Tag Archives: Sean Swain

Inaugeration

Hear the actual (fake) press conference here.

PRESS SECRETARY: If members of the press would please be seated… My name is Umar Al-Haq, Press Secretary for Ohio Governor-in-Exile Sean Swain.
The Governor-in-Exile celebrated his inauguration on January 12th with a ceremony here in A-block. After taking the oath of office, the Governor-in-Exile signed 7 executive orders he will describe for you shortly. Invited guests then celebrated with a main course of nachos, with a choice of soda or Kool-Aid. No prison staff attended.
The Governor-in-Exile will now make a brief statement but will not be fielding any questions.
Ohio Governor-in-Exile Sean Swain…

SEAN SWAIN: Thank you.
I would like to preface my press statement with a reminder that the State is a swindle, authority sucks, and obedience is boring.
I ran for Ohio Governor on the promise of abolishing the S that we would all have the chance to dance naked around a bonfire where the Ohio Statehouse used to be. When I insisted on being included in the debates, both corporate candidates, for the first time in history, agreed to NOT have any debates. Both the democrat and republican hierarchs feared the powerful ideas of an anarchist.
Relegated a write-in candidate, my votes were never counted and despite the fact that JWow Kasich was declared the winner by his hierarch friends who swap dogs with him behind the Masonic Lodge, I never conceded the election. As mentioned, while this fraudulent pretender JWow was sworn in, I too was sworn in, right here in A-block. Consistent with my campaign promises, I immediately signed 7 executive orders, which I will describe briefly. These orders will be scanned and available at seanswain.org. My cabinet will be providing copies of these orders to Ohio lawmakers and Supreme court judges so they can recognize ME as the REAL governor and abide by my legally-binding executive orders.
Isn’t this great fun?
So, as to the orders I signed, all of them are perfectly legal and become effective after 30 days, on February 11th. I ordered the Ohio prison system emptied and turned into squats. I made every day of the calendar year a state holiday, so no one will ever go to work. I de-commissioned the national guard and ordered all their weapons turned over to the Native American tribes who legally own Ohio according to the Treaty of Greeneville. I ordered the State of Ohio dissolved and the Statehouse burned to the ground.
On February 11th, anyone claiming to exercise authority as a state official may be “shot, stabbed, hanged, impaled, beheaded, dismembered, drowned, shot from a cannon, lit on fire, run down with a motor vehicle of any variety, ground to pieces in a wood chipper or similar device, bludgeoned, dropped from extreme heights, and/or subdued upon train tracks to be hit by a train.” I specified that anyone claiming authority after February 11th may be killed AND eaten.
No sense letting all that meat go to waste.
Henry David Thoreau, a famous dead guy, once wrote, “‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men(sic) are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”
I agree. I say, let’s roll that beautiful bean footage, and let’s see what happens.
Of course, the United States is going to have to cut one of those stars off of their flag, and we’ll need volunteers to dig up all the federal highways and give the United States their pavement back.
We’re going to be the first area in the last 6,000 years of dystopic swivelization to brag 100% unemployment. Our closest competitor will be the Republic of Haiti. All the slaves dragging stones up the sides of the pyramids in the states that surround us will see how much fun we’re having and they’ll topple their masters too. The hierarch delusion will be exposed for the false mythology that it really is and obedience to tyrants wil be a nightmare of the past. We’ll swim and forage during the day and at night we’ll dance around bonfires lit with useless paper currency. We’ll scare the kids with the story of swivelization, just to make sure they never repeat THAT mistake.
And if anyone attempts to impose their will on the rest of us, they can end up on a spit over the fire just like the last crew of tyrants we shrugged off.
February 11th. There’ll be a 2-11 in progress. We’ll steal back the future, dissolve the state, and, weather permitting, dance naked around that bonfire where the Ohio Statehouse used to be.
This is Ohio Governor in Exile Sean Swain from Ohio’s supermax facility. If you’re listening, you ARE the resistance…
* * *

What Is An Anarchist Engagement?

What is an anarchist engagement? I ask because I’m running for Ohio Governor in 2014 as a write in candidate from Ohio’s super-duper-uber-mega ultramax facility.
Yeah, I know.Your thinking, ‘Running for office is not anarchist-it’s reformist at best’ and thinking ‘A prisoner getting elected?’ And you likely conclude, this is all just further evidence-as if we need more-that Sean Swain is a wing nut. I would say that this is further proof that I’m brilliant and completely misunderstood- thats my story and I’m sticking to it.
I’ve been told that by running for Governor, I’m promoting the idea that reformist ballots are the answer-registering to vote, voting and all the hierarchical implications that that entails. I’ve been told that we need revolution, not diversions into electoral wheel-spinning,and that I’m doing a disservice promoting the idea that elections can be a solution.
Okay, now consider:
It’s not my goal to become Ohio Governor so that I can maintain the state. I’m openly and admittedly an anarchist and I’M running as an anarchist. I’m promising that, if elected I would tear down the state and establish the Ohio Autonomous Zone.
In fact, I have a program already planned out. It’s on my website. My first day in office, I would empty Ohio’s prisons. I would de-commission the National Guard and I would give the weapons to the Native American tribes I would be inviting back.
According to the Treaty of Greenville, they still own this territory. So it’s not exactly reparations for the genocide they experienced, but I’D give them the land back and a bunch of rifles and tanks and Apache attack helicopters in order to defend it.
With no budget signed-ever- no cops would get paid so there woulds be nobody standing between us chasing the banksters and crapitalists out of here with torches and pitchforks-like they have deserved for centuries.We could then export revolution from the Ohio Autonomous Zone. Continue reading →

Swain for Governor Campaign Announcement

swain really what's the worst Media Release

Anarchist prisoner Sean Swain Runs for Governor
as a Write- in Candidate from Ohio’s SuperMax Facility,
Invites a Million Carpetbaggers to Hijack Election

Sean estimates that he received approximately (8) eight votes in 2010, the last time he ran for governor from prison. Back then, Sean Swain had a hard time convincing voters they should “abolish” the state of Ohio, electing Swain with an anarchist mandate to forcibly disassemble the State once and for all. But Swain says a lot has changed since 2010 and he believes a sizable groundswell is coming around to his way of thinking– that the government, and the corporations whose interests the government serves, are the real enemies to be resisted and eliminated.
Swain points to the Occupy Movement, which was pre-figured in his 2007 work Last Act of the Circus Animals, and it’s violent disbandment by the government’s agents of control as proof that many are imagining “a different future.” Swain believes he has the plan for getting there. If elected Ohio governor Swain promises to:
* Decommission the Ohio National Guard
* Empty Ohio’s prisons and turn them into squats
* Recognize Native American land rights as set forth by the Treaty of Greenville
* Arm the tribes with national guard weaponry, to include tanks and attack helicopters,
* Refuse to sign any budget causing the government to shut down, and
* Sign an Executive Order making it legal to assassinate him if he remains in office longer than 90 days.

