Saturday, 28 June 2014

Court dismisses Hale's case for freedom....Hale to file motion to reconsider


Not even requiring the govrnment to respond to his allegations, and wasting no time on little nuances like the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and the fact that he is being imprisoned for 40 years without any violation of a criminal statute , the district court in Denver, Colorado has, on June 16th, promptly dismissed Reverend Matt Hale's latest case for freedom. The case is Hale v. Berkebile, No. 14-cv-1233 and the decision can be found at docket number 18. Hale will be filing a motion to reconsider and should that fail, an appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reverend Hale is the former leader of the pro-White and anti-Jewish Church of the Creator. Until his arrest in 2003, he was America's most well-known and effective public advocate for that cause, appearing numerous times on television shows such as "The Today Show" and "Politically Incorrect" and being featured in magazines such as GA, Spin, and others.
 A 1998 graduate of Southern Illinois University School of Law, he was convicted in 2004 on politically-motivated charges of having solicited the murder of Chicago federal judge Joan Lefkow, during a pending trademark case, even though there is no evidence that any such solicitation occurred. 
Despite repeated attempts to regain his rightful freedom ever since, that freedom has continued to be denied by the courts, usually by corrupt judges who have outright lied about the facts of his case in order to keep him imprisoned.
Hale has filed misconduct complaints against some of the judges in question but since those complaints are ruled upon by their colleagues, those complaints, too, have been denied.
From his prison cell in solitary confinement at the infamous "Supermax" prison in Florence, Colorado, Reverend Hale has this to say about the summary dismissal of his new case for freedom:

"The eleven page decision was written by Judge Lewis T. Babcock, who held that the Denver district court lacks statutory jurisdiction to hear the merits of my case for freedom but who also opined that I had to produce new evidence in order to prove my innocence even though I am already innocent as a matter of statutory law.
I disagree strongly with both contentions and believe that due to the faulty reasoning and misunderstanding of the law that lie behind them, I have good cause to file a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider and that's what I'm going to do. Should that motion fail, I will be appealing to the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals.
I am glad though that Judge Babcock's opinion is free of the kind of ideological hatred that I was faced with by the judges in the Chicago area. Rather, I simply disagree with his generally anti-prisoner view of the law and intend to vindicate a more fair and just viewpoint in future legal proceedings. People need to understand that extreme bias is built into the rotten legal system that we have the misfortune to live under and that true justice is sadly beside the point,"
Rev Matt Hale 
June 41AC (2014)

Sunday, 22 June 2014

Hale's Mother Announces Availability for the Talk Show Circuit in the Cause to Free Her Son

 Evelyn Hutcheson, the mother of America's most well-known political prisoner, Reverend Matt Hale, announced today that she is now available for the television and radio talk show circuit in the cause of bringing attention to the wrongful imprisonment of her son.

Reverend Hale is the former leader of the pro-White and anti-Jewish Church of the Creator.  Until his arrest in 2003, he was America's most well-known and effective public advocate for that cause, appearing numerous times on television shows such as The Today Show and Good Morning America and being featured in magazines such as GQ, SPIN, and others.  However, it was his very effectiveness as the most popular and articulate spokesman for the pro-White and anti-Jewish cause that made him a target for the (Jewish) federal government that sought to bring him down.
Accordingly, even though he was a 1998 graduate of Southern Illinois University School of Law and had renounced all illegal conduct, he was convicted all the same in 2004 on politically-motivated charges of having solicited the murder of Chicago federal judge Joan Lefkow, during a pending trademark case, even though there is no evidence that any such solicitation occurred.  Imprisoned at the infamous "Supermax" prison in Florence, Colorado since 2005 simply because he holds religious beliefs that the federal government disdains, he recently filed another petition for his release, this time in Denver's federal district court.  The case is Hale v. Berkebile, No. 14-cv-1233

Throughout her son's long ordeal, Ms. Hutcheson has been unwavering in her support.  Though 75 years of age and not in the best of health, she wants to speak out about the outrageous injustice that her son has faced in the supposed "greatest country on earth."

