taxes. This is a just and good form of restitution for crimes that are so bad that restitution is otherwise impossible yet it is not used for that purpose. If this were used properly, if you commit a crime, you could become a slave, even for life. Granting the power to the victim to give or restrain mercy is where mercy belongs. Should the slave fail to obey, the crime becomes a capital one.

I have driven in the Philippines and I know what it is like to see people traveling free of regulations and insurance. It may be very scary to a typical American that is used to everything being regulated from cradle to grave but these people are freer and much happier than Americans are.

I believe the fact is that if you hold people accountable for their actions and properly administer justice with restitution to the victim and mercy from the victim you will have a free people with much more respect for one-another and overall you will not see so much collateral damage caused by allowing people to simply be responsible for themselves.

The crime of running a stop-sign by accident has no victim. Thus there is no restitution to be had and there is no crime. Once an accident happens, the sign becomes additional evidence for who was at fault and presents a character witness against the offender. This is when restitution is due and the sign becomes a factor in the judgment of the crime.

What you can do as a judge

I understand your situation. You are paid to conform to the statutes and use the code. You are restricted in what you can do by the Bar Association and by your superiors. However I believe there is something you can do. You can call a jury, fully inform them of their power to judge both the facts and the law, and you can even ask them to suggest a solution by way of restitution in the case of a guilty verdict. You can then issue that sentence under the authority of the people and I believe you would be acting well within your proper authority under the common law.

You would of course eventually be fired but you would be demonstrating to the people the publicly pretended idea that the people own the state and not the other way around. You could then become a productive citizen with your conscience clear and your future bright, if not in this world, then certainly in the next.

Summary

The state has become a tyrant using perverted language, law, lawyers, legislators, courts and law enforcement to wield power that routinely violates the rights of citizens. Standard operating procedure includes routine violation of the rules of procedure such as the officer being the sole witness, accuser, prosecutor and server. The state is striking fear into its citizens by issuing copious regulations and fines to maintain control. It is no different a situation than what the Declaration of Independence described of King George.

There is however a final judge of this world and at the proper time He will call all things into His courts and will meet out true justice. He will not be mocked nor will the unjust go unpunished. I appeal to the God of Abraham and Isaac and Israel and I know that ultimately all will be made right. I witness before this court this day, that what is being done here is wrong and I give warning – what you are doing will not go unpunished. Indeed, you are perverting justice which perverts your very own community and ultimately reduces your own happiness and freedom.

I pray that the court will consider these offenses and compensate me for this harassment by dismissing this case or at least waving all or part of the fine if possible in the interests of true justice.

Sanford Staab

4/28/2016

Does your vote count?

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:45:00 -0700

An open letter to my local newspaper and representatives

Does your vote count?

The other day a friend of mine confided in me that he didn't bother to vote in the recent presidential primaries. "Why bother? It's all rigged."

I noted that there is ample evidence, especially recently, that the process of counting votes, even at major caucuses, is secret and hampered an in many counties, quite corruptable. We all recall the Bush-Gore fiasco in Florida and the controversy over rigged voting machines. We all noted that Hillary Clinton took New Hampshire with 60% of the electoral votes and only %40 of the popular vote.

I myself witnessed an instance of this in 1992 in King County Washington. I was an election judge that year and stayed all day at my local polling place to witness each vote cast and placed into a securely locked box. At the end of the day I escorted several other witnesses and armed guards in an armored car to take the votes to King County (Washington) headquarters. I watched the ballots carefully transferred into a bag and then thrown over a Plexiglas wall to be electronically counted exclusively by a computer. I was aghast - my entire day of witnessing was wasted. I had absolutely no way of verifying the count, and without the count being done right, the votes and the voting process mattered not.

When I went to vote at the last presidential primary election, I asked the election judge how the votes would be counted. He replied "oh they count them all right afterwards in the back room".

I was thankful that they weren’t being counted by some computer but why in a "back room"? Who owns our votes anyway? The State? The County? The political Parties or their Bosses? The Candidates? A Computer? The County Recorder?

