Rev Matt Hale(Civil Case)... Motion to Judge Krieger.....

MOTION TO JUDGE KRIEGER FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION BARRING DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO PUNISH PLAINTIFF AND BAN PLAINTIFF'S CORRESPONDENCE  ON PURELY RELIGIOUSLY OR IDEOLOGICALLY DISCRIMINATORYGROUNDS.........

*****************************************************************************

Friends and Supporters: Matt didn't know that the court  had ruled in favor of the BOP (Summary Judgment) and closed the cased on March 29th.
Rev Matt Hale(Civil Case) Opinion and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Matt filed this document on April 1st, not knowing that Krieger had already ruled in the case. Sad! Matt is suffering at the hands of the real criminals.
 

Ms. H

 

 

*********************************************************************

 

 

To read the document in it's entirety............

Motion To Judge Krieger...... (FREE MATT HALE Site)    

 

 

Some Quotes from Rev Hale contained in the document.........

 

 

" It is with considerable reluctance that I file this motion at this time: after all, the Defendant's (frivolous)  motion for Summary Judgment is currently pending, that motion could be properly disposed of soon, and the case could proceed to trial in the relatively near future. "

 

" I have been punished for supposed "Gang activity" for merely trying to send out sermons to my fellow religious believers. "

 

" Rather, I have the same right under the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act "(R.F.R.A)" to be free from mistreatment and persecution on religious grounds as anybody else "

 

" I therefore should not have to wait for the trial to end this constant terrorism that is being inflicted on me, my family, and fellow adherents by the Defendant's employee's "

 

" That the Defendant and it's employee's be enjoined from punishing the Plaintiff in any way for merely participating in his asserted church, religion, ministry, or ideology within his correspondence."

 

" Notably, even if Creativity were not a religion, the Defendant still loses because the expression of an ideology is likewise protected by the first amendment. "

 

SUBMITTED APRIL 01 2018......