www.stewwebb.com

PRESS RELEASE

Feb. 2005

WITHHELD EVIDENCE IN HINKSON CASE PREVENTS FAIR TRIAL

David Hinkson was recently convicted on charges which resulted strictly from the hearsay testimony of Elven Joe Swisher of Cottonwood, Idaho that Mr. Hinkson solicited the murder of Federal District Court Judge Edward J. Lodge, United States Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Nancy Cook and IRS Special Agent Steven Hines as early as September, 2000.

Swisher told the jury that Hinkson thought he would be a likely “hit-man” and offered to hire him because of Swisher’s combat experience during a post-Korean War cleanup operation where Swisher had gained applicable experience killing many people --- “too many”, as Swisher said, and he added that he had been awarded the Purple Heart for the injuries he sustained during combat.

When the Hinkson defense team tried to present evidence refuting the credibility of the witness, Judge Tallman suppressed it.

That evidence included copies of forged and fraudulent military records provided to the court by Swisher, that the Marine Corps has determined to be fraudulent; however, Judge Richard Tallman refused to admit the evidence saying that in order to do so a live person from either the National Personnel Records Center or the Headquarters of the United States Marine Corps would have to be present in the Idaho courtroom to testify regarding the matter, and since “there simply wasn’t enough time to get someone,” the evidence was ruled out and not presented to the jury.

Court testimony revealed that no one else was present when Mr. Hinkson allegedly uttered these solicitations; they were not corroborated (supported) or verified by anyone else and that there was no tape recording of the words allegedly spoken by Mr. Hinkson to Mr. Swisher.

Evidence confirms that Mr. Swisher never reported the “murder-for-hire” allegations to local law enforcement authorities, and they only became public four years later as part of an Indictment against Mr. Hinkson. Testimony revealed that Swisher sued Mr. Hinkson for $522,000.00 in July 2004 after Swisher and another individual failed in their attempt to take over Mr. Hinkson’s business and that Swisher, while employed by Hinkson to test his dietary supplement mineral products, contaminated them with cyanide at the production site and then attempted to blackmail Hinkson for a 50% interest in his company in exchange for not exposing the contaminated products.

Mr. Hinkson was convicted on here-say evidence supplied by one man. This one man had tried to obtain part ownership of Hinkson’s company and blackmail him, but had failed. This same man had forged military documents to support his credibility to the jury. But Judge Tallman would not allow the credibility of the witness to be questioned or the blatant forgery of the military documents to be presented.

Charges of murder-for-hire are serious, but to deny the jury the opportunity to weigh all of the facts of the case including the credibility of the star witness is a denial of justice. Since when has “a lack of time” been an excuse to deny justice?

Here is the evidence of the forged military documents that the jury was not allowed to see:

1. A letter from National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records dated January 14, 2005, which states, in part:

“Mr. Swisher’s Marine Corps record has been carefully examined by the Military Awards Branch of the office of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and that office has stated that his record fails to show that he was ever recommended for, or awarded any personal decorations.”

2. A letter from Lieutenant Colonel K. G. Dowling, Assistant Head of the Military Awards Branch at the Headquarters of the United States Marine Corps in Quantico, Virginia written to the State of Idaho Division of Veterans Services on December 30, 2004, which states in part:

“We have thoroughly reviewed the copy of the Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) and supporting letter which you (State of Idaho Division of Veteran’s Services) submitted on behalf of Mr. Swisher with your request. The documents you provided do not exist in Mr. Swisher’s official file. The official DD Form 214 in his record of the same date was signed by Mr. Swisher and does not contain any awards information in box 26, and contains no “wounds” information in box 27. A copy of his official DD 214 is provided as the enclosure. Given this information we have reason to believe that the documents you submitted are not authentic.

“Specifically, the DD 214 you submitted on behalf of Mr. Swisher indicates that Mr. Swisher is entitled to the Silver Star Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Medal (Gold Star in lieu of the Second Award), Purple Heart, and Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with Combat “V.” However, our review of his official military records, those of this Headquarters, and the Navy Department Board of Decorations and Medals failed to reveal any information that would indicate that he was ever recommended for, or awarded any personal decoration.