The proper answer is YOU own your vote - or it is not YOUR vote. YOU are entitled to the ability to KNOW your vote was counted and counted correctly and only once and YOU are responsible to make sure this happens.

An idea occurred to me that spurred me on to do a little research. Kathy Ackerman, our wonderful County Recorder, furnished me with the applicable Idaho statutes, Title 34, which says that counters and watchers require prior approval and must meet criteria for being admitted to the process. The code appears to be written to allow just enough access to let those deeply involved in the election to have the ability to “check” the other side. It does not appear to have any goal of granting public viewing of or participation in the process. A vote recount under this system becomes an expensive and involved process that is thus rarely done.

It seems that instead of sequestering the process behind closed doors, we should have as open a process as possible. Counting votes, especially with the technology of computers, the internet, scanners, and printers, shouldn’t be hard to do correctly and openly with full verifiability at any time yet keeping the original documents safe and secure.

Currently the county does publish the precinct totals on the web but this is not really enough information to verify the count is correct.

Here’s one way I would think it could be done:

Make blank sheets of paper printed with a unique random number that is covered and can be scratched off, similar to how our lotto tickets are printed. This can be done cheaply in bulk and used for many similar purposes. The uniqueness of the numbers need not be global but just for the printing of a batch large enough to accommodate the largest precincts. Print the ballots on these blank sheets. If the voter wishes, while voting they can scratch off the coating and copy down the ballot number they used. They can then fold the ballot so as to hide the number and place it into the ballot box. Secrecy is maintained yet personal and public verifiability is now possible.

The counting process can be simplified by allowing lots of counters, breaking up the ballots into small bundles that can be independently counted by different people multiple times and stored in numbered envelopes. Each counter signs as to the count they got for each bundle onto a counting summary sheet that goes with the bundle. The multitude of witnesses gives weight to the count’s accuracy. Counters could even scratch off any covered numbers so that each ballot is accounted for by number and the number’s uniqueness verified. Ballot counts on the summary sheet should match the precinct ballot count on the voter ledger so no mysterious extra ballots could be added and any missing ones could be noted.

Counters could even be pulled from the public schools as a requirement for graduation supplying lots of disinterested witnesses and forcing the process to be publicly well known.

Once the counts are established on bundle summary sheets with witness signatures and any scratched off ballot numbers, they would be scanned and placed online for all to see along with the precinct voter ledger. Associated spreadsheets could be created to make the counting easy for online verification. Counts can be looked up online by precinct. Nothing fancy just public scans of documents and accompanying spreadsheets. The documents are stored safe at the county recorder’s office yet viewable by anyone at any time with all the detail that the initial counters had in front of them.

Recounts and challenges could be done with jury oversight and most of the job cold be done online with no assistance or cost. The jury and challengers can verify that the physical documents match what is online by going down to the recorder’s office and doing so in a controlled but open manner. Discrepancies would be settled by jury who add their names to the list of witnesses and counters on the tally sheets and becoming publically accountable to the process.

Participation in government is both a sacred right and duty of the free. It also serves as training in self-government which is what the people that fled to this country long ago came for.

This is not rocket science and I am sure I am not the first person to think of such reforms. The counting of our votes is currently controlled by state law so naturally, a copy of this letter is being sent to my state representatives. If you like this idea, how about sending a copy of this letter to your state representative as well?