From her home in Washington, Illinois, Ms. Hutcheson had this to say today:

"My son is innocent and that is all that matters to me.  Never did he ask or tell anybody to kill anybody and yet he has spent the past eleven years in prison and is scheduled to spend 24 more.  I hope that somebody, somewhere in the news media will have the guts to put me on the air where I can set the record straight.  People wonder where feelings against the government come from.  Well, as a mother of someone who was targeted for destruction simply because of the beliefs he holds, I sure can tell you!"

Contact:  Evelyn Hutcheson,
 Contact Ms. Hutcheson at the email address above or call her at (309) 699-0785 to set up your interview.

Wednesday, 18 June 2014

Hale's Response to Order to Show Cause

In the United States District Court

For the District of Colorado

Civil Action No. 14--cv--01233--BNB

Matthew Hale,



David Berkebile, Warden,


Hale's Response to Order to Show Cause

Applicant Matthew Hale, pro se, submits this response to Magistrate Judge Boland's May 6, 2014 Order to Show Cause, stating as follows:

Hale is "ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed" (Order at 1) because "he [allegedly had] an adequate and effective remedy pursuant to section 2255 in the sentencing court" (Order at 5).

I. In his Brief Filed with his Application, Hale explained why section 2241 relief is indeed available for his claim that he is being imprisoned for conduct that the law does not make criminal (Claim One) and his claim that there is no evidence of his guilt (Claim Two).

In the Brief that Hale filed with his Application (Doc. 3), he explained in great detail why his section 2255 proceedings were "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention" and hence why he is permitted to bring this action pursuant to section 2241. In ordering Hale to show cause, it is clear that Magistrate Judge Boland did not read his Brief since no reference is made to it in his Order and Hale had already addressed in it the concerns expressed in that Order. Hale therefore asks the Court to read his Brief before the issuance of any ruling that he has failed to show that his section 2255 proceedings were inadequate or ineffective because, quite simply, he has already provided strong arguments and case law therein addressing all of the multiple reasons why his section 2255 proceedings were, in fact inadequate or ineffective and why this action cannot be legally dismissed at this juncture. Indeed, that is what his Brief was written for. In sum, regarding his innocence claims specifically, his section 2255 proceedings were inadequate or ineffective for the following reasons:

1) Seventh Circuit case law precluded Hale from making his claim of innocence via section 2255 (Brief at 9-10).

2) Habeas corpus law itself provides relief under section 2241 for a verifiably innocent person (Brief at 6-8).

3) Imprisonment for conduct the law does not make criminal, which is what occurred in this case, is a fundamental defect that may be corrected via section 2241 and this is so regardless of whether the remedy under section 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the] detention" (Brief at 4-6; 8-14). Section 2255 is unconstitutional to the extent it precludes relief pursuant to section 2241 for the verifiably innocent man.

4) Even if an innocent person could have brought his claim that he is being imprisoned for conduct that the law does not make criminal on direct appeal or pursuant to section 2255, failure to do so does not bar review section 2241 (Brief at 8-14).

5) Perhaps most importantly, the continued imprisonment of a verifiably innocent man is constitutionally intolerable regardless of any statutory or procedural provision (Brief at 11-14).

Hale, in his Brief, provides argument and numerous cases supporting each of these propositions. Thus he asks that the Court read his Brief and consider the case law and arguments set forth therein along with, and as part of, this response to the Order to Show Cause. Certainly Hale was aware of the standard requirement that he show that his section 2255 proceedings were "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention" when he filed his Application and he filed his Brief to address those concerns accordingly. Much of his Brief was written, in fact, in an effort to avoid the issuance of any order to show cause in the first place.

Hale believes that the case law and arguments presented in his Brief as to why his section 2255 proceedings were inadequate or ineffective are more than sufficient to avoid the dismissal of his case at this juncture and that the review of his Brief, before any dismissal of his case, is in fact constitutionally compelled under Fifth Amendment due process. In other words, it is not too much to ask that the Court actually read his Brief before throwing out his case. Hale is well aware of this Court's practice of speedily dismissing the cases brought by prisoners but that practice need not be applied when the law and justice dictate otherwise. Hale presents serious constitutional issues that deserve careful consideration and resolution by this Court, issues that are rarely, if ever, raised by other prisoners making claims in this Court pursuant to section 2241. Thus his case should not be dismissed so hastily. There is no sound reason for not considering Hale's Brief when that Brief was filed to address the very concerns that the Court now raises in its Order to Show Cause. The jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this case is fully established.

Hale also notes that counsel for the Respondent was served with a copy of his Brief on April 28, 2014 and thus there is no reason, likewise, why his Brief should not be considered in this matter (see Certificate of Service on page 29 of Brief). Indeed, in light of the strong arguments and case law that Hale presents, the Respondent should be ordered to file an answer to Hale's Brief before any dismissal is even considered-- --that is, if the Respondent opposes Hale's release from his custody at all. (In light of Hale's clear and verified innocence and the fact that this is a civil case, it is entirely possible that the Respondent does not oppose Hale's release and that the writ should likewise be granted on this basis accordingly.) The Court should not presume an opposition to Hale's release that may not in fact exist.

II. Since the judges who ruled upon Hale's section 2255 proceedings violated his constitutional rights in their resolution of those proceedings, his section 2255 proceedings were "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention" (Claims Three, Four, and Five).

Hale likewise explained this in great detail in his Brief, pages 15-20. In sum, an unconstitutional section 2255 proceeding is, as a matter of law, "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [a] detention" and thus section 2241 relief is available. Hale can thus bring Claims Six and Eight of his application-- --his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his absence from voir dire claim respectively-- --regardless of the fact that he brought these claims pursuant to section 2255. Again, Hale can only ask that the Court read his Brief and consider the facts and arguments set forth therein along with, and as part of, this response to the Order to Show Cause. Hale is allowed to proceed via section 2241 with his claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and was denied his right to be present at voir dire because his section 2255 proceedings were indeed "inadequate or ineffective." Furthermore, his contention that the judges who decided his section 2255 proceedings engaged in misconduct that rendered those proceedings unconstitutional and illegal, and hence inadequate or ineffective, is a question of fact that is not properly the subject of a sua sponte dismissal.

III. There is no procedure pursuant to section 2255 for Hale to present his newly-discovered claim that he was denied a fair trial by an impartial jury in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and thus relief pursuant to section 2241 is available (Claim Seven).

In rebutting Hale's Claim Seven, Magistrate Judge Boland stated, "the court notes that a procedure exists to present a claim premised on newly discovered evidence in the sentencing court in a second or successive motion pursuant to section 2255. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (h)(1)." The Court errs in this regard because that provision only "applies to newly discovered evidence of innocence. It does not apply to newly discovered evidence of juror bias, prejudice, and misconduct that Hale is bringing as a claim in this case." Hale has further explained in great detail in his Brief, pages 22-28, why his section 2255 proceedings were "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention" on the basis of Juror Hoffman's presence on the jury. In sum, since Hale did not know about his bias, prejudice, and misconduct and had no reason to know about it when he filed his section 2255 motion in 2008, he must be allowed to bring his claim now pursuant to section 2241. Again, Hale asks that the Court read his Brief and consider the case law and arguments set forth therein along with, and as part of, this response to the Order to Show Cause.

IV. The holding of Prost v. Anderson is inapplicable to Hale's case.

The holding of Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (2011), cited by the Court in its Order at 3-5, is inapplicable to Hale's case for several reasons. First, unlike Prost, Hale is being imprisoned for conduct that the law does not make criminal and never has made criminal. Second, Prost did not address the numerous constitutional issues that Hale raises in his Brief, including the issue of judicial misconduct that rendered the section 2255 process defective and the fact that Seventh Circuit precedent actually barred his innocence claim. Nor did Hale, as was the case with Prost, ever enter a plea of guilty that might require him to stand by that plea in later proceedings. All of these facts make his case distinguishable.

In fact, some of the constitutional questions that Hale is now raising are the same constitutional questions that Prost specifically left unresolved. See Prost at 593-594. ("So it is that we leave these constitutiona;l questions for another day and another case.") Hale's case is exactly that case and thus Prost is in no way dispositive.

Lately, since Hale is clearly and verifiably innocent both as a matter of fact and of law, it cannot fairly be said that he had any supposed "involvement in a plot to murder a federal judge" (Order at 1). His Brief in point of fact demonstrates his innocence of any such involvement and there is no evidence to the contrary (see Brief at 1-6).


For the foregoing reasons, along with the copious reasons set forth in Hale's Brief in Support of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 (Doc. 3), this action should not be dismissed at this juncture.