Additionally, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, which is listed in block 26 of the DD 214 that you submitted did not exist at the time of Mr. Swisher’s transfer to the Marine Corps Reserve in 1957. On March 22, 1950, a Metal Pendant was authorized for issue in connection with a Letter of Commendation and commendation ribbon. On September 21, 1960, the Secretary of the Navy changed the name of the award to the Navy Commendation Medal. On August 19, 1994, the Secretary of the Navy renamed the medal as the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal. It is impossible that the approving officer could have signed an official document in 1957 indicating Mr. Swisher’s entitlement to a personal decoration which did not exist in its present form until 1994.

Further review of Mr. Swisher’s records reveals that he is not entitled to any service awards, including the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal, for his service in the U.S. Marine Corps. Mr. Swisher’s official military records failed to indicate any information that he served in Korea during the period when any awards were authorized. His records show that he was stationed at Camp Juji and Yokosuka, Japan from March 4, 1955 to May 6, 1956.

There is no information in his military record or his medical record to substantiate his entitlement to a Purple Heart medal. His medical records show that on February 10, 1957, he was involved in a private vehicle accident near Port Townsend, Washington.

Marines who are recognized with a Navy and Marine Corps personal decoration for their performance, actions or meritorious service while involved in classified military operations may receive an award citation that contains non-specific information about the actions or service of the Marine. However, we found no evidence that Mr. Swisher was involved in any classified operations.”

Hinkson’s defense attorneys note that Mr. Swisher recorded two military discharge form DD 214s with the Idaho County Clerk and Recorder when according to the military only one can be valid. The form recorded on February 5, 2001, had no awards, no wounds and no medical benefits, but the one recorded on February 2, 2004, listed the awards mentioned above. Military policy prohibits the issuance of more than one DD 214. If subsequent decorations are awarded, a DD 215 is issued.

Contact: Information Source:

Roland C. Hinkson Court files and Records

roland@ouraynet.com Idaho Federal District Court

P. O. Box 5 In Cases:

Ouray, CO 81427 U.S. v. Hinkson, CR 02-0142, and

970-325-4522 U.S. v. Hinkson, CR 04-0127

(Supporting documentation available on request)

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

(On The Case Against David Roland Hinkson)

 

The family and friends of David Roland Hinkson are grateful to the jurors for acquitting him of five charges with “not guilty” verdicts and hope and pray that justice on the three convicted counts will be overturned. Had the jurors known all the withheld facts there is little doubt that David would have been convicted of anything. He was simply minding his own lawful business, but he stepped on the toes of some government agents. To bring him down those agents sought out and conspired with paid informants who sought to entrap him with their fabricated stories of murder-for-hire.

Much of the case on trial in January 2005 involved the issue of freedom of speech. It was shown that Mr. Hinkson’s manner of expressing himself involved biting statements. Questions arose about these intense statements which often involved the invocation of deity, such as “God should smite them (referring to government agents who abuse their authority and the law).” In taking advantage of his unrestrained, vocal statements, certain government agents relentlessly sought to destroy him.

Hinkson has always used the legal system as the means of addressing perceived corruption in the system. Routinely, Mr. Hinkson made sharp and cutting statements about the corruption in the U.S. government. This behavior did not win him any friends within the System. His career as a radio host involved bringing many guests to the talk show who also criticized corruption by government officials. Publicly and openly he stated his views on issues such as the legality or illegality of the federal income tax, of unlawful Bureau of Land Management schemes to seize property from Western private property owners and on generalized corruption in our federal, state and local governments.

Mr. Hinkson learned the art of affecting the political process with expository pamphlets and he takes credit, in part, for un-electing various corrupt politicians. Mr. Hinkson became a lightning rod of controversy, and he used his position as a “gad fly” or “whistle blower” to challenge the government to clean up its act. By exercising his right to free speech, Hinkson certainly gave the government cause to put him out of circulation. However, since he could not be arrested for the exercise of free speech, the government chose to arrest him for made-up and falsified stories of murder-for-hire of federal officials, purely based on hearsay.

To support their fabrication, the government conspirators substituted a male accuser named Elven Joe Swisher for the former accuser Marianna Raff. Raff was their favored informant, but they finally dumped her due to the numerous felonies she persisted in committing (burglary of a U.S. postal facility, two drugstores etc.) while under their employ.

Swisher appeared to have credibility. He attributed radical statements to Mr. Hinkson. The government agents brought in others on the same bandwagon who made exaggerated statements as well. All of the participants had a financial or revengeful interest in the outcome of this case.