The Man Trap

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:00:00 -0800

I wanted to share something that I have recently discovered after being separated from my wife of 27 years. It has to do a lot with the law. The above diagram is known as the "Wheel of Violence" and it was apparently invented by the "Domestic Abuse Intervention Project".
First I make the disclaimer that I am not for violence of any kind. In fact that is why I love the law. Good law prevents violence. It gives a remedy to disputes without the need for violence.
Secondly I want to make it clear that I am not against women or their rights, being image bearers of the creator just as much as men are. They are entitled to the same love and respect as is due men and, like men, they should be held accountable when they break the law of love and truth just as men should.
With that disclaimer in place I wanted to note the incredible bias of the above diagram.
This diagram is clearly from the feminine perspective - it explicitly states "her" all over the place. This is a very "legal" definition of "domestic violence" used by our courts throughout our land. It is one-sided and this is the problem and the trap for any married man.
This can be easily and fairly analyzed by stating each point from a man's and a woman's perspective respectively and then asking yourself if our society treats both viewpoints fairly.
Using Coercion And Threats
1) Making and/or threats to do something to hurt "her". (... to hurt "him")
2) Threatening to leave "her". (... to leave "him")
3) To commit suicide. (him and her)
4) To report "her" to welfare (... report "him"...)
5) Making "her" drop charges (... making "him" ...)
6) Making "her" to do illegal things (... making "him" ...)
Notes: If these rules were taken fairly from both side's perspectives it might be fair but it still is ridiculous to make these law. It actually restricts legal and lawful activity (reporting a crime to welfare for instance). Also the idea of "making" someone do anything implies either a codependent relationship or a victim mentality that absolves one of responsibility for their abilities and actions. It is impossible to "make" anyone do anything. You can threaten them with all kinds of things - like governments do all the time - and yet, the undesired behaviors will persist. Even the death penalty is not a sure-fire way to "make" someone do what is right. "The devil MADE me do it." - a cop out at best. Also note that "hurt" is not defined here. Is that physical harm or emotional harm or mental harm or what? It is easy for one person to "hurt" another unintentionally - it happens in marriages all the time. Yet here, we see a potentially unintentional action classified as "abuse". Also note that in typical marriages, it is the man that more often accidentally hurts his wife in ways he is clueless about. Women hurt men too but men typically cannot whine about their pain and get sympathy from anyone. Woman can whine even about imagined things and often get full support and sympathy from society - "she's a woman for cryin out loud!" A similar victim mentality type of propaganda is used in the phrase "think of the children!" which we will discuss more about shortly.
Using Economy Abuse
1) Preventing "her" from getting or keeping a job (... "him" ...)
2) Making "her" ask for money. (... "him" ...)
3) Giving "her" an allowance. (... "him" ...)
4) Taking "her" money. (Taking "his" money)
5) Not letting "her" know about or have access to family money. (... "him"...)
Notes: This is truly amazing. So I can't stop a wife from getting a job even if I need her at home to take care of the kids while I earn a living. I can neither grant nor deny her money - so I am an abuser either way. There is no clarity here on what money would be "his", "hers" or "family". I remember my spouse clearly implying to me during our separation "what is his is ours, what is ours is at least half hers and what is hers is hers." Ok does that sound fair? Let's write that with the sexes reversed: "what is hers is ours, what is ours is at least half his and what is his is his. Is this equally acceptable? If not, it is not fair.
If these rules were done fairly from both perspectives it would be impossible for any marriage not to have both parties guilty at all times of "domestic abuse". As it is, every man is guilty by this standard and women are typically exempt from enforcement.
The idea that only a man can economically abuse a woman is sexist at its core, especially these days. Women have all the power and privilege of getting jobs that men have and in fact have significant advantages due to "reverse discrimination". A business can easily hire all women with no real problem but imagine what a large company would look like if it only hired men?
Using Male Privilage
1) Treating "her" like a servant. (... "him" ...)
2) Making all the big decisions. (him or her)
3) Acting like the "master of the castle". (him or her)
4) Being the one to define mens and womens roles (him or her)
Notes: When two or more people are tied together in a relationship like marriage it is like a mini commune. All is held in common and a team is formed. All teams must have a leader or they will run into chaos. I have no problem with the woman in a marriage being the leader IF she is also the provider. Separating provision from authority creates a slave of the provider. If party A is responsible for providing for a family but party B makes all the "big" decisions, then A is a slave of B, it's that simple. If both parties earn or brought in money, they logically should make final decisions about that which they produced - but this is not optimal. We have a house divided against itself and it will not stand. What you have are two independent roommates sharing in common what they decide to. This sounds nice on the surface but I wouldn't define that kind of relationship as a marriage.
One should also note that there certainly is such a thing as female privilege which is "used" by women probably on a daily basis without them even realizing it. Ladies first, save the women and children first, the weaker sex, "she's a woman for cryin out loud".... Using female privilege is not considered "domestic abuse" but using male privilege is.
As for defining roles that is what the head of any team does when he assigns positions to players - it is simply necessary for the team to function.
Using Children
1) Making "her" feel guilty about the children (... him... )
2) Using the children to relay messages
Notes: I am not sure how being guilty about children works here. Is this some kind of argument against telling a mother to stay home to take care of the kids so I can go to work thing? Relaying messages via children is certainly not mature and is indicative of a non-functioning relationship between man and wife - but is it abuse and a crime? Sometimes a relationship can be temporarily so dysfunctional that essential communication can only be done via a 3rd party and children are quite convenient for that and sometimes the only practical choice. Making this a crime seems very insensitive to me. Children are the fruit of a marriage and logically are the property of the creators - so using children, especially constructively, does not seem to be an inherent crime of "abuse" to me.
Using Intimidation
1) Making "her" afraid by using looks, actions, gestures. (him too)
2) Smashing things.
3) Destroying "her" property. (his as well)
4) abusing pets.
5) displaying weapons.
Notes: Again we see this "victim" mentality of "making" someone do something. How often do you see a man talking with something and a questionable issue comes up and the man looks at his wife for approval before answering? ALL THE TIME. How often do you hear of women smashing things in a fight? What happens to a man's property when a woman divorces or separates from him? Often destruction because the house is divided and destroys itself during the fight and the emotional energy expended and damage caused can cause both parties to significantly lose ability to provide for themselves for a long time to come. Weapons are weapons - they aren't male or female and the display of them (a kitchen knife, a hunting rifle, etc.) is often standard practice in many homes.
Intimidation implies a threat and it can go both ways, but as we see here, it's only intimidation by the man that is considered "domestic abuse".
Using Emotional Abuse
1) Putting "her" down. (him?)
2) Making "her" feel bad about herself. (him?)
3) Calling "her" names. (him?)
4) Making "her" think she's crazy. (him?)
5) Playing mind games.
6) Humiliating "her". (him?)
7) Making "her" feel guilty (him?)
Notes: All of this happens both ways yet only the man is guilty of "domestic abuse". Men and women are two very different types of creatures and they think very differently. One can "humiliate" the other and not even realize it. One can have a poor self image causing the other to be guilty of making them "feel bad about themselves" - and again here we have this "making" term which is victim mentality all the way. Two people that think very differently can appear to be playing "mind games" with the other even when no harm or manipulation is desired.
Note also that many women simply are not gifted in providing and naturally become dependent on a man for their provision. This is certainly not license for abuse by the man but it can naturally make a woman feel less important or powerless. It is the love of a man for his wife that can help overcome these feelings. With today's whacked out medical practice of issuing anti-depressant meds for depression instead of detoxification, even the love of a good man may not be enough these days.
Using Isolation
1) Controlling what "she" does, who "she" sees and talks to, what "she" reads, where "she" goes. (he?)
2) limiting "her" outside involvement. (his?)
3) Using jealousy to justify actions.
Notes: Supposing a man felt like watching porn? Would it be abuse for his wife to "restrict" what he sees? Supposing a man goes out and gambles habitually? Would it be abuse for his wife to "restrict" that activity? Supposing a woman habitually spends money like water to the point of threatening to make the family insolvent? Would it be right for the man to "restrict" this activity for the sake of the family? Either party can be irresponsible in many ways and with the other holding him/her accountable and helping the other to exert more "self control" we get a stronger pair of people. When the state steps in and uses the force of law to dissolve a relationship "without fault" it destroys both party's ability to hold the other accountable.
Minimizing, Denying and Blaming
1) Making light of the abuse and not taking "her" concerns about it seriously. (... "his" ...)
2) Saying the abuse didn't happen.
3) Shifting responsibility for abusive behavior.
4) Saying "she" caused it. (He?)
Notes: abuse means bad-use and it is never good to use someone else, even well. Marriage is a mutual give-and-take kind of thing but the mature have mastered the art of giving much more than is taken. Things can sometimes be taken too seriously as well. Many marriages turn out to be a mutual-use/abuse deal. "I want sex, you want money - we can work something out." This is what you get when God is not in a marriage. Both parties start to play a power game and unfortunately, most men are stronger, bigger and tougher than most women. When this power struggle finally gets violent it is usually the man that "looses it" and strikes or otherwise physically abuses the wife and so it can appear to be all the man's fault. If things do progress to this point, like they did in my marriage, the wife has prima-facia evidence to leave him and take half (or more) of his stuff and even demand support for the rest of her life.

