If General Flynn can receive a “Pardon of Innocence”, so should Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alt News? (OPINION)

Author: Stanley Bolten

General Michael Thomas Flynn was pardoned by President Donald J. Trump on November 25. President Trump declared General Flynn innocent of his charges. If President Trump can do that, he should do such for Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News in my humble opinion.

See Article: Brian D. Hill of USWGO news kept begging for full pardon from President Trump, weekly letters #DigitalSoldiers #Trump #MAGA #Trump2020
See Article: Open letter to Lt. General Michael T. Flynn and #DigitalSoldiers – Dated November 1, 2020

This Full Pardon achieves that objective, finally bringing to an end the relentless, partisan pursuit of an innocent man…General Flynn should not require a pardon. He is an innocent man. Even the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn did not think he was lying. Multiple investigations have produced evidence establishing that General Flynn was the victim of partisan government officials engaged in a coordinated attempt to subvert the election of 2016. (Citations omitted)

Quoted from the White House statement on General Flynn pardon – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grant-clemency-general-michael-t-flynn/

A President has the authority to issue pardons of innocence/acquittal.

I have read Judge Sullivan’s opinion in General Michael Flynn’s criminal case that a pardon does not equal acquittal, cannot blot out of existence the guilt, and used a Supreme Court case dated 1833, see United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 150 (1833) (emphasis added). However this corrupt Federal Judge is using an older case, even though a Supreme Court opinion later in that century gave a different opinion and case law authority on Presidential full pardons can be used for acquittals. In fact state governors also have the discretion to file pardons, even declaring somebody innocent of a crime. For example, Virginia Governors can issue an absolute pardon if the criminal defendant is innocent of his crime and has exhausted all remedies without success but is still innocent of the crime.

Let’s again review over “Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)”:

Such being the case, the inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender, and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that, in the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes
Page 71 U. S. 381
him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.

Cited from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/

So Judge Sullivan the corrupt Obama appointed deep state political-character-assassin judge is twisting older case law in 1833 prior to Supreme Court decision of “Ex Parte Garland” of 1866 to justify even a possibly to later argue that the pardon does not undo a wrongful conviction by a corrupt prosecution and corrupt Federal Judges.

Newer Supreme Court case law overrides older misguided case law. If the newer Supreme Court decisions say that a President of our federal government can declare somebody innocent, it goes along with state Governors also having the power to grant an “absolute pardon” or pardon of innocence. The U.S. Constitution said that state governments shall also be republican governments and based similar on the federal system of three branches of government. So if multiple states all have pardons for declaring a criminal convict as an INNOCENT MAN, so can a federal Governor aka the President of the United States of America. Governors and Presidents are the executive branches of government. If the state has precedent that pardons declare somebody innocent, then so can the President.

My argument why President Trump should declare Brian D. Hill actually innocent through a pardon declaration. It can be done. The President can grant “pardons and reprieves”. Declaring a man or woman innocent of a wrongful conviction or charge is a check and a balance against a corrupt judiciary where a court repeatedly refuses to administer justice and repeatedly creates an impediment to true justice, a mockery of true justice but in a twisted sense, a repeated pattern of miscarriages of justice to such an extent where the Court no longer cares about its own credibility but only cares about its sole political agenda and narrative that it wishes to set against all odds. A JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP!!!!

See audio: https://soundcloud.com/stanley-bolten-747524266/brian-d-hill-of-uswgo-emergency-request-for-full-pardon-now-1 or https://archive.org/details/BrianDHillUSWGOPardonNow

I disagree with corrupt judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the Washington, DC District of Criminals kangaroo Court of DC. States have a pardon of innocence ability. So why not the President of the United States of America?

In the criminal case of both General Flynn and Brian’s criminal case, both have false guilty pleas entered due to ineffective assistance of counsel, threats or coercion involved in the false admission of guilt, that both were politically persecuted for political reasons. They were both targeted by the deep state twisting things and bending evidence to fit their narratives in their corrupt criminal prosecutions. Fraud, manufacturing evidence, spoliation of evidence, perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice. This is both judicial corruption and prosecutorial corruption at the highest courts of government inside the United States of America.