Swisher in participation with Richard Bellon and others attempted to take over the WaterOz business and properties. Bellon, Swisher and others obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) under false pretenses from the Idaho County Court. Although vacated, the TRO permitted Swisher, Bellon and others to take control of the business for eight days. During the takeover much damage was done to the business. Even customer files were removed and not returned. However, Swisher and his cohorts were ousted by Court decree, and Mr. Hinkson’s management team was restored to the WaterOz business.

Hinkson had hired Mr. Swisher (the chief prosecuting witness), in 2001, as an expert mineral analyst for product testing to ensure that the mineral content matched the label’s claims in parts-per-million (PPM). Each of the Swisher analytical batch reports over a two year period confirmed that the product was in the acceptable range (plus or minus ten percent) and that the label was correct as to the product’s mineral PPM content. In spite of these reports, it was later discovered, based on FDA and Ukrainian laboratory testing, that the products were, in fact, low in mineral content (in some cases three to five percent of the labeled amount).

Swisher attempted on several occasions to obtain a foothold in Mr. Hinkson’s lucrative WaterOz business. He erroneously reported his analytical readings as if they were consistent with the label when in fact the product’s PPM mineral content actually fell short. Those readings created FDA product labeling violations for Mr. Hinkson -- he was not aware of the deficiency. Hinkson had relied upon Swisher as an expert in the analytical testing field to provide true and accurate information. It was those product-labeling violations that were then used as a pretext by the government under a claim for immediate protection of the “public health” to obtain the July 2002 indictment.

Hinkson is a pioneer in the field of dietary mineral supplements whose North Central Idaho home and water bottling facility, WaterOz, was raided by a combined 50-man federal swat team in November 2002. At that time Mr. Hinkson expressed concern that 25-masked, machine gun toting government agents dragged him out of his bed at 5:00 a.m. just to enforce alleged FDA labeling and IRS tax-filing laws.

Hinkson was immediately released on his own recognizance. Charges ranged from failure to file income tax forms, product labeling errors and bank reporting violations. Subsequently, in May 2004 he was convicted (not for tax evasion as incorrectly reported but for failing to file income and employment tax returns). Absurdly, he was convicted as well for withdrawing on two occasions within 24 hours his weekly cash payroll -- nothing illegal.

In April 2004, just prior to trial in the Tax Case, Hinkson pleaded guilty to two vicarious offenses as the party responsible for a business. The FDA charges were misdemeanors and involve highly technical labeling violations for dietary supplements.

Once the government handed down their indictment (July 17, 2002) they held it for four months without doing anything -- they claimed it was to provide for the immediate protection of the “public health.” Instead, during that four months the government positioned itself for a preemptive strike against Hinkson’s home and factory. The strike was orchestrated by the very same government agents who had maligned Mr. Hinkson for years, whom he had sued for $50 million because of alleged governmental misconduct. These same agents were suddenly, by the issuance of the FDA search warrant to protect the “public health,” empowered to attack Mr. Hinkson with impunity -- applying the level of force they deemed appropriate.

In his testimony before a federal grand jury in April 2002 Swisher presented a glowing report of WaterOz and its owner David Hinkson (at that time he was being paid by WaterOz for product analysis and his erroneous reports had not been discovered). Nor was Mr. Swisher forthcoming with his allegations. For a year he remained silent -- itself a crime (misprision of a felony) while he planned his takeover of the WaterOz business.

Contrary to Swisher’s claim that he was a decorated war hero, the public record presented in Court showed that Mr. Swisher had two conflicting military exit forms marked “DD-214” for the year 1957 (military procedure prohibits the issuance of more than one DD-214). One DD-214 was void of any notation for awards, combat action and/or war wounds. The other -- an obvious forgery -- contained awards, including the Purple Heart and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, which did not exist in its present form until 1994). These documents were made public records by Swisher when he recorded the first in 2001 and the forgery in 2004. In correspondence dated December 30, 2004, from the Department of the Navy, it was stated “…we have reason to believe that the documents you [the veteran’s service helper] submitted are not authentic [referring to the fraudulent documents submitted by Swisher that supported the notion that he had been wounded in combat and/or received awards].”