Because our society has become highly feminist in its overall outlook, the man can actually become seriously "abused" by the courts and others. One mistake can strip a man of his dignity, finances, health, peace, friends, reputation, and future in a very short period of time.
Our society has encoded these feminist ideas into law as a way of "leveling" the playing field - which is inherently sexist thinking.
Better, I would think, is thinking about what is true and what is lovely and what is loving and let go of the fight for control. With truly impartial help and some simple maturity I would hope that most of this stuff would go away but if you separate authority from provision you condemn one party to live as a slave to the other.
Marriage is hard and it needs all the support it can get - let's not tear it apart by playing victim games and biasing things to make it "fair". My heart goes out to every man and woman that has had to suffer separation or divorce. It truly is a painful road to travel.
The above wheel of violence is part of a required course anytime either party is granted a restraining order. Unfortunately it is enforced almost solely against the man and if he doesn't toe the line well, he could find himself penniless and in jail. Who knows what consequences I might face for even publishing this blog?
I believe much of this is caused simply by the love of money. No fault divorce makes too good a living for too many lawyers. Empowering women to destroy their families for gain and not empowering the man to defend himself is destroying more marriages in this nation than most probably realize - till you've been there. In most marriages, there comes a point where you realize what you have can only get you so much and disillusionment sets in on both sides. Then the challenges of older age, health, finances and an empty nest can tear what is left of a marriage to bits.
My hope is that younger men and women will read this and avoid the pitfalls. Don't get a marriage licence - it is neither biblical nor is it at all wise. It is effectively a licence to divorce and take from each other far down the road. It can become like the apple of Eden, wreaking destruction in its wake when the time is ripe. Without a lot of maturity, marriage done commune fashion can simply be impossible to sustain. Better to be room-mates under a common-law marriage than a state sanctioned business used for tax purposes. The morality of a marriage or what happens in a marriage is not the proper domain of the state. It is a creation of God and it will be between you two and Him that decides what is right and wrong.

Deadly Food

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:44:00 -0800

I have, over the years, become allergic to wheat and have found that sprouting it and then drying it and then grinding it into flour makes for some tasty bread that I don't react to as badly as I do to other breads.
I have some pretty old wheat I bought tons of for Y2K years ago and I have been sprouting that for my flour for several years.
I have also begun to sprout this wheat to eat the sprouts themselves as they are an excellent source of enzymes and live food. Sprouting seeds also makes them go much further as feed for animals.

I recently purchased some seeds from Azure Standard to broaden my variety of sprouts and immediately mixed them with some of my old wheat and started sprouting them.
After two weeks, no luck. Nothing sprouted at all in the mix.
So I tried again, but this time I sprouted the seeds separately. The fennel, chia and flax seeds I got from Azure Standard would not sprout while my old wheat sprouted fine.
This told me that not only was the Azure seed dead, it was deadly. It killed my wheat when soaked in water with their seed!
Upon this discovery I asked Azure if I could return my seed for a refund. The best I could get was a 50% buyback from them. (I had bought nearly $100 of seeds!) They told me that the seed was not meant for sprouting. They also mentioned over the phone that there were regulations that prevented them from telling people certain things about their seed.

Along with these seeds I tried to sprout some Einkorn wheat I got from growseed.org. I bought this after skimming through the interesting book "The Wheat Belly" which explains that our epidemic problems with gluten allergies are due to changes in our wheat that have taken place genetically that are making the wheat indigestible to humans. This ancient Einkorn wheat also did not sprout. When I tried to get my money back from the "GROW"-seed.org people they pointed out that the website had clearly stated that this wheat was dehulled for human consumption. After telling them about this post they sent me about a 60% refund. I have yet to try to sprout my old wheat with the Einkorn wheat to see if that too is deadly and not just dead.

I recently was talking with a person from our local health-food coop about this and she mentioned that she cannot sell non-organic-certified food grown by local growers. Only the supermarket can do that. However, she can buy the food from the grocery store (the very same stuff from the local growers) and resell that. She can, however, still sell food she has personally grown.

Just last week I bought some tomato seeds for my garden. A packet of 10 seeds cost about $2. As I poured it out on my hand to plant I noticed that there was only about a gram of seed there or less! You got it - individual tomato seeds costing some 20 cents each!!!

There is clearly some real shenanigans going on here. Regulations of our own government are skewing things to promote grocery chains, insert middlemen and kill our food. I know that all imported food is radiated before we can get it to our tables. What in the world was done to the Azure seeds that killed my wheat? The price of the live tomato seeds tells me a big source of the problem - the love of money!

I asked both the Einkorn wheat and Azure people how I can tell if my food is alive or not if they will not sprout?

No answers to this question have yet arrived.

I have let both Azure and the heritage grain conservancy know about this post and they are welcome to comment here and give their side of the story.

A review of "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan

sanfords@msn.com (Sandy Staab) — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:48:00 -0800

It is rare I read a book in only 5 days. It is also rare that I read or respect a sociology work based on the false premise of evolution. But this book proved to be a great read and of significant import on my worldview.

Jack is looking at the world in a very basic sociological way - the way of men vs. the way of women.

The Way of Men

Warrior
Protector
Provider
Seeks dominance, freedom, and truth/utility.
Utilizes Gangs, Survival skills, Fighting skills, Honor, and Mastery

The Way of Women

Nurturer
Social collaborator
Helper
Seeks security, predictability, and control.
Uses subtlety, seduction, coercion and propaganda.

I think I like this book because of its anti-statist stance. The state tends to support the way of women because the way of man checks and opposes it's absolute power.

Men work in gangs and the state is just a big and established gang.

Gangs need an us and a them to establish boundaries which the gang protects.

Gangs create stability which allows cultural growth and diversity.

Eventually, a society can grow so secure that the feminine side takes over.

Once this happens sufficiently, men are destroyed by the society that fears them.

We are in this phase in America, and indeed the world, right now.

At some point the state becomes hollow and is more seen as them than us by the average citizen and it begins to collapse.

In the collapse, men reassert into gangs to survive and the cycle repeats.

I dislike that Jack is an atheist and has no moral foundation of absolute truth or authority to draw on for his conclusions. His observations are however accurate. Following truth and justice is a manly trait and his model of the cycle of civilization accounts for the falling away from these great things we see.

God sovereignly moves among men and nations. This factor Jack does not see at all. We are following biblical prophecy. The monster called "Mystery Babylon" is reaching its global climax and with it the destruction of civilization globally. The vision of the Nimrodian/Semiramis NWO types is unrealistic and unsustainable, though they would disagree. They believe a technological world of drugs, computer empowered entertainment, spying, control, and propaganda will afford them the ability to change the nature of man into something sustainably manageable. If they do get their way, we will see a long dark age of tyranny - but I tend to believe God has other plans.

Jack does give some good advice though. Men need to get into a gang now. They need to find men they can trust and that can watch their back. They need to establish strong relationships with men that are local in preparation for what is inevitably coming - the collapse of civilization as we know it.

I also appreciate his comments on how women control society out of fear of the raw emotional and violent forces of men and the way of men. Having been through a recent separation with the attendant loss of much of my wealth and the burden of support forever to someone who is returning nothing back has left me with a bitter taste for the way of women and for our society that supports them. In the raw, in a world without so much social protection and control, women would not be the way they are now and the value of men would be much greater in the eyes of society.

I feel less ashamed of my manly traits now. Less repulsed at my sexual and competitive drives and more in touch with what I am - a man. I am also more appreciative of the effect of the way of women on our society, our courts, our laws, our medicine, etc. This book was a major piece to my worldview puzzle and I will be forever grateful to Jack Donovan and the man that loaned me this book.