Respectfully Submitted,
Matt Hale

Florence, CO 81226-8500


Matthew Hale

May 27, 2014

Matthew Hale



P.O. Box 8500

Sunday, 15 June 2014

James Keegstra Dead at 80....By Paul Fromm/ Terry Long



James Keegstra, Dedicated Christian, Free Speech Martyr and Free Thinker Dead at 80
James Keegstra will some day be recognized as a sincere, gentle man, whose politically incorrect views resulted in his being crushed by a media frenzy, a frightened citizenry and a judiciary sharpening the barbs of Canada's speech repression laws. When, in 1990, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction under Canada's notorious "hate law" (now Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) by a narrow 5-4 margin, it became clear -- and has with each passing year -- that Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a fraud. Far from guaranteeing traditional rights Canadians had enjoyed under Anglo-Saxon Common Law -- rights like freedom of speech, --  the Keegstra case helped Canadians see that they had been granted certain privileges by their government which could quickly be snatched away by government, for a good reason, of course.
The year 1985, one year after George Orwell's year of apocalyptic horror, brought Canada into the eerie age of thought-crimes trials. Three convictions that year – Ernst Zundel in February under the archaic "false news" law, later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, James Keegstra in July, and Don Andrews/Robert Smith in December, under the "hate law" – saw Canadians tried, convicted, and, in two trials (Zundel's and Andrews/Smith) sentenced to prison for nothing more than the non-violent expression of their political their or religious views which is, incidentally, how Amnesty International describes a political prisoner – a fact that puts Canada in a somewhat embarrassing situation.

Born in 1934 in Vulcan, Alberta of Dutch immigrant parents who were dairy farmers, James Keegstra earned a university degree in education. He moved to Eckville, Alberta in 1968 and began teaching high school social studies. He was also a mechanic. Jim's quiet demeanor and shyness, seen in many of the photos of his trial, won him a following. Both in his school and the larger community, James Keegstra was well liked. His easy going informality appealed to small town Albertans who soon elected him to the Eckville council and then elected him as mayor.

The Calgary Sun (June 13, 2014) reported that, after a 13 year successful teaching career, Mr. Keegstra ran afoul of his board of education: "Keegstra remained unmoved after being ordered to stop teaching Jewish conspiracy as a fact in social studies class and was canned from his teaching position in December, 1982. While some of his students felt betrayed by the Holocaust denier, most of his pupils rallied around Keegstra, who was then Eckville’s mayor.
But that was only the beginning of a 12-year courtroom odyssey that would test the country’s limits of free speech.Soon after being dumped as Eckville’s mayor, Keegstra was charged in January 1984 with willfully promoting hatred. ...
While Keegstra insisted he was defending free speech and the truth, prosecutors argued his poisoning of young, captive minds couldn’t be ignored. After a 70-day trial, the ex-teacher was convicted and fined $5,000 — a decision that was to be overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1988.
That same year, an arsonist using cans of gasoline tried to torch the ex-teacher’s Eckville home, a move he called “an act of terrorism” and an attempt to muzzle his views.
In December 1990, the country’s supreme court upended the lower court’s ruling by insisting the law was constitutional and the case was sent back to the court of appeal.
A retrial was ordered in April 1991 — a decision many in Keegstra’s hometown decried. 'I think it’s a silly waste of money ... Eckville has been taking lumps for this for the past eight years,' said the town’s then-mayor Bill Scott. ...
Said Keegstra: 'There’s no freedom of speech in the world — we’re all under Zionist and communist control.' In the summer of 1992, Keegstra was found guilty and handed a $3,000-fine but the defendant appealed by arguing the judged erred in responding to jurors’ questions. But the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the second conviction and again sent the case back to the Alberta Court of Appeal for sentencing.
By now, Keegstra made his living in Eckville as an auto mechanic —a man his lawyer said had been punished enough, impoverished and vilified by the media. In 1996, he was given a one-year suspended sentence and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service — preferably for victims of discrimination."
In opening his final summation in James Keegstra's first trail, July 11, 1985, his lawyer Douglas H. Christie, the Battling Barrister, said: "Mr. James Keegstra" is a man of 51 years of age. His life's work and chosen vocation for 21 years was teaching. He is the man who served as Mayor of his town for several years. He was described by all but Robert David as a sincere and honest man. He served what he believed to be God, Queen and country. He was fired from his job. He has lost his career, lost his right to practice his vocation. He has been destroyed as Mayor. He has seen his reputation destroyed, and so has his family. He has suffered all this as a sincere and honest Christian."

What was James Keegstra's sin? In their headlines, like the Globe and Mail's (June 14, 2014) "Holocaust denier who waged lengthy battle dies at 80", the media flagged him as a "heretic." The new secular religion of the West is the "holocaust." To challenge or question it in any way is heresy and heretics must be punished with total destruction. "Holocaust denier" is a vague term that simply connotes evil or heretic. Virtually no one denies that Jews were killed in World War II. However, the term suggests the person so labelled does adopt this absurd view.

Most people accused of "holocaust denial" see the Hollywood version of WW II as a vast exaggeration and, worse, unlike most accounts of history, one that is used today to extract huge sums of money from Germany nearly 70 years after the war and to influence public policy. For instance, in 1999 when six rusting shiploads of Chinese illegals slithered into British Columbia waters, Canada's Jewish Minister of Immigration Elinor Caplan said she was not going to be a gatekeeper and invoked the holocaust. Thus, if you want to keep out queue-jumpers and gate crashers, you're a Nazi and want another "holocaust."

The "holocaust" story is Jewish tribal history. It is, like all tribal histories, self-centred and self-focused. However, under huge pressure, the political elite in the West has adopted it as their own religion. Religion is, essentially, a matter of faith. Those who point to contradictions in the tenets of the "holocaust faith" -- for instance, the claim that it was the greatest crime in history, in a century that saw the deliberate extermination of 8-10-million Ukrainian farmers in Stalin's efforts to break the resistance to collectivization -- are branded as "holocaust deniers" or heretics. Debate over.  Fire him. Make it impossible for him to earn a living. Off to prison with him.

James Keegstra was a deeply religious man and a stubborn Dutchman. These were both his salvation and his curse. Mr. Keegstra firmly believed that there had been various conspiracies, including  ones heavily influenced by Jews, that explained much of the history of the past 300 years. As a committed Christian, he felt obliged to convey these truths to his students. He did not compel them to accept his views but sought to challenge them. After some parental complaints, the school board told him to stick to the curriculum. His faith and determined nature led him to continue offering these alternative ideas to his students.

Much is made of Mr. Keegstra's unusual curriculum. As a former teacher, eventually fired due to Jewish lobby pressure, not for my classroom behaviour but for my political views espoused on my own time outside school property, I knew of many teachers who injected a strident leftist political agenda into their English or history classes. One Catholic high school teacher. in the early 1980s,  insisted that his senior religion class attend and participate in leftist "peace demonstrations." Some English teachers I knew indoctrinated their students with White guilt and strident "anti-racism." [What this political agenda had to do with teaching grammar, writing skills and English literature, who knows, and the authorities didn't care.]

Once the complaints against James Keegstra went public, the media, egged on by self-interested minorities, went into a frenzy. The small town of Eckville didn't know what hit them. Few journalists adopted a balanced perspective. Like pirhanas in a feeding frenzy, they smelled blood in the water and razor-teeth flashing raced in for the kill.

James Keegstra's lawyer, Doug Christie, described the process that would be visited upon many of other politically incorrect dissidents -- Ernst Zundel, Malcolm Ross, Terry Tremaine,  to name just a few: Demonize, isolate, criminalize. First there is an orchestrated media campaign of denunciation. The victim is isolated. Friends go silent. Would-be supporters note the treatment meted out to the heretic and decide to draw back. They don't want the same fate for themselves -- friends of the heretic are as bad as the heretic himself. Now with the victim thoroughly isolated and virtually friendless, it is safe for the state to move in for the kill with criminal charges.

The people of Eckville who had liked and supported James Keegstra were appalled at the publicity and apparent vilification of their town. They began to draw back. James Keegstra retained a small but loyal following of supporters, many of them Social Crediters. Many of his former students and townspeople stood by him. But others sought a way for this whole thing to go away.

Even if one agrees that a school board could fire James Keegstra for not sticking to its curriculum, what happened next resembled a witch trial. It was not enough that Mr. Keegstra was fired, a vindictive province took away his teaching certificate, and, therefore, his ability to support his family as a teacher. Frightened townspeople voted him out as mayor.

But that was still not enough for the politically correct. A heretic must not just be exiled; he must be destroyed. As burning at the stake had gone out of fashion, a political trial under Canada's "hate law" seemed the next best thing. By now, Mr. Keegstra was being subjected to triple jeopardy.

An amazing incident recounted by Doug Christie illustrates this point. After the guilty verdict in James Keegstra's first trial was announced, the foreman of the jury approached Doug Christie and gave him a substantial cheque: "I want to be the first to contribute to Jim's appeal," he said.

Doug Christie was flabbergasted. "Why? Why?" he asked. "You had the power to acquit him."

The foreman replied: "We liked Mr. Keegstra, but all the publicity. You know what it's doing to this town." So, convenience led otherwise good people to toss James Keegstra, a man they liked,  under the bus.

I heard much the same thing from my district union leader during Peel Board of Education hearings into my firing. He told me: "Mr. Christie, your lawyer is brilliant. His speeches on freedom of speech are powerful and eloquent, but you're going to lose."

"Why?" I asked.

"Because," he answered," the day after they fire you, the phone calls stop." In other words, it was not a matter of high principle but merely convenience. If the censors and thought control fanatics can raise enough noise about the heretic, convenience will dictate the sacrifice of the heretic to shut them up.

The long trials reduced James Keegstra to penury. He eked out a modest living as a mechanic and later as a custodian. He died June 2, 2014.

The Calgary Sun (June 14, 2014) reported Mr. Keegstra saying on the eve of his first trial: "“I don’t want to be a martyr, I just want justice,” Keegstra told reporters in February of that year as his case began. "He did not get his wish: He was a martyr to political correctness and he never received justice."

James Keegstra, as even his tormenters acknowledged, remained unbroken -- again his strong Christian faith and Dutch stubbornness. As the great French chanteuse Edith Piaf sang: "Je ne regretted rien." So too, James Keegstra: "It’s been a long fight and I think it’s been worth it,” he said.

What sustained him? As one who knew James Keegstra on and off for 30 years, I can say that it was the loyal love of his lovely wife Lorraine who stood by Jim through all the abuse and punishment and his abiding faith in God. And, yes, that old quiet Dutch stubbornness and resolve.

My fervent hope is next time bossy boots Canada lectures Russia about outlawing homosexual propaganda and proclaims our attachment to freedom of speech, that President Putin scoffs and whispers in Harper's ear: "What about James Keegstra? Free speech, ha!" -- Paul Fromm

Terry Long's Appreciation of the Life of James Keegstra
Canadian patriot and school teacher Jim Keegsta was prosecuted in 1983 under Canada's then existing Hate statute for claiming the so-called "Holocaust" was "exaggerated". He subsequently became the first nationally vilified martyr for Canadian freedom of speech in Canada. That claim was subsequently substantiated when the world Jewish Congress in conjunction with the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland lowered the number of gassing victims at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million in 1990. So for any apologist who says the numbers don't matter, it did to patriot Jim Keegstra who lost his job as a teacher and mayor of the town he lived in and was continuously vilified and slandered by the national media ever since. As a result, he was defunctionalized socially, politically and economically. Like heretics in the middle ages who denied that the earth was the center of the universe, you don't deny the state religion of the west and get away with it. The only difference between then and now is that they've found a more civilized way of burning people at the stake.
There were other Canadian martyrs before Jim, people like my good friend and mentor John Ross Taylor from Toronto who spent a year in jail in the late 1970s for a telephone message talking about the Jews and their machinations, but Jim Keegstra was the first to really go national in a big way. I guess THEY figured at the time that Canadians had been dumbed down enough that it didn't really matter what kind of outrage was perpetrated against traditional freedoms, notwithstanding that those freedoms went all the way back to the Magna Carta, and they were right. In fact the Keegstra case was the first one to my knowledge where a Canadian judge in his final address to the jury stated, "The truth is not an issue in this case". If the truth is not an issue in a court of Law, then what the hell is? I still haven't figured that one out and obviously Jim Keegstra hadn't either.
The RCMP even stationed armed snipers on the roof of the Red Deer, Alberta, court house when Jim was being tried. Canada it seems must be protected against heretics at all cost.
Jim Keegstra was a friend and patriot who went out like a man. He will be sadly missed.
Terry Long. 

Tuesday, 10 June 2014

Atheism vs. Creativity - A Comparison......By Ben Klasssen

A. Common Grounds.

Both Atheism and Creativity deplore and denounce any and all supernatural beliefs, claims and superstitions. We do not believe in gods, devils, spooks, spirits, heaven or hell. We denounce all such hocus-pocus as being invented by men, largely for the purpose of controlling their minds and worldly affairs and extracting the utmost financial gain from them.

B. Major Differences.

Whereas Atheism is a negative approach to a positive evil, unfortunately it lacks a positive creed and program of its own to replace the superstitions it seeks to destroy. The Atheist movements are mostly small, some take on some weird hang-ups of their own, and by and large, have done little to either help destroy Christianity or any of the other religions based on fear, superstition and gullibility. As a result they have accomplished little that is constructive. The Jewish influence is heavy.

Creativity, on the other hand, has a comprehensive creed and program that embraces the whole spectrum of living: Sound Mind in a Sound Body in a Sound Society in a Sound Environment. We seek to build a Whiter and Brighter World for the future progeny of the White Race, all of which is encompassed In our Three Basic Books, Nature's Eternal Religion, The White Man's Bible and Salubrious Living, supplemented further by our most re- cent additions. Expanding Creativity and Building a Whiter and Brighter World. We have the "gegengift" that Hitler suggested was necessary to do the job and we are determined to do it. We are certain that we are the.... Wave of the Future.
Christianity is Mass Insanity built on a foundation of superstition, gullibility and ignorance fortified by an intensive campaign of mind manipulation.

Without a successful Creativity movement the White Race is dead. Our every thought and action must be - Will it help promote CREATIVITY?

The White Race will either inhabit Planet Earth in totality, or it will not survive at all. There will be no in between in our future.

For the White Race Creativity is the most meaningful and beneficial idea in its entire history.

The Ultimate Horror is the Mongrelization of the White Race.

Ben Klassen
Founder Church of the Creator

Article taken from Racial Loyalty # 34 
April 13AC (1986)

Tuesday, 3 June 2014

Letter to Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland.......Rev Matt Hale

Dear Friends and Supporters:   I just received a call from Matt!  He seriously needs your help now!  The U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado is considering dismissing Matt's civil suit.  Matt asks that each of you send the following letter to:
Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland
U.S. District Court
901 19th Street
Room A 105
Denver, Colorado 80294-3589 
The Letter........
I  am asking that you make this letter a part of the record of   Hale v. Berkebile 14-cv-1233.  Please do not dismiss this civil suit. I am one of many supporters of Matthew Hale and know he is an innocent man that deserves his freedom. Thank you!
I am asking for donations to his Legal Fund, whatever you can give, be it $5.00, $10.00 or $100.00. It can be a check or cash to me: 
   Evelyn Hutcheson
   200 Carlson Ave. 25 H
  Washington, IL. 61571
I would never ask for your help if I could do it alone and I love all of you for caring about Matt. He is INNOCENT and that is what is so heart breaking!  Thank You!!


Dear Friends and Supporters,
Matt is concerned that I may have been unclear in my June 2nd email to you asking for your help. The court in Denver is considering dismissing his case for freedom, not his civil lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Thus he needs all of you to write, once again, Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland
                                                                                       U.S.District Court
901 19th Street  Room  A105 Denver, CO. 80294-3589
Here is the text of the letter you should send:
*Please make this letter part of the record of Hale v. Berkebile, case N. 14-cv-1233*
Dear Judge Boland,
It is my understanding that you are considering the dismissal of Matthew Hales case for his rightful freedom and without even reading the wonderful brief that he filed supporting his release at that. Please read his brief and give him the justice that he deserves. I am one of the many supporters of Matthew Hale and know  that he is an innocent man who deserves his freedom.  Thank You.
(Be sure to sign your name and provide your address).
Matt says that it is okay to add to the content of this letter so long as you keep it polite and civil. We thank you for all your help!! 
 Ms. H