In addition, Swisher’s claim of being an injured war veteran enabled him to fraudulently obtain medical benefits from the Veteran’s Administration to which he was not entitled. Over the past few years he fraudulently incurred very expensive surgery at taxpayers expense -- this should be a matter of grave concern to the VA. More important to this case, as a witness against Mr. Hinkson, is the fact that, since he fabricated a military record to fraudulently obtain VA health benefits, it is also likely he would not hesitate to defraud the court and/or the jury.

Hinkson asserts that Swisher made up the claim of solicitation of murder to put him in jail so that Swisher could grab Hinkson’s property, which he has coveted for many years. Such assertions are supported by Swisher’s participation in the TRO takeover of WaterOz and the $522,000 of property claimed.

Mr. Hinkson was not permitted to present the evidence of Swisher’s fraud so that the jury was, in essence, hoodwinked into believing that Mr. Swisher’s testimony was credible. An appeal of the above issues is planned in order to overturn the three convictions brought about by the fraudulent Swisher testimony.

Hinkson was initially imprisoned April 4, 2003, and has been held ever since on preposterous stories that made absolutely no sense except to the government fiction writers who concoct their fables to justify the arrest of an innocent man. In an effort to bolster an otherwise preposterous fabrication it became necessary for the government, after the initial arrest, to find other implausible witnesses, such as Mr. Swisher.

In addition, Hinkson was arrested for allegedly violating conditions of his pretrial release. Purportedly he solicited the murder of three federal officials while on bond. The charge of solicitation for the murder of federal officials is commonly used in Idaho by the federal government against innocent people. By accusing people of solicitation for murder, the government is required to use one or more of its 15,000+ paid informants. These informants are trained to lie under oath with court authorized use of “stealth and deception”. The informants will lie against any person who has been designated as the target of a government investigation because it’s their job (according to Congressman Robert Bauman in his 1997 expose’ of government informers).

There is a legal doctrine that allows law enforcement to engage in “stealth and deception” and to use informants in order to apprehend persons engaged in criminal activities. (See Jury Instruction No. 16 in this case.) However, like many practices that are founded upon good intentions, the government has gone too far and now is well over the edge; now, as demonstrated by this case, the government is using “stealth and deception” to accuse the innocent of crimes that never happened. The government is now creating crimes for people targeted by them (such as Hinkson’s stated position on income taxes). Indeed the unchecked use of “stealth and deception” by informants is merely a license for the government to steal.

The FBI in Idaho has become emboldened by the fact that the courts will not regulate the use of “stealth and deception.” They have now accused Mr. Hinkson’s legal team of being co-conspirators in a plot to murder federal officials. FBI Agent Mary Martin made a last minute dash to create a new fiction for the jurors to contemplate, but the jurors didn’t fall for it. That last minute attempt involved a jailhouse snitch named Chad Croner (himself an informant seeking benefits from the government). In her zeal to punish Mr. Hinkson and his legal team for mounting a forceful defense she inserted into one of her “FBI 302” reports that the attorney for Mr. Hinkson had agreed to trade legal fees to one of Hinkson’s fellow inmates in exchange for having him kill designated federal officials. Clearly, this was a desperate attempt by the government to shore up a weak case by attempting to destroy the effectiveness of Hinkson defenders. Shame on you Agent Mary Martin! Have you also become one of the liars, like your informants?

It made little difference that the attorneys in question had over 30 years of experience, are AV rated by their peers and have never had any disciplinary action taken against them. Nor was Agent Martin concerned that her chosen inmate-informant was being held on a $500,000 bond for rape and kidnapping or that he was not likely to get out before his April 2005 trial date or that he would likely spend the rest of his life in jail. How is it that such a person would be able to kill anyone?

The implausibility of this new murder-for-hire plot has become the government’s latest and greatest fiction in the saga of David Roland Hinkson and surpasses all comprehension. However, this latest incident of accusing Mr. Hinkson attorneys, points to the real source of the problem. Let’s be clear. The government is becoming desperate. It attempts to implicate innocent people for crimes that did not occur simply to justify the forfeiture of property to pay for more informants. The government, having been empowered by the courts to “engage in a broad range of techniques and methods to disclose criminal activity” through “stealth and deception” (see Jury Instruction No. 16), have now stooped to an all time low of accusing any innocent person who dares to oppose them of murder-for-hire of federal officials. Whatever happened to decency, honesty, justice and the rule of law?