Continue reading →

Violence! Violence! Violence!

An open letter to ODRC Legal Counsel Trevor Matthew Clark, Esquire, on his favorite topic–my unapologetic advocacy of political violence (written in the hopes of inspiring others to adopt my position and engage in revolutionary action).

Dear Trevor:

In the interests of full transparency, I’d like to begin this letter by making my aims clear. I advocate political violence. I contend that political violence is absolutely necessary for the success of a revolutionary project, and I defend its morality as well as its practicality. I write this in the admitted hope that my reasonable and articulate arguments will reach rational people who will embrace the position I advocate, and that theywill take back the future from oppressors and tyrants by engaging in effective revolutionary action.

I present all of this as a letter to you for a few reasons. First, your written positions related to my prison disciplinary situation provide a pretty good representation of the State’s position, or at least can be used for extrapolating authority’s position on political violence. Second, you are an attorney, which makes you an expert at law and at argument, so if and when I can dispose of your stated positions and reduce your claims to nonsense, that will then demonstrate the superiority of my position to yours, and will prove pretty conclusively that political violence makes sense. And third, I know that once this is posted, given your emotional instability, the presence of this letter online will drive you completely bonkers for the rest of your life–which I will find personally satisfying, given your role in the State’s efforts to destroy my life; as listening to my disciplinary proceedings made you feel like “shooting [your]self in the face,” I imagine this will too. By all means, do not let me dissuade you.

I think that takes care of the disclosure ad transparency, so we should proceed to the topic of political violence. Typically, I will predicate a work like this with a few relevant quotes. I think that approach appropriate here.

So we begin.

“We are anarchists specifically because we do not water down our critique of social ills. We seek to strike the system at its roots.” –Crimethink, After the Crest III:Barcelona at Low Tide

“The revolutionary project of anarchists is to struggle along with the exploited and push them to rebel against all abuse and repression, so also against prison. What moves them is a desire for a better world, a better life with dignity ad ethic, where economy and politics have been destroyed. There can be no place for prison in that world”
“That is why anarchists scare power.”
“That is why they are locked up in prison.” –Alfredo Bonanno, “Introductory Note,” Locked Up

“Men [sic] will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last pope.” –Denis Diderot

Defining “Political Violence”

What is violence? No one can reasonably adopt a position on something before we define what it is. My dictionary gives five definitions, but the first one, I think, is more than adequate for our purposes here: “physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury.” By this definition, “violence” would include property damage and sabotage, though most purists would object to this definition and assert that “violence” is only “violence” when directed at living beings. I’m inclined to accept the definition that property damage is also violence because that’s more consistent with the position you’ve put forward on behalf of the State when you argued that I advocated violence against “people,” “destruction of property,” and “harassment,” and I would prefer not to quibble over the smaller details. So, for our purposes, we can accept that property damage is violence.

I think it’s important, though, that we point out that the definition of violence doesn’t include any qualifiers. What I mean is, by our definition, it matters not whether I’m punching you in the face or whether you are punching me in the face; a punch in the face is “physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse or injury,” no matter who the actor is. Violence is violence.

I know, that’s kind of self-evident as far as observations go. Kind of a no-brainer. I just wanted to point it out though, for future reference, for when we get to the point where you want to shoot yourself in the face.

But we don’t want to talk about just any violence. Interpersonal violence isn’t our topic. I don’t think either one of us is, for instance, advocating “domestic violence.” The question before us is whether or not we advocate political violence. Again we consult a dictionary and the first definition for “political” is, “of or relating to the affairs of government, politics, or the state.” I think that’s workable for the definition of “political.” If we put that together with our definition of violence, we create our working definition of political violence: “Physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury…of or related to the affairs of government, politics, or the state.”

I suppose we could go further and ask what the State is, particularly in this age where the State is so inextricably linked with the management of the economy and in the affairs of large corporations, but that’s really a whole other discussion unto itself, isn’t it? Our topic here is already ambitious enough, I think. So we can forego the question of, “What is the State?,” at least for purposes of identity, and we’ll suffice to say that the State is “the government,” the incorporated entity that exercises its assumed powers and authority, by and through its agents–like you. You qualify as an agent of the State.

Belief in Political Violence, Part I

Having defined political violence, we now address the question of whether or not I “believe in it.” If by “believe in it” we mean, “do I believe that political violence is real, then I would have to say, no, I do not believe in political violence. I know that political violence is real.

Political violence–“physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury…of or related to the affairs of government, politics, or the state”–is a fact of reality. It is happening at all times. It is ubiquitous.

The reality of political violence cannot rationally be questioned.

Belief in Political Violence, Part II

If by “belief in political violence” you mean to ask, “Do I believe political violence is practical?,” I would again have to answer, no. I do not believe that political violence is practical. I know that it is.

The reason I know political violence is practical is, I took a sociology class with Ashland University. I read the textbook. In it, the writers pointed out that movements like the Irish Republican Army that employed violence achieved at least partial success an overwhelming majority of the time, as opposed to strictly nonviolent movements where just the opposite held true.

So, we can say objectively and without a doubt that, as a practical matter, political violence works.

And, I think I need to point out here, I’m not yet making an argument for political violence. Nothing so far related to how I “feel” about political violence or whether I “like” political violence or not. Political violence is real and it works, however we “feel” about it, the same way that the planet is round, gravity persists, and the earth goes around the sun, all independent of the question of whether we “believe” in the planet’s roundness, or gravity’s legitimacy, or the earth’s trajectory.

Gravity does not seek our consent. Neither does the efficacy of political violence.

Belief in Political Violence, Part III

If you ask, “Do you believe in political violence?” and by “believe in” you mean, “Do you think political violence should be employed?” I would answer with an emphatic yes. But if you were being honest, Trevor, you would also answer with an emphatic yes. You accept political violence as moral and legitimate, and I can prove it to you.

You work as ODRC Counsel–as an attorney for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The ODRC is an agency of the State of Ohio, established by the Ohio Constitution of 1803. Ohio is the 17th state of the United States; the United States gained its independence from the British crown with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1787.

By calling yourself “ORDC Counsel,” you are implicitly stipulating to the truth of all of those facts. You have to be. If any one of those statements above are untrue, you aren’t ODRC Counsel. You’re just a dude in skinny jeans with a lot of college debt and the FBI on speed-dial. If the ODRC is not an agency of the State of Ohio, then you have no claim to exercise authority on behalf of the State. If the Treaty of Paris didn’t provide the United States independence from the British crown, then the United States is not a sovereign nation, Ohio isn’t part of its confederation, and Ohio is not a state. Again, that leaves you in your skinny jeans chatting with the fascists and wondering how you’ll pay off all that college debt since you don’t have a job.

So, in Trevor Clark’s world, the Treaty of Paris is valid. The revolutionaries in the colonies who engaged in open, violent rebellion against the rightful authorities–rightful authorities under existing international law–were not criminals, traitors, offenders against the peace and dignity of the British crown, but were instead signatories to a treaty, the proper representatives of a nation whose independence was gained through the means of political violence.

You’re an attorney, Trevor. Do you practice British law in British courts? Are you a member of the British bar? When you introduced yourself to me on 27 March 2013, did you refer to yourself as Counsel for the British Crown?

I guess that means you accept the legitimacy of the political violence employed by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, and the rest. I guess that means that you, like every other U.S. citizen, have to concede and stipulate to the acceptance of political violence and its validity.

So much for your categorical rejection of political violence, huh?

This is an important point because it proves that you and I have more in common in our thinking than we have uncommon. We both know that political violence exists. We both know that, as a practical matter, it works. And we both accept that recourse to political violence is legitimate. We only argue, potentially, over the questions of when political violence should be employed, by whom, to what end, and against whom.

So let’s shift gears for a moment. Let’s stop talking about my advocacy of political violence and start talking about yours.

Back to our Definition of “Political Violence”

You’ll recall that earlier I made the point that “violence” as it is defined, has no qualifiers, that it matters not whether I’m punching you in the face or whether you are punching me in the face. A punch in the face is violence no matter who the actor is. Violence is violence. And so we get to the point I foreshadowed, where you want to shoot yourself in the face.

On 19 September 2012, without any justification at all–and admittedly so, because everything I was accused of related to my apprehension was dismissed–you, the State, removed me from the prison population. You put me in cuffs. You “exerted” “physical force…so as to cause damage, abuse, or injury,” forcibly taking me into custody and putting me in a torture cell for days. That’s violence. And it’s violence “related to the affairs of…the state,” as it’s violence employed by the State in the (mis)management of its affairs. I was then subjected to conditions that the CIA described as “the simple torture situation” in its KUBARK Counterintelligence and Interrogation Manual, an insidious how-to manual for torturers and state-terrorists like yourself.

It was also on 19 September 2012 that you, the State, “seized” my typewriter and then destroyed it in retaliation for me calling the ODRC director a “sock puppet” for the JPay corporation. You’ll recall, by our definition, when you “exert” “physical force…so as to cause damage…,” that’s violence. And in this case, the violence, destroying my typewriter, is directly “related to the affairs of…the State,” as “the State” is the entity destroying my typewriter for its own political agenda.

See the problem you have here, Trevor? It’s very, very difficult to hear your indignant and self-righteous condemnations of “political violence” because every time you try to speak, more and more corpses fall out of the mass grave we know as your mouth.

But while we’re on the topic, let’s also analyze the larger context of your political violence. In my own case, I’ve been held without a legitimate legal justification according to your own laws, for twenty-three years. That means I’m not a prisoner; I’m a kidnap victim.¹

Kidnapping is a violent crime, Trevor. Violence. State violence, and State violence is, de facto, political violence.

When you continually employ political violence against someone, it seems more than a little bit irrational and hypocritical for you to assert that the victims of your political violence do not so much as have the right to “advocate” its use against you.

And, of course, the ultimate irony is, if you had not abducted me and tortured me and mounted an all-out assault on every aspect of my life in flagrant violation of your own written laws (not that anyone, particularly you, pays any attention to those), I never would have been provoked to “advocate” a politically-violent response.

You will recall that you wrote to my attorneys, “The types of violence and intimidation that are advocated for [sic] in his writings fall clearly within the legal exceptions to that right [of free speech].² ODRC will not tolerate threats, harassment and attempts at intimidation.” That’s what you wrote.

See your problem? If the State will not tolerate “threats,” perhaps the State should get out of the “threat” business. If the State won’t tolerate “harassment,” whatever that means, perhaps it should cease its torture and state-terror operations. If the State won’t tolerate “intimidation,” maybe it should stop using its machinery of violence to silence, neutralize, and destroy its critics, whistleblowers, and political opponents.

Just an idea. Otherwise, if the State is going to be in the threat, harassment and intimidation business, as it clearly is now, then the State is going to be turning a lot of people into enemies, the same way you have made a lifelong enemy of me, and you will soon have to confront thousands of Sean Swains…all of us recognizing that we have no other recourse but political violence. Not all of us can easily be tucked away at super-duper-uber-mega-ultramax.

You’re got something like twelve million people in Ohio. And lots and lots of guns.

I read somewhere that estimated gun ownership in the U.S. is more than 200 million. That’s a lot of guns. If you divide that evenly among all 50 states, which is unrealistic since only 12 people live in Montana, the people of Ohio alone have at least 4 million guns. That’s a gun for every third person.

I suppose for the remainder of this, I can address my arguments directly to those people. The literary device of directing my arguments to you has served its purpose. So, by all means, don’t let me hold you from any important business. Feel free to shoot yourself in the face at any time.

12 million People, 4 million guns, and 1 Common Enemy Subjecting Everyone to Political Violence…Arrogantly Assuming We Won’t Do Something About It…

The Trevor Clarks who run the State of Ohio will not tolerate your “threats” or “harassment” or “intimidation.” They will, however, take your money without your consent to pay their own salaries. They tax you, supposedly for your own good. Supposedly to provide you “services,” like roads, schools, and protection.

But you’re reasonable. You’d voluntarily pay for services. You voluntarily pay for services every day. If the State really offered services, you would gladly pay for the value of those services.

The State doesn’t give you that option. Instead, the State “exerts” “force” to fund “the affairs of government,” to your loss, to your “injury.” The State engages in political violence in your every transaction. The State knows that reasonable people like you would never pay outrageous sums for shoddy services, and so it resorts to political violence to keep itself going, not for your own good, but at your expense.

The Trevor Clarks who steal your money from you make a good salary. You pay them generously, not for roads, schools, and protections, but for chuck-holes, illiteracy, and political repression. You pay for the government hackers who are reading your e-mails and listening in on your phone calls. You pay for the miseducation system that convinces a new generation that they cannot possibly handle ruling themselves, that they need the government’s “services” of chuck-holes, illiteracy, and political repression. You pay for the Apache attack helicopters the government buys to “protect” you…and then points the helicopter at you.

The State will not tolerate your “threats” or “harassment” or “intimidation.” The Trevor Clarks have spoken. You 12 million people with at least 4 million guns will do what you are told and you will pay the bill…or else.

Does that sound like “freedom”? I could be wrong, but I think real freedom doesn’t involve your government constantly employing political violence against you and intimidating you if you start talking about freedom.

Not that it matters because we have no duty to defer to the documents of the Trevor Clarks who are stickingit to us, but the Ohio Constitution expressly provides that we have the “right” to “abolish” the government. Article I, Section 2. We can do it whenever we “deem it necessary.”

I don’t know about you, but I deem it necessary. I don’t want to die at super-duper-uber-mega-ultra-max because I defended my own life and then told the truth about the prison directors’ crimes. And, more importantly, I don’t want others to die for what they believe, locked away or shot by agents of an irrational State.³ So, that means the State has to go.

We deserve better.

Something to consider. There’s us… There’s them…

We have 12 million people and at least 4 million guns.

Any questions?

Just a quick reminder to any remaining pacifists out there–your choice is not between “violence” or “peace.” If it was, we would all choose peace. But if we do not choose to engage in violence, that does not create a situation of peace; that creates a situation of unilateral violence where the State continues to “exert” its “force” to your “injury.” So, an absence of action, on your part, facilitates State violence. In fact, the longer you refrain from acting, the more lives are devastated. Objectively, anyone who is really, truly for peace will struggle–by any means necessary— to destroy the State completely and as quickly as possible so that the principle cause of State violence will cease and we will then finally have the option of choosing peace.

You can’t choose “peace” with a loaded shotgun in your face. Once you address the issue of that loaded shotgun in your face, you have the option of choosing peace.

And personally, I cannot wait to choose peace.

The State and its political violence are an obstacle to that peace. Let’s remove it. Completely. Immediately.

As someone else who confronted terrorists at the controls once said, “Let’s roll.”

We own the future.

It starts now…if only we have the will.

Freedom or Death,

Sean Swain
Ideological Prisoner
Ohio State Penitentiary
Youngstown, Ohio

End Notes

1. I was kidnapped by the State in 1991 after defending my own life in my own home. Erie County Case No. 91-CR-253. My false conviction was reversed, Sixth District Case No. E-91-80. On remand, the trial court refused to follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals. I remain imprisoned for 23 years, still awaiting the fair trial ordered in 1993. To avoid having to recognize my innocence and the illegality of my captivity, the Erie County Court of Common Pleas simply refuses to file anything I present.

2. You have asserted that the First Amendment does not protect speech that “advocates violence.” If that’s the case, it was illegal to support the bombing of Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan. Bombs are violence, Trevor. It would also be illegal to advocate the executions of the Lucasville Uprising leaders.

Killing people is violence, Trevor.

So, clearly, the question of whether speech advocates or does not advocate violence is perfectly irrelevant to whether it enjoys First Amendment protections. In fact, if you read all of the U.S. Supreme Court cases that delineate prisoner free speech rights, the question of “advocating violence” is no part of the calculus. The question isn’t related to content, but to the forum and the purpose–in this case, a public forum, and the purpose is political speech; so, the speech in question is afforded the most protection according to your highest court’s decisions. See, Jones v. NCPLU, 433 US119 (1977); Pell v. Procunier, 417 US 817 (1974; Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 US 401 (1989); Turner v. Safley, 482 US 78 (1987); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 US 396 (1974; and Simon & Schuster Inc v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, et. al, 502 US 105 (1991). Simon & Schuster stands for the proposition that the State cannot create a “disincentive” for prisoner speech in a public forum…like, say, sending me to super-duper-uber-mega-ultra-max for my communicated ideas to a website.

3. The Cleveland Police reserve the right to shoot unarmed people 137 times. “To Protect and Serve” looks a lot like “To Enslave and Oppress.”

4. Some excellent resources:

Computer Security: crypto.com anonymizer.com colt.org/crypto c4m.net fbi.gov/hq/lab/carnivore/carnivore.htm netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois

Special Training: nasta.ws operationaltactics.org bad-boys.net swattraining.com specialoperations.com

Ohio Militia: oomaac.com

I have no idea about the politics of any of these groups, but I suspect they are armed. That’s a start. Whatever your politics, they can teach you how to shoot. That’s a start.

Or, apart from firearms, you could descend on the Ohio Statehouse in ski masks with cans of gasoline and books of matches. That’s a start too.

Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution affirms your right to do it.

—————————

Sean Swain is a prisoner in Ohio State penitentiary and a regular contributor to Fubar. He does not have computer access and cannot receive email. Sean’s website http://seanswain.org is maintained by his supporters.

Sean’s address is:

Sean Swain 243205
Ohio State Penitentiary
878 Coitsville-Hubbard Rd.
Youngstown OH 44505

On Being a SECURITY THREAT

By ____ _____¹The letter that follows was written to the investigator at Mansfield Corruptional Institution, the prison official with the responsibility of maintaining what is called the “Security Threat Group” list. I wrote this letter to her because I have been included on this list, which is essentially a “gang” list, even though I have been been involved in any gang or any organization that warrants placement on such a list.

So, if I have never been in a group or organization that has been designated a security threat group, why am I on the list?

There appears to be a pattern of Ohio’s government going out of its way to bend or break its own rules, and to even ignore its own laws, in order to do weird things to me that the government doesn’t do to anyone else. That’s really my principle concern with being placed upon a Security Threat Group list; the government says the list is for one thing, but uses the list for something else entirely.

This may come as a huge shocker, but I have to be the one to say it: The government lies. It lies constantly. And it lies about lying.

So, I wrote the accompanying letter for purposes of trying to persuade the investigator with reason and logic, and sent copies of the letter to the director of the Ohio Department of Retribution and Corruption, and to Governor John Kasich. Given the governor’s recent statements about the government needing to reform its practices and conduct itself in good faith, one might think the governor would have a problem with the prison system using the gang list in order to profile people for their deeply=held beliefs. As a man espousing his own deeply -held beliefs, one might think he would feel some real trepidation about government agencies creating lists of believers.

We will see if he shares my bewilderment.

I’m fairly certain that he won’t.

To put his in a larger context, just in case you don’t care, every police state begins by creating lists of people the government doesn’t like. It usually begins with Anarchists, Jews, and maybe Communists. And as some famous dead guy who was taken to a Nazi concentration camp once said, “When they came to take the others, he didn’t care; when they came to take him, there was no one left to care.

It all starts with a list.

I’m on it.

You’re next.

***¹The U.S. courts have stripped Sean Swain of all constitutional protections on the stated basis that Swain “promotes anarchy.” Sean Paul Swain vs. William Fullenkamp, et. al., U.S. District Court Case No. 3:09-CV-02659-JZ; Circuit Court Case No. 10-3755, cert. Denied, Supreme Court Case No. 11-5704. As a consequence, Swain is the only U.S. citizen without free speech rights and cannot have his name associated with published work for fear of reprisals from the fascist police state. So if he wrote this, and no one is saying he did, his name cannot appear in the by-line.
In a free country, this footnote would not be necessary.

I Am a Political Prisoner

By ____ _____¹

Nelson Mandela is perhaps the best-known and most-revered political prisoner in history. His imprisonment in the Union of South Africa began in 1961 and spanned 3 decades, his struggle for freedom inextricably tied to the fight against Apartheid. Nelson Mandela’s personal prestige undermined the credibility of the South African regime in the eyes of the world and 4 years after his release from prison in 1990, he became South Africa’s first Black president.

No one disputes that Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner. But now let me present the story with a different emphasis:

The Union of South Africa was a member in good standing in the United Nations with government officials elected through popular vote. Like all civilized governments, South Africa had laws against bombings and terrorist activities, and it had close diplomatic relations with the U.S.

In 1961, Nelson Mandela was the leader of the African National Congress (ANC). The U.S. State Department regarded the ANC as a specially-designated global terrorist group. Nelson Mandela was charged in his role in bombings that killed people and he was provided the opportunity to defend himself in a criminal justice process not unlike the one established in the U.S. Convicted, Nelson Mandela was provided a series of appeals where his conviction was upheld and his trial ruled to be fair. The government of South Africa considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist whose imprisonment was necessary for the protection of the public. He remained in prison for 30 years.

These are the facts. The same Nelson Mandela befriended by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who became a poster-child for racial justice around the world, who appeared on Oprah Winfrey to a standing ovation and tears of joy from a U.S. Audience is the very same Nelson Mandela convicted of treason in 1961 and imprisoned as a terrorist who planned bombings that killed people.

He was the same Nelson Mandela recognized the world over as a political prisoner.

Is this confusing? Are you scratching your head and wondering how someone can be convicted of terrorist acts and then not only gain political prisoner recognition, but become the most-prominent political prisoner in modern history, and one of the most-beloved figures in the world? If this troubles you, let me attempt to clear things up for you:

Governments lie. Governments lie in order to further their agendas and to benefit the careers of the individual officials who make up the government. They corrupt and abuse official processes like trials and appeals in order to produce the predetermined outcomes they want– if the system is not already rigged to produce such outcomes in the first place. No government ever admits to abusing power and imprisoning to serve ulterior ends, but they all do it.

Nelson Mandela’s universal popularity is premised on the universal knowledge that governments lie. Since everybody knows that governments lie and that all government systems are designed for selective repression, the world never accepted the validity of the official proceedings against Nelson Mandela. In the eyes of the world, the zeal to prosecute Mandela only demonstrated the government’s serious desire to silence and neutralize him. Whether or not Nelson Mandela ever actually participated in planning ANC bombings, government officials undoubtedly had an ulterior motive for saying he did– an ulterior motive wholly unrelated to any legitimate government interest (if such a thing even exists). So even if the government had a valid belief that Mandela ordered bombings, and even if the government had real proof of Mandela’s guilt, it did not matter. His guilt or innocence aside, the question of Nelson Mandela’s political prisoner status did not hinge upon what Mandela had done or had not done, it hinged upon what the government did to him and why the government did it.

This can be said of any political prisoner: Bobby Sands of the Irish Republican Army was detained by occupation forces in Ireland because he rode in a car with illegal firearms, not because he was skilled in polemics. Mohandas Gandhi was detained many times for deliberate violations of British law. Mandela, Sands, and Gandhi were all political prisoners not because their conduct was legal; in most cases– if not all –their conduct was illegal. They were all political prisoners because the government motive to imprison them was not legitimate. Recognition of political prisoner status is not a referendum on the prisoner’s conduct, but a referendum on the government’s conduct toward the prisoner.

This is important to bear in mind. Without such an analysis, particularly when considering cases from our own country or state (where we have been indoctrinated to accept the integrity of the government system), as opposed to cases from other nations (where we naturally hold a suspicion of the government’s integrity), it becomes very easy to muddle the idea of what a political prisoner is. If we universally apply the standard for political prisoner status as it applied to Nelson Mandela– that it is the government‘s motive, not the prisoner’s conduct – then Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, and a whole host of others have unquestionably been held as U.S. Political prisoners. The question is never what the prisoner did or did not do; the question is whether the government’s motive was pure and legitimate.

It is on the same basis that Nelson Mandela was recognized as a political prisoner that I claim to be a political prisoner of the alleged “State of Ohio.”²

My Case

In 1991, I shared an apartment with Diane Chiow and her 2 young sons. Both children were from previous relationships. The younger child was fathered by Andrew Crouch who, during their time together, had beaten Diane, attempted to light her hair on fire, and kicked her down a flight of steps– all while she was pregnant with this child. He then fought responding police until stunned several times with a stun gun. He never served a single day in prison because his aunt, Collette Crouch, was the Clerk of Courts and a high-ranking official in Erie County’s Democratic Party establishment.

In April 1991, Diane and Crouch had a phone dispute and Diane denied Crouch visitation until after the holding of a domestic relations hearing scheduled in less than two weeks. Crouch became irate and threatened Diane, who told Crouch she was leaving the apartment and would not be there if he chose to show up.

Later that afternoon, Crouch broke into the second-story apartment while I was there alone. He had been drinking. He pushed me, saying he would blow my head off, and he reached behind his back. In a panic, I stabbed him several times and immediately called 911.

Under Ohio law, I had killed Crouch in self-defense in my own home and had committed no crime. While Crouch had a lengthy record of drunken violence, I had not even a record of minor traffic tickets. Still I was charged with pre-meditated murder, largely because police and prosecutors withheld photographs of the break-in damage and then falsely presented that no break-in had occurred. They also claimed no gun was found at the scene, that Crouch was unarmed.

Photographs of the break-in damage surfaced 4 years after I was falsely convicted.

The withheld evidence of the break-in damage speaks not only to my actual innocence, but also demonstrates that police and prosecutors knew me to be innocent, and knew it was necessary to conceal vital evidence in order to convict me of a crime I did not commit. This demonstrates that government officials operated from an ulterior agenda to convict an innocent man. Whatever the government’s motive, it was not a legitimate motive in service to the public.

The government lied. It lied and corrupted official processes, acting from a motive wholly unrelated to any legitimate government interest (if such a thing actually exists.)

I am a political prisoner.

At trial, jury foreman Richard Ehbar falsely claimed to be unemployed, concealing the fact that he was a manager at Periodical Publishers, a local business that I had been attempting to unionize as a volunteer organizer. He lied, concealing that he supervised several witnesses for the prosecution, some of whom were proven to have lied in their testimony. It is unclear whether Ehbar lied of his own volition so he could stick it to the union organizer, or if he was directed by court officials to lie so that the verdict would be predetermined. It is also unclear what influence his placement on the jury had on the witnesses he supervised, and what coercion Periodical Publishers used to solicit false testimony against me.

It should also be kept in mind that the jury pool list was formulated by the Clerk of Courts office– the very position previously held by Collette Crouch, the aunt of the man I killed– the same aunt who previously used her influence to keep Crouch out of prison during his drunken, violent escapades. That jury pool list from the Clerk of Court’s office was compiled from tens of thousands of registered voters, ostensibly at random. It should also be kept in mind that there were only 5 managers at Periodical Publishers, the firm I was unionizing. The odds of Richard Ehbar, a Periodical Publishers’ manager, getting called for jury duty, then being placed in the pool for my trial, then appearing in the first twelve called, are too astronomical to figure by using a standard calculator.

Returning to the standard applied to Mandela: Government officials corrupted the judicial process in order to imprison, for motives wholly unrelated to my legitimate government interest (if such a thing actually exists).

I am a political prisoner.

After I was falsely convicted, I appealed. The appeals court reversed my conviction, ruling that my rights were violated, and the appeals court sent me back to the same trial court, to the same government officials who had conspired to falsely convict me.

They refused to follow the higher court mandate. Instead, I returned to prison with a void conviction and sentence. When I again brought my case before the court of appeals, the judge who had ruled my initial trial unfair was inexplicably removed from the appellate panel hearing my case. He was replaced by a friend of Collette Crouch, the aunt of the name I killed in self-defense, the former Clerk of Courts. All of this was unprecedented under Ohio law.

I remain imprisoned now for twenty years without a valid conviction or sentence. I still await the trial that was ordered by the appeals court. My numerous attempts to compel the courts to apply their own laws and afford me the process afforded to all other citizens have been denied or, in some cases, simply ignored.

Returning to the definition as applied to Mandela: The government lied. It acted under motives wholly unrelated to any legitimate government interest (if such a thing actually exists).

I am a political prisoner, I am an innocent man, known to be innocent by my captors (as demonstrated by their concealment of evidence), and held contrary to the government’s own laws. As the government has abandoned even the pretense of law, I am the victim of what amounts to a simple kidnapping, all without the standard process of law or the application of fundamental principles of justice.

Parole

I became eligible for parole in 2005. At my first hearing, I was continued until 2011 without explanation.

When I appeared before the board in 2011, board members were more interested in my political beliefs, writings, and activities than they were in my guilt or innocence. Questions related to my political writings and beliefs took the majority of the hearing time. Board member Jose Torres in particular grilled me in a hostile and combative manner about my public claim to political prisoner status. Several other questions related to the content of my published work in print and on-line, which includes scathing and justified criticism of this fascist police state. It was clear that my parole hearing was a referendum on my politics, not a referendum on twenty years of false and unlawful imprisonment and whether it should continue or not.

After referring me to a full board hearing where, by statute, the board would have to notify my counsel Andrea Reino and permit her to present my case, the board held my hearing in secret, contrary to law. So, while my counsel was preparing for the full board hearing, the board had already made a decision and a month later, it was slid under my cell door: my case was continued for 5 years.

At my every encounter with the alleged State of Ohio, the government has violated its own law in order to punish me for laws I never violated. The government is, if nothing else, consistent.

In its decision, the parole board continued my sentence for three stated reasons: 1 the facts of the case, 2 a lack of relevant programming, and 3 my institutional record. All 3 stated reasons are provably false justifications that conceal the government’s true motive for keeping me falsely and unlawfully imprisoned.

As to the stated reason of the facts of the case, these same facts were considered by the trial court that sentenced me to twenty years to life, rather than twenty give years to life. As such, those same facts could never conceivably be a justification for making me serve twenty-five years rather than twenty. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that the parole board, with those same facts before the, previously asserted that those same facts warranted a continuance from 2005 to only 2011. How could facts that only warranted a six-year continuance now warrant an eleven-year continuance, when those facts did not change?

Whatever the government’s real reason for continuing my imprisonment, it is not that stated reason of “facts of the case.” The government is a liar.

As to my relevant programming, the second reason that the government gave for my continuance, I have taken all of the programs made available to me. In addition to taking all available programs, I took the maximum amount of education permitted, to include obtaining my Associate of Arts (and then continuing education through the G.I. Bill when my grants ran out), and the administrative office technologies vocational computer course. In addition to taking all available programs and educational opportunities, I worked as a tutor and also logged thousands of hours of community service volunteer work.

Whatever the government’s real reason for continuing my imprisonment, it is not the stated reason of my “lack of relevant programming.” The government is a liar.

Having eliminated the stated reasons the government gave for continuing my false and unlawful captivity, we can only conclude that 1 the government has lied about why it is really holding me captive, and 2 the real reason for my captivity must be an illegitimate one, which is why the government keeps it concealed.

If we recall that I am the only Ohio prisoner who has been placed upon the prison system’s “Security Threat Group” list, not for gang activity and not for involvement in a “security threat group,” but based solely upon my political and social beliefs; and if we recall that the parole board’s questions dealt largely with my political and social beliefs, it is easy to conclude what the government’s true focus really is. In fact, the government dose not really work very hard to conceal the undeniable reality that the government lied and gave 3 false justifications to continue my captivity, and it is an open secret that I am actually being held captive for strictly political reasons.³

The government lied. It selectively engaged official processes to punish me for an ulterior motive wholly unrelated to any legitimate government interest (if such a thing actually exists). The government lied to keep me captive because of my political and social beliefs, because of my published views.

I am a political prisoner.

To sum up my experience, the government employed the court system to convict me of a crime I did not commit– a crime the government knew I did not commit, as evidenced by the government’s illegal conduct in concealing determinative photographs that prove my innocence. When higher courts found the process used against me to be unfair, I was still denied the fair process required by law, and I am singularly and selectively still imprisoned for more than two decades awaiting the “fair” process afforded to everyone else. When eligible for parole, the government focused upon my political and social beliefs and my published views, ignored the statutory law governing full board hearings, and continued my false and unlawful captivity on the basis of 3 reasons which are provably untrue.

By any measure, I am a political prisoner of the alleged “State of Ohio.”

***

¹The U.S. Courts stripped Sean Swain of all constitutional protections on the stated basis that Swain “promotes anarchy.” Sean Paul Swain v. William Fullenkamp, et. al., U.S. District Court Case No. 3:09-CV-02659-JZ, Circuit Court Case No. 10-3755, cert. Denied, Supreme Court Case No. 11-5704. As a consequence, Swain is the only U.S. citizen without free speech rights and cannot have his name assoicated with his published work for fear of reprisals from the fascist police state. So if he wrote this, and no one is saying he did, his name cannot appear in the by-line.

In a free country, this footnote would not be necessary.

²Ohio is not legally a state in union. The U.S. set aside most of Ohio as “Indian Territory” in the Treaty of Greenville, 1795. By Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, this treaty trumps any act undertaken by any state and renders any contrary state action void. Just 6 years later, Ohio included that Indian Territory as part of the incorporated “State of Ohio.” Because states are not permitted to abrogate federal treaty and take Indian Territory, the ratification of the Ohio Constitution and the establishment of Ohio as a state are void acts. See Worcester v. Georgia (1832), 31 U.S. 515, 6 Pet. 515, 6 Pet. 515, 1832 WL 3389, 8 L.Ed 483, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot violate U.S. treaty and assume authority over Indian Territory.

U.S Attorney General Francis Biddle admitted that the U.S. has no claim to the area now called the State of Ohio. See, U.S. Senate, Terminating the Existence of the Indian Claims Commission, Washington, DE: 84^th Congress, 2d Session, Report 1727, April 11 1956. The legal existence of the alleged “State of Ohio” is currently challenged in the Inter-American Court of the Organization of American States, Sean Paul Swain vs. The United States of America and the Alleged “State of Ohio”, Case No. P-688-10. If successful, an international treaty organization will declare that Ohio has never legally been incorporated as a state of the United States.

³For anyone who doubts that this rogue state would engage in political repression against prisoners, see: Timothy Reed vs. State of New Mexico, ex. Rel. Manuel Ortiz, 947 P.2d 86, 124 NM 129, 1997 NMSC 055 (September 9, 1997(. Former Ohio prisoner-writer Timothy “Little Rock” Reed was granted asylum by New Mexico’s Supreme Court after proving the Ohio Adults Parole Authority conspired to have his parole revoked in retaliation for Reed’s published criticism, so that Reed could be returned to prison and killed. Reed was granted asylum because he proved the parole board had plotted his murder to silence his free speech.

Reed died in a single-car crash on an empty New Mexico highway not long after he proved Ohio government authorities planned to murder him.

On Katy

“Keep the Faith, Brother/Kin– the system is sinking fast, though not fast enough. Soon things will be very, very different. You’ll see and so will I. XO Katy.” That’s how Katy closed her last letter to me, only days before she died of an aortic aneurysm at the age of 62.

Katy had worked as a nurse and had taken other jobs, but identified specifically as a midwife, one who assists bringing life into the world. Katy served as a midwife in many ways, some more obvious than others. She certainly brought life into the world.

Katy and I corresponded for many years but we had never met face to face. We had the depth of friendship that occurs between people when they slowly and deliberately reveal themselves through words on paper. Katy had planned to visit though. She had filled out the paperwork to be added to my visiting list. In her next to last letter she wrote, “I plan on coming there real soon. I’ll spend the whole day– we can talk– I don’t know about what or how it’s going to look– I HATE PRISONS!!!!!!! but I’m coming anyway– I’m so excited about meeting you in person– we will have a face to face visit– Coyotes was behind glass– please tell me a little bit about it to prepare me…”

But as things went, Katy couldn’t visit. In her last letter to me, she explained, “I had misunderstood the visiting thing and thought you could tell them I was coming on 5/25 so I didn’t call myself… So I called the visiting office to begin with to check on the reservation status, and the guy there said everything was booked up til the 29^th…” The problem was, Katy planned to leave Michigan for California before the 29^th.

I felt bad that we had missed an opportunity, but I knew she could always come to visit whenever she was back int his area again. There was no rush. We always have next week and next month and even next year.

Katy was a midwife.

She brought life into the world.

I will miss her.

***

A Brief History of The Sean Swain Corporation®

By The Sean Swain Corporation®***

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that so-called “super PACs” or “political action committees” can spend unlimited money on television ads promoting political candidates, acting as a kind of out-sourced hatchet-man for the candidates themselves. As a consequence, while mere humans are limited by campaign contribution limits and the size of their wallets, corporations can infuse unlimited amounts of money into the political process. The Supreme Court’s rationale is that corporations have a right to free speech.

Funny, but that’s the same court that ruled that Black people didn’t even have the right to get their votes counted in 2000.

Corporations have far more rights than people. Corporations don’t need passports to cross borders. They don’t have to pay taxes. They can conceal information that leads to the preventable deaths of mere humans– just like the Ford Pinto scandal and the concealment of the link between tobacco and lung cancer. They can’t be arrested. Now, they have the right to free speech while mere humans across this country are blasted with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters, bludgeoned by billy-clubs, and herded into “free speech zones” called jails, all for speaking truth to power.

Being a mere human isn’t what it used to be.

When I got locked up, I was unionizing mere humans who worked for a corporation. As a mere human, I was told I did not have the right to defend my own life. I was denied the same benefit of the law enjoyed by the incorporated entity known as “The State of Ohio.” As a mere human, the State could destroy my property, assault me, torture me, punitively transfer me, and engage in repression that violates the government’s own laws in order to prevent my access to courts. When as a mere human I proceeded to court, federal Judge Jack Zouhary said I have no rights because I “promote anarchy and rebellion against authority.” No kidding. If you are a mere human and the government doesn’t like your views, you have no right to express them.

State courts are no better. I can’t get Judge Buron Duhart to issue a ruling to make a sociopath named Tracey Thomas, who claimed to be a paralegal, give me back my case file, my own property. As a mere human, you aren’t entitled to property. Government agents can lie to stick it to you.

Once my free speech rights were stripped, I couldn’t risk having my name associated with any printed article, so I had to attach this footnote to everything I wrote:

“The U.S. Courts stripped Sean Swain of all constitutional protections on the stated basis that Swain ‘promotes anarchy.’ Sean Paul Swain v. William Fellenkamp, et. al., Case No. 3:09-CV-02659. As a consequence, Swain is without free speech rights and cannot have his name associated with his published work for fear of reprisals from the fascist police state. So if he wrote this, and no one is saying he did, his name cannot appear in the by-line.
“In a free country, this footnote would not be necessary.”

As a writer, I lived in constant fear that by telling the truth, I would be dragged away and again subjected to tortures that federal judge Jack Zouhary had now given his stamp of approval. It was the same fear felt by writers in Nazi Germany and under the Stalin regime.

But that was back in my human days.

Back before I became a corporation.

Once I realized corporations have all the rights I would like to have, I decided to incorporate myself. I know, that sounds very painful. But trust me, it isn’t nearly as painful as having the prison complex’s thugs grinding your face on the concrete because you told the truth about their nefarious agenda.

To incorporate yourself, you just have to draw up incomprehensible legal papers with a Crayon. I used Burnt Sienna, but you can choose whatever color you like. Then you file that stuff with a government office who will never read it. You can even make your corporation name a registered trademark. Maybe tattoo it on yourself.

I’m a corporation now. A political action committee promoting anarchy and rebellion against authority. As a corporation, I can spend millions of dollars making campaign ads.

To be successful, I think I’m going to need a billion-dollar bail-out. I think I should write the government and tell them I’m too big to fail.

I’ve also thought about going public, getting traded on the stock market. You would be able to invest in me. Buy stock. If I made myself into several subsidiaries, you would be able to buy specific parts of me.

I probably shouldn’t tell you, but some parts of me might be over-valued. Consult your broker.

I need a board of directors. They can sit around a mahogany table, smoking cigars, and discussing my quarterly whoozee—whatsits.

I have to remember to stop referring to myself as “I.” I’m no longer “me.” I’m not “we” because I speak for the corporation. That’s a minor annoyance when you consider all the rights “we” have now: We can’t be arrested or held accountable for our actions in any way, and we can say anything without repercussions, and we’re eligible for a bail-out. I’d be happy with $50 and a large pizza.

“We” have lots of rights you mere humans only wish you had.

A lot of you out there who used to respect what “Sean Swain” stood for (if there are a lot of you) probably think I sold out and went over to the dark side when “we” stopped being a human and became a corporation. You probably think that corporations run the world and now “we” are siding with the enemy.

“We” get it. “We” used to think that way too, back when “we” were mere humans…

*** The Sean Swain Corporation® is not the mere human formerly known as Sean Swain, and is not responsible in any way for actions, expressed views, or debts incurred by the mere human formerly known as Sean Swain. The Sean Swain Corporation®, incorporated in an off-shore tax haven, as a political action committee, promotes “anarchy and rebellion against authority,” exercising the right to free speech that mere humans, like the one formerly known as Sean Swain, do not possess.
The Sean Swain Corporation® is soon to be a registered trademark of The Sean Swain Corporation®.
The Sean Swain Corporation® promotes the Occupy Movement, arming the homeless, and burning down courthouses. None of these ideas can be attributed to the mere human formerly known as Sean Swain.