A cesspool of Judicial Corruption

THIRTEEN who is this guy swisher?

A former close friend of Swisher's, Joe Volk, didn't believe at first that Swisher is a fraud. Swisher was Commandant of the local Marine Corp League unit. The other members were proud to have such a combat veteran like Swisher as their chief. Mr. Volk was a former active member of the United States Marine Corp and a member of the National Marine Corps League (NMCL) until an incident with Commandant Elven Joe Swisher.

Joe Volk and his wife, Barb, shared celebrations of the 4th of July or on other occasional events with Joe Swisher and his wife, Barbara. Volk was an authentic combat veteran, who had fought in Viet Nam with Mike Clausen (his honored friend). Joe Volk introduced Swisher to Mike. Swisher followed up this contact seeking Clausen's and Volk's help with regards to Veterans Administration (VA) benefits.

In an affidavit concerning Mike Clausen, Joe Volk testifies:

Clausen earned the Medal of Honor as a result of a January 31, 1970, incident in a mine field outside Da Nang, Viet Nam, rescuing 18 fallen soldiers during 'Operation King Fisher;' in which I participated as a member of Alpha Company, First Battalion, Marines. On that day Clausen walked through the tall grass in this mine field with a helicopter nearby and, at the peril of his own life, physically carried 18 wounded U.S. servicemen to the chopper. . . . The men were spread out over that mine field and they were taking enemy ground fire. During his four year tour of duty, Clausen received a total of 113 commendations and medals for his numerous acts of bravery and distinguished service in addition to the Medal of Honor.

Swisher borrowed a copy of Clausen's information about the 'replacement' Medal of Honor awarded to Clausen by President Richard M. Nixon so that he, Swisher, could use that information as a template for the creation of Swisher's forged 'Replacement DD-214.' . . . Swisher used information of Clausen's to present to various courts and governmental officials–and which was used by him to bestow the honor due to distinguished service veterans upon himself.

By contrast, Swisher, with his fictitious stories of valor, was able to obtain the Clausen information that helped Swisher manufacture his own fictitious claims of valor using the facts from true stories of real combat heroes such as Clausen. . . . Swisher learned from Clausen that the most highly respected hero was the one who rescued American soldiers. So when Swisher manufactured his story he weaved his plot around a rescue operation, involving supposed American, Korean War POWs in order to engender greater empathy.
Later as we unravel the story, the Appellate judges in reviewing the Record in David's Case struggled with various issues. In the first written Appellate Opinion the two Majority Judges marveled at Judge Tallman's statement that "a quick review of the file indicates that Mr. Swisher was, in fact, involved in top secret activities." The judges said, "We were somewhat surprised in view of the contents of the file." The Opinion continued:

Outside the presence of the jury . . . The Court [Tallman] told Counsel [Noland and Hoyt] that it would conduct a more thorough review of the file over the weekend. When the trial reconvened on Monday, January 24, the Court discussed Swisher’s official military file with Counsel–off the record. Then, on the record and without the jury present, the Court stated its conclusions. The Court stated that the file had been sent in response to the Court’s subpoena to the National Personnel Records Center [the irrefutable authority] . . . and the Dowling Letter concluded that the "replacement DD-214" and the "supporting letter" purportedly signed by Woodring were "not authentic" [They were, in fact, fake– a fraud]. But the Court [Tallman] stated that it [he] found the file "very difficult to decipher."

Tallman had said: "It is not at all clear to me what the truth of the matter is."

He said that the problem he had in reviewing the documents (in private chambers) "is that the documents we have, themselves, are neither self-authenticating nor self-explanatory. I have no idea, if somebody is involved in secret military operations [or] whether or not their personnel file would ever reflect those missions."

His determination to support the federal prosecutors and to convict David overpowered any commonsense–the final authority on document verification is the National Personnel Record's Center. His feeble attempt to fantasize the obvious was beyond pathetic. We have a signed affidavit from a witness who inadvertently caught Swisher during the trial departing from Judge Tallman's office. Obviously, Tallman prostituted his office as an unbiased appellate court judge and is simply a liar.

Judge Tallman denied David's motion for a new trial. Certainly, Tallman had to know better. If he ruled according to the absolute evidence, David would likely have walked–a free man. Tallman chose to lie!

He gave several reasons for declining to grant a new trial on the basis of David's newly discovered evidence (that Swisher's documents were forgeries etc.). Tallman had grasped for straws in order to support his former colleagues, the federal prosecutors.

The Appellate judges pointed out that "First, the Court [Tallman] concluded that Hinkson had not been diligent in seeking the evidence he now submitted to the Court. Second, the Court concluded that the evidence was not "newly discovered" because "the substance of both proffered documents is not new and is generally cumulative of previously available information." Finally, most importantly, the Court concluded that the proffered "new" evidence is not material to the issue at trial."

What utter nonsense. What we just read was that David's attorneys were not diligent, that timing at trial is more important than a man's life, and the testimony of a pathological liar is not material to a defendant's case.

On April 22, 2005, Judge Tallman denied David a new trial and continued to rule that Swisher may have really been involved in secret operations as he had testified, regardless of the screaming evidence. Tallman's opinion reflects a belief that Swisher's testimony is at least equal to the official records of the National Personnel Records Center and of the United States Marine Corp. And unless David can show that Swisher's testimony is, absolutely, false and David can't prove his innocence, he surely must be guilty and must spend the rest of his life in prison.

Based on Swisher's "insightful and honest encounters" with David we must not question any of Swisher's testimony. The Justice Department (and some within the judiciary) is more concerned with who wins in a contest than who is innocent or guilty.

Can one person launch a ship into a cesspool-sea that destroys anyone in its path? Let's see.