As indicated by Robert E. Bauman, JD, former Congressman from Maryland, in his 1997 white paper on his investigation of the government’s “wild, out-of-control” informants, shockingly revealed that some informants are paid between $100,000 and $250,000 per year to lie about their fellow Americans. This money comes from property seized by the government that does not pass through the normal budgetary process. It’s all about power, control and tyranny as the federal system in Idaho is fast becoming a totalitarian government.

In this case, all informants for the government, were either disgruntled former employees of WaterOz with a grudge against David Hinkson, or they were persons with an economic interest in seeing Mr. Hinkson jailed. These witnesses did not corroborate each other. Their tales were of separate events and had unique features. Their allegations against Hinkson were at different times involving different events but were heard by each informant to be solicitations for murder or threats against federal officials. Here, it is alleged Hinkson committed a “hearsay crime” or “crime of speech” heard only by one party. Such a scheme makes it easy for a motivated informant-liar to get his reward. Unfortunately, our court system does not require a second accuser to corroborate the statements of a person such as an Elven Joe Swisher.

After the verdict in the Tax Case in late June 2004 and after Mr. Hinkson had been held in jail for one year and three months, an indictment was finally issued against him. The indictment issued for eleven counts relating to alleged statements of threatening harm to the federal officials. It is upon this indictment that the jury returned its mixed verdict on January 27, 2005. Hinkson was acquitted of five counts but the jury deadlock on three others.

In its January 27, 2005, determination, the jury acquitted Mr. Hinkson on both Counts of making threats against the family members of U.S. Officials Hines and Cook. They found him not guilty of three Counts of soliciting the murder of three officials (which allegedly happened in March, 2003).

The jury was deadlocked and could not come to agreement on three other counts of solicitation (alleged to have occurred in January 2003). These counts were based on government-informant, J.C. Harding’s testimony. The government had sent him from California in an effort to entrap Hinkson. A mistrial was declared as to these three deadlocked charges. An appeal will be taken with reference to the three “Swisher counts” on which a guilty verdict was entered. Government-informant Harding attempted to entrap Hinkson by using a tape-recorder just days before his April 4, 2003, arrest. On the tape Hinkson was repeatedly asked by Harding if he wanted to have these federal officials killed, and Hinkson repeatedly replied that he did not -- instead Hinkson stated he was just “suing them.” He said he was just using their legal “system” against them and that he wanted to have his day in court where he knew he could prevail. Hinkson said similar things in a radio talk show interview of January 8, 2003 (just ninety days before his arrest), which also was tape recorded by the government and used as evidence against him. Although he spoke freely and openly in both instances using metaphors and quips and showed no indications or plans to commit acts of violence, both instances of “free speech” were used against him in an effort to censor and convict him of what the government perceives as “speech crimes” -- just so that they can shut up Hinkson .

With regard to the bank structuring charges, that arose as a part of the Tax Case and the May 5, 2004, conviction, there was no dispute that the money in Hinkson’s bank account was legally earned. Nor was it disputed that it was lawfully used to pay the wages of his factory workers. It was not shown that Mr. Hinkson used the money withdrawn from his bank for any illegal purpose; rather, the witnesses in the Tax Case (including government witnesses) testified that the money was lawfully used for payroll. It was established that, three months before the April 2004 trial, Mr. Hinkson was granted a U.S. Treasury Department Payroll Exemption which, if it had been granted earlier, would have totally exonerated him from criminal structuring charges.

Since the Payroll Exemption could only be generated by a request from the bank, Mr. Hinkson was dependent upon his banker to know the rules and make the request. She, by her own admission, was neglectful and did not learn about the Payroll Exemption until January 2004. All that is needed to obtain the Payroll Exemption is the mere filing by the bank of an application with the U.S. Treasury Department. Had the Payroll Exemption been obtained during years 2000 and 2001 (the relevant time period for the structuring offenses charged) there would have been no basis for prosecuting Hinkson for criminal structuring violations.

The exemption granted in January 2004 allowed the bank to avoid the CTR with reference to Mr. Hinkson’s account since he was using cash withdrawals to pay payroll (which is legal), but it is the exact conduct deemed to be unlawful when successive withdrawals occur (each less than $10,000, when together the total is more than $10,000). This belated Payroll Exemption was not honored by the Court and was not considered a defense in the Tax Case. As a result, Mr. Hinkson was convicted of “money laundering by structuring currency transactions to avoid a bank CTR.” Yet it was the Bank’s failure -- not Mr. Hinkson’s failure -- to obtain the Payroll Exemption. It was, in fact, the Bank’s failure to report the transactions that formed the basis of the alleged structuring crime.

