Rev. Matt Hale, the former leader of The WCOTC, has just filed a Petition for Judicial Council Review of the dismissal of his complaint alleging misconduct against judges Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner, and John Tinder of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The misconduct complaint was dismissed last month by Chief Judge Diane Wood but was dismissed on erroneous grounds.
Rev. Hale is the foremost religious prisoner of conscience in America today. From 1996 until his arrest in 2003, he led The WCOTC, then the fastest growing pro-white and anti-semitic organization in America. He was America's most well-known advocate for that cause, appearing numerous times on shows such as Today, Good Morning America, and others as well as being known for his public speeches around the country.
A 1998 graduate of Southern Illinois University School of Law, he was convicted in 2004 on phony charges of having solicited the murder of Chicago federal judge Joan Lefkow even though there is no evidence that any such solicitation occurred. He has offered to take an FBI-endorsed lie detector test to prove his innocence but Assistant United Attorney David Bindi has recently refused that sensible attempt at achieving justice.
The misconduct complaint alleges and demonstrates that judges Easterbrook, Posner, and Tinder turned down Rev. Hale's habeas corpus appeal in March because of hatred for his religious beliefs in violation of federal law. A copy of the misconduct complaint and Rev. Hale's new Petition for Judicial Council Review is available from the Office of the Clerk for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
"From his prison cell in solitary confinement at the infamous Supermax" prison in Florence, Colorado, Rev. Hale had this to say:
"Chief Judge Wood was quick to dismiss my misconduct complaint against her colleagues as soon as she saw it because she apparently did not realize that a complaint that alleges discrimination on the grounds of religion in deciding an appeal cannot legally be dismissed without a full review of the merits of the claim. This in itself is somewhat disturbing since it reveals an ignorance of the law that one would hope not to see from a member of the federal bench. In any case, a man should not be denied his rightful freedom due to the religion he practices and this is a principle that I intend to vindicate come hell or high water. Hopefully the judicial council will treat me with the fairness that has thus far been hideously denied to me by the judges of the Seventh Circuit."