Mr. Hinkson protests, “The government is unfair and engages in foul play by prosecuting him for that which involved no criminal intent. Rather, it merely involved negligent conduct of others over whom he has no control. The requirement that the bank alone seek the Payroll Exemption prohibited him from participating in the process by independently demanding that an application be submitted to the Treasury Department. In spite of this administrative nightmare, Mr. Hinkson has now been held criminally responsible for structuring and may expect up to five years in a federal prison simply because his banker was unfamiliar with the law. The Bank simply failed to get him the Payroll Exemption to which he was otherwise entitled.

The root of the problem is that in its last revision of the money laundering law in 1996, Congress failed to tie the use of the money obtained in a structured transaction to criminal conduct. By removing criminality as an element of any offense, Congress has opened a Pandora’s Box. By allowing the government prosecutors to prey upon the American people for innocent conduct where no criminal intent exists, it is turning ordinary banking transactions into criminal law violations.

Hinkson says, “If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.” Mr. Hinkson, as a former national talk-radio host says, that “no American is safe from indictment under the new structuring law. You may not intend to do so, but if you bought a used car with $9,000 cash down that was drawn out of your bank account on day-one and on day-two you paid off the balance with $5,000 (also cash from your bank account), congratulations, you’ve just structured a currency transaction. You’ve now committed a federal felony, and you are now subject to government prosecution with asset forfeiture and five years in prison.” Beware! Those of you who simply withdraw cash, cashier checks, traveler’s checks or money orders in an amount greater than $10,000 which is split over more than one day, you are in violation of this structuring law. The housewife who obtains traveler’s checks for the family vacation and who gets $8,000 from her bank on the first day then realizes that it is not enough and goes back on the second day getting $2,500 more in traveler’s checks, she is also guilty of structuring. There are no good faith or lack of illegal purpose exceptions, it is the law. Thus, you are doomed -- until Congress makes a change. What were our Congressional leaders thinking when they amended the law in 1996 to delete the element of a criminal purpose associated with the funds withdrawn?

In fact, since there is no time limit on the space between the offending transactions, if cash is taken from a bank account (or even a series of bank accounts controlled by the same person) and this occurs over time, once it adds up to “one red cent over $10,000,” the structuring violation is committed. Literally, a person could be prosecuted if, over the period of a year, he was to take out cash less than $10,000 in one day, but when all of his currency transactions are added together they totaled more than $10,000 over several days, then a structuring crime has been committed. In a committee note in the Congressional Record in the 1996 amendment to the structuring law, Congress said that “no innocent person could be prosecuted under this new structuring law.” Thus, it is apparent that Congress recognized the potential for abuse by the government. Mr. Hinkson has joined the ranks of thousands of other individuals who have innocently made withdrawals from their bank accounts for legal purposes and are now subject to prosecution and five years in a federal penitentiary -- merely because Congress failed to connect the crime stopping dots and because our U.S. prosecutors are far too aggressive in attacking innocent citizens who might have some money that can be forfeited to support the voracious informant monster.

To ties all these seemingly loose ends together, while the Tax and Structuring Case was pending, Hinkson was arrested on April 4, 2003. He then became a political prisoner of the United States. That means he was in jail for one year, before he went to trial, on the counts of failure to file income tax . It was Mr. Hinkson’s analysis of the federal tax code that led him to a determination that he was not a person required to file tax forms during 1994. In 2000 when the tax investigation began against him, Hinkson endeavored to engage the IRS in a civil law. He sought to have a jury resolve the question whether he was a person required to file tax returns. When, in March 2000, he demanded trial by a civil jury, the IRS, who had previously advised him in writing that the investigation was civil, immediately turned the case into a criminal prosecution. This precluded Mr. Hinkson from litigating the applicability of the tax law as it applied to him.

- 30 -

Contact: Information Source:

Roland C. Hinkson Court files and Records

Investigative Reporter Of the Idaho Federal District Court

roland@ouraynet.com In Cases:

100 8^th Avenue Box 5 U.S. v. Hinkson, CR 02-0142, and

Ouray, CO 81427 U.S. v. Hinkson, CR 04-0127

(Supporting documentation available on request)

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml