Monday, 7 October 2019

STORMTROOP 16 .... Rank Upon Rank (Video)

                             Banned on YouTube  #28 
                   STORMTROOP 16 … Rank Upon Rank






 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 

Thursday, 3 October 2019

ANTIFA Targets Elderly Couple


 
Antifa has shown it's true colours once again.
At a rally held by Peoples Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada on September 29th 2019  an elderly couple attempting to attend were screamed at ("Nazi scum"), blocked and intimidated by members of  Antifa. Not only was this an incredibly cowardly attack even by Antifa standards, it was an attack on democracy. The PPC is a registered party and has a right to inform people of their party's platform for the upcoming Oct 21st Federal election.

What will be next masked Antifa at polling stations holding baseball bats?  Intimidation at political events can not be acceptable in a democratic society, it's one thing to stand with a sign and scream lame slogans, blocking peoples movement and intimidating them is a form of terrorism.

 
As these "rebels" fight for the same values/morals or lack of them that globalists such as our Prime Minster hold, one can come to the conclusion, that the reason Antifa has not been labelled as a domestic terror organization by the Canadian government is because Antifa the useful idiots, are in essence the Liberal party's brown shirts. If the Government can not or will not protect it's citizens from the fascist like Antifa, then citizens must protect themselves. Don't be a victim!
 
 
       












Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Rev Matt Hale(Civil Case) ... Motion for Extension of Time

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO



Civil Action No. 19-cv-00752-WJM-SKC

MATTHEW HALE, J.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDY MARQUES,
AMY KELLEY,
DEBORAH PAYNE,
JAMES WIENCEK,
SUSAN PROSE,
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
JAMES FOX,
PAUL KLEIN,
CHRISTOPHER SYNSVOLL,
C. PORCO,
J. OSLAND,
M. WYCHE,
L. ROBINSON,
D. HUMPHRIES,
S. HANSEN,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants.


 
                                      MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME


Defendants move for a 14-day extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. The grounds for granting the extension are detailed below:
1. Plaintiff Matthew Hale is a federal prisoner "serving a forty-year sentence for obstructing justice and soliciting the murder of a federal judge." Hale v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 759 F. App’x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2019). He brings this Bivens action alleging that various  government employees violated his First Amendment and due process rights while he has been incarcerated.

2. Hale initially asserted 22 Bivens claims. Upon screening, the claims were winnowed down to seven Bivens claims, all seeking damages against these officials in their individual capacities.

3. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 23, 2019, seeking dismissal of the remaining seven claims on the grounds that there is no available Bivens remedy and that each official is entitled to qualified immunity.

4. Discovery has not begun in this matter, and no trial date has been set. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (providing that "until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed").
 
5. Hale filed a 45-page response to the motion to dismiss, which was served on Defendants on September 13, 2019.

6. Defendants reply in support of their motion to dismiss is presently due on or before September 27, 2019.

7. The Assistant United States Attorney who has represented Defendants throughout this matter and who drafted the motion to dismiss is on extended leave, thus necessitating that another Assistant United States Attorney will need to familiarize himself with this matter and the motion before preparing a reply brief.

8. Additionally, one of the lawyer-defendants is presently out of the country and would like an opportunity to review the reply brief before it is filed.

9. In light of these circumstances, Defendants respectfully request that the deadline for the reply brief be extended by 14 days, until October 11, 2019.

10. Defendants submit that this extension will not prejudice Plaintiff or significantly delay the efficient resolution of this matter.

11. This is the first requested extension with respect to the reply brief. Defendants previously obtained two extensions of time to file their motion to dismiss and an extension of time to respond to various motions to intervene.

12. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(c), a copy of this extension motion will be served on Defendants.

13. Because Plaintiff is an unrepresented inmate, Defendants’ counsel has not conferred with Plaintiff regarding this motion. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a).

14. For good cause shown, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the motion for extension.

Dated September 25, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

JASON R. DUNN
United States Attorney
s/ David Moskowitz



David Moskowitz
Assistant United States Attorney
1801 California Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 454-0100
Fax: (303) 454-0407
david.moskowitz@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

 









 


 

Monday, 16 September 2019

BULLY BOYS....Hammerskins (Video)

                                  Banned on YouTube #27
                           BULLY BOYS....Hammerskins 








 
 

 
 
 
 
 

Monday, 9 September 2019

SKREWDRIVER...Boots and Braces (Video)

                                Banned on YouTube #26
                      SKREWDRIVER...Boots and Braces
















Friday, 23 August 2019

Savage Sentence Handed Out to Dr. James Sears for Satire....By Paul Fromm

TORONTO. August 22, 2019. Today Provincial Court Judge Richard Blouin blew it. He had the chance to declare a mistrial for outrageously ineffective representation but instead chose to sentence Dr. James Sears, editor of the satirical YOUR WARD NEWS to the maximum -- a year in prison, six months each consecutive on two counts of wilfully promoting hate against privileged minorities -- Jews and Women.
 
 Despite evidence in e-mail exchanges that lawyer Dean Embry had refused Dr. Sears instruction to call expert witnesses and to make certain submissions, the judge, sticking by a fellow lawyer declared: " "Mr. Embry approached the case tactically and professionally. This was not incompetence or worse. This was a lawyer doing his job. It just didn't work."
 
The judge then got down to sentencing. He declared that Dr. Sears deserved at least 18 months. A conviction attracts only a maximum of six months. Agreeing to the Crown's demands for the maximum sentence of six months on each count to be served concurrently, the judge gave Dr. Sears a year.
 
The judge faithfully echoed a line spread by Canada's Jewish lobby that criticism of Jews leads to violence:  " "Mr. Sears  promoted hate to a vast audience in an era where online exposure to this material inexorably leads to extremism and the potential of mass casualties." Oddly, in press reports, Noah Shack of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs said much the same thing:  "Those who promote hatred must be held accountable. What starts with words can often lead to violence." At an earlier sentencing hearing, Dr. Sears had submitted evidence that YOUR WARD NEWS's satire serves as a safety valve and offers a voice to many people marginalized by political correctness. he cited two examples of people who had threatened violence but who had calmed down once their stories appeared in YOUR WARD NEWS.
 
Dr, Sears wife Colette and his four year old son attended the sentencing. The boy saw his father handcuffed and led away. Dr. Sears gave his wife his car keys and cellphone and insisted on keeping his chain and crucifix as he headed to the cells.
 
A woman supported called out: "This is not right." The judge threatened to have her removed. The woman, who grew up in communist Eastern Europe, left the court in tears with memories of exactly the same things in her homeland.
 
In a press scrum afterwards, Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, warned an extremely hostile reporter: "This is a sad day for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This is North Korea lite. CAFE has supported YOUR WARD NEWS all along in its fight for freedom. Neither the Crown nor the judge could see that this paper was satirical. My parents if alive today would have wondered what they risked their youth for. My father served three and a half years in the Royal Canadian Navy; my mother six years as a nurse in the Canadian Army. They thought they were fighting for freedom and against people who jailed writers and threw people in prison for the non-violent expression of their religious or political views."
 
"Dr. Sears is a Christian martyr," another supporter said.
 
 
Publisher Leroy St. Germaine will be sentenced August 29. A proud Metis, he was entitled to the Aboriginal discount, or special reduction of sentences in view of his ethnicity. At a previous hearing the judge urged him to accept mediation -- a sitdown with Jews and women who had complained against YOUR WARD NEWS. "Fuck that," he told his lawyer.
 
So, August 29 will show whether our cultural Marxist courts will send a proud, ailing 77-year old Metis to prison for the non-violent publication of his political and religious views.
 
A notice of appeal against the conviction was filed earlier this week. Another lawyer will appear in Provincial Court on Friday to seek Dr. Sears release on bail pending appeal
 
 
                CAFE.. Canadian Association for Free Expression



 
 
 

Tuesday, 20 August 2019

CHINGFORD ATTACK .... Chingford Attack / East End (Video)

                                 Banned on YouTube #25
     CHINGFORD ATTACK... Chingford Attack / East End






 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

WHITELAW....Skinhead Heart (Video)

                           Banned on YouTube #24
                        WHITELAW.....Skinhead Heart










 
 
 

Tuesday, 6 August 2019

NULLIFYING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

 

August 1, 2019
 
Because the many criminal actions by the Deep State against Matthew Hale have been made public, it is necessary to present the motive for these crimes as a warning to all freedom loving Americans:
 
For many years prior to his unlawful arrest, prosecution and imprisonment, Matthew Hale has been harassed by establishment-types including the Mayor and City Council of his own home town. Why? Because Matthew Hale has openly defended the white race. In fact, the infamous “race card” has denied Mr. Hale’s First Amendment rights through actions that included FBI attempts to prevent his speaking and TV engagements. Hale was also denied his law license for perfectly legal behavior and beliefs about race – none of which involved any threats to or against any other race!
 
In 1992, Matthew Hale became a member of “The Church of the Creator,” originally founded in North Carolina in 1973. Subsequently, in 1996, he was chosen leader of “The World Church of the Creator.” In 2002, Hale and his church became involved in a trademark infringement case with an Oregon group also calling itself, “The World Church of the Creator.” The case came to trial and in that same year, Judge Joan Lefkow ruled in Hale’s favor—but a higher court reversed the decision sending the matter back to Lefkow’s court where Hale hoped to enter an appeal. 
 
 Angered by the biased nature of the reversal, Hale, some members of his church and supporters wanted to picket the homes of those responsible, a time honored civil rights tactic used by many groups. A man named Evola had  "joined" the church and by virture of his physical size, offered himself both as Hale's bodyguard and a source for the addresses of those being considered for the public demonstrations. Unknown to Hale, Evola was an FBI "plant" paid $72,000 to "tape" conversations with Hale that would form the basis of a charge of soliciting the murder of the same Judge Joan Lefkow who had originally ruled in Hale's favor!
 
It is essential to understand that to accomplish his “mission” for the FBI, Evola had to offer this “assassination service” to Hale, a crime called “entrapment!” This is the same crime used to put Ruby Ridge’s Randy Weaver in the FBI’s cross-hairs for refusing to wear a wire to record the meetings of a white separatist group Weaver occasionally visited. Weaver was later acquitted of thfalse charge of hiring a “hit man” (agent Evola) to murder Judge Lefkow despite Evola’s tapes showing that Hale had repeatedly refused this offer! Subsequently, Hale, after a bogus “trial” lasting about two weeks and despite—or because of—multiple legal improprieties and outright crimes, was found guilty. A fictional “clerical error”[!] allowed the Deep State to use “terrorist sentencing guidelines” to send Hale to prison for forty years, sixteen of which he has spent in solitary confinement where he remains to this day.
 
The crime(s) against Matthew Hale began long ago when, as was his right, he chose a particular viewpoint and made it public. In other words, Matthew Hale has been confined for perhaps the rest of his life because he believed as an American citizen he had the same constitutional guarantees the rest of us also believe we have. If he is condemned to remain incarcerated, We the People are permitting our own enslavement by the same Deep State that has wrongly condemned Matthew Hale.
 
 
 

Thursday, 1 August 2019

Interview #2 with Michelle Erstikaitis-Lisson

PREAMBLE.....
After the first interview with Michelle, Creativity Toronto took a lot of heat for giving her this platform. It was explained that conducting an interview does not equate to agreeing/approving with the subjects thoughts or actions. To be fair to the detractors, the interviews conducted here in the past have been with those that share the same belief systems as us, at least for the most part. Michelle was very visible and active within the right wing community in Toronto, being a Women in the movement, combined with her rather colorful past made doing an interview with her irresistible. We now get to interview #2, this time done via prison letter. The interview is short, but will not fail to anger people. The answers/thoughts/opinions expressed by Michelle, DO NOT reflect that of Creativity Toronto.  ENJOY.....



On July 18th, 2016 you allegedly went to the American Consular in Toronto to seek asylum and were arrested for attacking a guard and slashing his throat with a box cutter. Can you tell us what took place that day?  
Troubled Paul Bernardo Super fan back in Court (Toronto Sun)

I can't answer or explain what happened yet, because of the appeal. I caught the Department of Justice trying to shut down the newspaper (Your Ward News) and there was an argument. I had to involve the Russian and Hungarian Governments. I can't explain right now but I would encourage any Nationalist being prosecuted to file a complaint with the Hungarian Government or their native European country of origin depending on, and respecting active military agreements.

When do you anticipate being released from prison?

I have a dangerous offender label, but it does not mean that I have to stay in jail. I might get out, and if I don't, my first parole hearing is in three years. I've made an asylum claim, so the Government of Canada can not try to influence me politically.

This is your second interview with Creativity Toronto, the first being in June of 2013. It was not asked if you had any political involvement prior to the exposure you received for working on the Conservative campaign that you were subsequently removed from?
Interview with Michelle Erstikaitis-Lisson  
Bernardo Fan Kicked out of Tory Campaign (Macleans)  

Yes, I have been working in politics since 2005, informally. I've worked with Cher DiNovo, before she was elected, and attended numerous political protests and organizations. "Stop the War coalition, Israel - Palestine Gaza protest 2008 and with various other members of parliament, I also began my elections Canada work in 2008.


What drew you into this political activism?

My (adapted) family is from Lithuania. My Grandparents came to this country shortly after the war ended and died of old age. My Grandfather was a Police officer during the war, and my Grandmother was a nurse. This is why I am very passionate about European politics.     

You  have worked with Your Ward News, James Sears and LeRoy St. Germaine have been charged with promoting hate against Women and Jews. Any thoughts on the matter?
Your Ward News Duo Guilty of Promoting Hate Against Women and Jews (CBC)


Yes, we were targeted by the Department of Justice and shut down for promoting hatred against Jews and Women, the latter charge was the feminazis trying to turn people against the publication. Despite the charges, the publication is still available online because they are a legitimate political publication and technically it would be a Charter two violation to try to take them off the internet.
YOUR WARD NEWS

In your court appearance it was written you were.... "Clutching a Qur'an" and also yelled "ISIS is coming to kill you" in the American Consular before attacking the guard. Do you have any affiliation with terrorists?

The term terrorist is subjective, because in political extremism, somebody is always a "terrorist" it depends what side of the fight you are on. I have associates, like the Khadr family and I can definitely tell you that to people in Iran, everybody else is a terrorist. It is because everyday the Iranians have their country invaded by a foreign military, so to them we are the terrorists. As well there are organizations in Ireland that are referred to as terrorists because of the physical way in which these groups choose to express their frustration. But again, to these people in Ireland, the tyrannical government are the terrorists.    

 






Tuesday, 30 July 2019

Rev Matt Hale.....An Open Letter to President Trump from a Wrongfully Convicted Man

PETITION FOR CLEMENCY...…………

Your Excellency,

In the midst of all your busy and outstanding work on behalf of the American people, please allow me to recap several of the previous letters I have mailed to you. After all, I know you have a lot on your plate these days and it is understandable if one or more of my letters have fallen through the cracks!

I am serving a forty year prison sentence for a totally made up, FBI-concocted "crime". You see, the FBI sent a spy into my church  beginning in 1999, had that spy talking about wanting to kill various people, then had me charged in 2003 when that spy said he wanted to kill a federal judge! At no time  did I say I wanted him to kill anybody, nor was anybody ever harmed. And yet I am the one sitting in a federal prison right now and have been for 16 1/2 years.

I was convicted of solicitation of a murder and obstruction of justice (in 2004) when the only one who did these things was the FBI spy! I was prosecuted for political reasons, not because I had done anything wrong, on orders from that scumbag Patrick Fitzgerald who is now the lawyer and best friend of that liar and leaker James Comey. And now the same deep state rats are after you!

Hundreds if not thousands of letters have been sent to you by now on my behalf  by loyal Americans who have studied the facts of my case ,  recognized the total absence of  any evidence of guilt, and are sickened by the draconian sentence that I received. Isn't 16 years in prison for no crime enough punishment? My formal petition for the communication of my sentence is on file at the office of Pardon Attorney and I mailed you a copy of it a year and half ago.
Rev Matt Hale..Petition For Commutation

I am a loyal supporter of yours and have been since you challenged the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. I predicted in July 2015 that you would win the Presidency. I knew you would win! I also knew you would be the only President with the courage to let me go, the courage to defy the phony "Justice" department and the deep state! Your enemies are my enemies, Sir!

Please reward my loyalty to you and the loyalty of many hundreds and even thousands of your other supporters, by freeing me, an innocent man from this grave miscarriage of justice. I want nothing more than to go on television and sing the praises of the great President Trump, who, in his magnanimity, freed me from my misfortune and returned me to the arms of my Mother whom I love so much. She is 80 years old and needs me home!

My family and I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. The phone number for my mother Evelyn Hutcheson is (309- ***- ****)  My phone number here (719-784-9464). Our website is …. FREE MATT HALE    though it is occasionally hacked by MSNBC supported by "Antifa" , a domestic terrorist group which is also supported by sleepy Joe Biden.

Please let us hear from you soon so I may reclaim the liberty that stolen from me so many years ago,

Very, Truly Yours,

Matthew F Hale


PS... My late Father was a police officer for 30 years and I myself am a law school graduate. We are law abiding people!

Yours for a Trumpian America!


                        


Wednesday, 17 July 2019

Monday, 15 July 2019

VIOLENT STORM....Now or Never (Video)

                          Banned on YouTube # 22
                    VIOLENT STORM …. Now or Never

 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Friday, 7 June 2019

Rev Matt Hale (Civil Case)....ORDER TO DISMISS IN PART AND TO DRAW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 19-cv-00752-LTB-GPG

MATTHEW HALE, J.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDY MARQUES,
AMY KELLEY,
DEBORAH PAYNE,
JAMES WIENCEK,
SUSAN PROSE,
ANDRE MATEVHUSIAN,
JAMES FOX,
PAUL KLEIN,
CHRISTOPHER SYNSVOLL,
C. PORCO,
J. OSLAND,
M. WYCHE,
L. ROBINSON,
D. HUMPHRIES,
S. HANSEN, and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants.

                            ORDER TO DISMISS IN PART AND TO DRAW CASE


This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case entered May 1, 2019 (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff filed timely objections (ECF No. 9) and "additional" objections (ECF No. 10). The Court has reviewed the Recommendation de novo in light of the file and record in this case. On de novo review the Court concludes that the Recommendation is correct.

  "[A] party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court." U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).

In the objections, Plaintiff argues that issue preclusion is improper because the judgment in Hale v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW, 2018 WL 1535508, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2018), aff'd 759 F. App’x 741, 2019 WL 117616 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019) is not yet final. (ECF No. 9 at 2-4). Plaintiff plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. (Id.).

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, "[t]he appealability of a judgment, however, does not hinder its preclusive effect." MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 832 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also 18A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 4433 (3d ed.) ("a final judgment retains all of its res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal"). Thus, as set forth in the Recommendation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s determinations in Hale v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 759 F. App’x 741, 2019 WL 117616 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019) are binding in this action.

Plaintiff also argues that the defamation claim should not be dismissed because "no court has ruled as to the truth of the warden’s specific statement." (ECF No. 9 at 4). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Matevousian defamed him by stating in a letter to a United States Senator that "Creativity ‘advocates for violence motivated by racial discrimination,’ meaning to imply that Hale does likewise since he is an adherent of that religion." (ECF No. 1 at 26). In Colorado, a plaintiff must "show the falsity of a defamatory statement by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’" Bustos v. A & E Television Networks, 646 F.3d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The  Tenth Circuit determined "that Mr. Hale has sought to advance the white-supremacist goals of Creativity in ways that pose a danger both inside and outside of ADX." 759 F. App'x at 750. Thus, the Magistrate Judge correctly explained in the Recommendation that "Defendant Matevousian’s allegedly defamatory statement is not defamatory because, in light of the Tenth Circuit’s findings, Plaintiff cannot show it is false." (ECF No. 8 at 10).

In the "additional" objections, Plaintiff contends that Claims 2, 13, and 19 "have nothing whatever to do with Creativity" and, thus, are not barred by issue preclusion. (ECF No. 10 at 1). The Court disagrees.


As recounted by the Tenth Circuit, "[t]he overriding mission of the Church and the Creativity religion is the permanent prevention of the cultural, genetic, and biological genocide of the White Race worldwide and thus the achievement of White racial immortality." 759 F. App'x at 743. "By limiting Mr. Hale’s ability to send and receive mail communicating Creativity’s message, the BOP mitigates internal and external safety risks." Id. at 750-51.

Claim 2 alleges a violation of the freedom of speech due to "censorship" of Plaintiff’s "philosophy" book, "The Triumph of Life: An Assault upon the Values of the Current World"; Claim 13 alleges a violation of the freedom of speech due to the refusal to mail to Plaintiff’s mother an article he wrote about "those who care about the future of their White Race"; and Claim 19 alleges a violation of the freedom of speech based on withholding mail that mentions the title of books authored by Plaintiff, including "Ending White Slavery" and "The Racial Loyalist Manifesto." (See ECF No. 1). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that these freedom of speech claims rely on  allegations that the speech at issue is based on Creativity and Plaintiff’s related "philosophy." The Tenth Circuit decided this speech correctly is subject to the BOP’s restrictions. Thus, these claims are barred by issue preclusion.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the objections (ECF Nos. 9, 10) are overruled. It is  FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted. It is  FURTHER ORDERED that Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the basis of issue preclusion. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Claims 9 and 14 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). It is  FURTHER ORDERED that Claim 22 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as legally frivolous. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, and 21 are drawn to Senior Judge Marcia S. Krieger. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c), 40.1(d)(1); Hale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Case No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW (final judgment entered March 29, 2018).

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 5th day of June , 2019.


BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court


 

Monday, 3 June 2019

SS STURMFUHRER....SS Sturmfuhrer (Video)

                                 Banned on YouTube #21
                      SS STURMFUHRER.....SS Sturmfuhrer   
   

                                    





Sunday, 26 May 2019

Rev Matt Hale(Civil Case)..ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS IN PART (Doc 8.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 19-cv-00752-LTB-GPG


Matthew Hale, J.D
Plaintiff

V.

Rudy Marques, et,al.
Defendant's


ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS IN PART (Doc 8.)


Claims, 2,13 and 19 these claims have nothing whatever to do with Creativity on their face and thus cannot conceivably fall under the present ban on all Creativity correspondence which Hale is appealing to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, even if it turns out later that the court denies cert. or grants cert. and rules against Hale on merits, claims, 2, 13 and 19 cannot lawfully be dismissed on issue preclusion grounds as the Magistrate opined (Doc 8 at 7-8)

These involve issues that have not been adjudicated at all. Why the Magistrate assumes that everything Hale writes is "Creativity" Hale does not know but he is incorrect. In any case as Hale has already stated in previously tendered objections, the matter of Creativity has yet to be finally decided.

Claim 22. In addition to what Hale has already tendered, Hale objects to the Magistrate\s of dismissal (I.D at 8-10) on the same grounds as the other claims namely, that Hale V. Federal Bureau of Prisons is not yet final. Whatever statements the tenth circuit has made about Creativity (and Hale) may be reversed by the supreme court.

Sincerely submitted,

Matthew Hale, J.D          
 May 7th 2019




 

Tuesday, 21 May 2019

Rev Matt Hale(Civil Case)...PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS IN PART

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT..FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-70052-LTB-GPG

MATTHEW HALE, J.D
PLAINTIFF

V,

RUDY MARQUES, ET AL
DEFENDANT'S


PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAJISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS IN PART (DOC 8)


Now comes Plaintiff Matthew Hale, J.D,
Objecting to the Magistrate's   recommendation in all of it's respects and specifically as follows …

1. Claims 2-9, 13-14 and 16-19 may not lawfully be dismissed since the judgement of Hale V Federal Bureau of Prisons, ET AL, 18-1141, 2019 WL 117616, has not yet become "final"

The entire predicate for the Magistrate's recommendation that claims 2-9,  13-14 and 16-19 be dismissed is that the judgement of Hale V.   Federal Bureau Of Prisons, et al. has become "final" (Doc 8. at 4-8)

The Magistrate is quite simply incorrect. The tenth circuit only denied Hale's petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing En Banc on March 18th 2019 and thus Hale has 90 days from that date in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supreme court (see rule 13 (3) of the rules of the supreme court of the United States) (This court can see for itself by reviewing the tenth circuit's docket that rehearing was in fact denied on March 18th 2019)

Why the Magistrate assumed that no such petition for panel rehearing had been filed, or that Hale was not going to petition for the supreme court rule of his case, or was unaware of the fact that a case is not "final" until the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supreme court has passed or such a petition has been denied, Hale does not know but clearly the Magistrate's recommendations as to these numerous claims is in error.

As a matter of fact Hale is busy putting together his petition for a writ of certiorari at this time and had to interrupt that work in order to file these objections to the Magistrate's (premature) recommendations.

Hale V. Bureau of Prisons is not "final" and will only become final if and when the supreme court denies cert. or grants cert. and rules in the respondents favor on the merits. On the other hand it is entirely possible that the supreme court will grant cert. and reverse the tenth circuit. A case can not possibly be final when it is still subject to review, namely by the supreme court.

Therefore, the Magistrate's recommendation that claims, 2-9, 13-14 and 16-19 of Hale's complaint be dismissed, must be overruled. The recommendation is in fact frivolous since Hale V. Federal Bureau of Prisons is not yet final. That case is going to the supreme court!

2. Claim 22 may not lawfully be dismissed either since no court has ruled as to the truth of the Warden's specific statement of fact which he made to the senator (Doc 8. at 8-10)

None of the quotations cited by the Magistrate from the tenth circuit go to weather the specific statement that Creativity " advocates for violence motivated by racial discrimination" is in fact true of false (Id at 10) It is, in other words, entirely possible that the statement which warden Waterousiam made to senator Duckworth is false not withstanding all of the findings or opinions of the tenth circuit cited. That is because there has been no adjudication whatever that Creativity "Advocates for violence motivated by racial discrimination" the specific statement which Waterousiam made.

Weather Creativity poses a loose or vague "threat" as far as the BOP is concerned is an unactionable opinion, Waterousiam, on the other hand, made a specific statement of fact about the religion (and Hale) concerning a supposed advocacy of racial violence that is subject to defamation law accordingly. "Advocacy" is a deliberate espousal and that has yet to be shown about Creativity.

Hale can "show that it (the statement) is false" (Doc 8 at 10) and he must be allowed to in the course of this case. Hale can and will prove in the course of this case that Creativity does not "Adovacte for violence motivated by racial discrimination" That was a very specific libel on Waterousiam's part and Hale has a legal right to try to prove that. There is nothing "legally frivolous" about a claim that can still be proved.

                                                             CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate's recommendation that various claims of Hale's complaint be dismissed (Doc 8) must be overruled in it's entirety.

Sincerely submitted
Matthew Hale, J.D  
May 6th 2019



      
          


      


 
 
 

Sunday, 12 May 2019

THE VOICE...Skinhead (Video)

                            Banned on YouTube #20
                             THE VOICE....Skinhead





 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Monday, 6 May 2019

Rev Matt Hale(Civil Case)... Recommendation To Dismiss In Part And To Draw Case

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Gordon P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00752-LTB-GPG

MATTHEW HALE, J.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDY MARQUES,
AMY KELLEY,
DEBORAH PAYNE,
JAMES WIENCEK,
SUSAN PROSE,
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
JAMES FOX,
PAUL KLEIN,
CHRISTOPHER SYNSVOLL,
C. PORCO,
J. OSLAND,
M. WYCHE,
L. ROBINSON,
D. HUMPHRIES,
S. HANSEN, and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants.

             RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS IN PART AND TO DRAW CASE


This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Matthew Hale’s Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 1)1. The matter has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for

1 "(ECF No. ___)" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this Recommendation. . Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b), the Court must review the Prisoner Complaint to determine whether any claims are appropriate for summary dismissal.

Complaint, which is the operative pleading. (ECF No. 1). He paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff brings the Prisoner Complaint pursuant to Bivens and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff alleges he is an "ordained minister in the non-Christian Church of the Creator", also referred to as "Creativity religious faith." (Id. at 7). Since his incarceration at the maximum-security prison in Florence, Colorado, he contends Defendants have violated his rights because of his religious beliefs. (See generally ECF No. 1).


Plaintiff sets forth twenty-two claims: 1) violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause due to "ongoing harassment" because Plaintiff "does not adhere to the tenets of the Christian religion"; 2) violation of the freedom of speech due to "censorship" of his book; 3) violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause due to a "total ban on all of Hale’s religious mail"; 4) violation of RFRA due to the ban on Plaintiff’s "religious correspondence"; 5) violation of the freedom of speech due to the ban on Plaintiff’s "Creativity" correspondence; 6) violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause due to the refusal to mail a "sermon" prepared by Plaintiff and subsequent incident report; 7) violation of RFRA due to the refusal to mail a "sermon" prepared by Plaintiff and subsequent incident report; 8) violation of the freedom of speech due to the refusal to mail a "sermon" prepared by Plaintiff and subsequent incident report; 9) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment due to the incident report and discipline resulting from Plaintiff attempting to send his "sermon"; 10) violation of the freedom of speech due to the "censorship of an article written by Hale advocating for his release from prison by President Trump"; 11) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment by banning Plaintiff’s phone calls with his mother due to his attempt "to seek the newspaper publication of documents filed with this Court"; 12) violation of due process arising from no hearing prior to the ban of Plaintiff’s phone calls with his mother; 13) violation of the freedom of speech due to the refusal to mail an article Plaintiff wrote about "those who care about the future of their White Race" to his mother; 14) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment due to the charge of gang activity and subsequent discipline related to the article; 15) violation of the freedom of speech due to interference with his outgoing and incoming mail; 16) violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause due to the "refusal to let Hale have a book which espouses his religious faith," the "Racial Loyalty Portfolio"; 17) violation of RFRA due to refusing to allow Plaintiff to receive the "Racial Loyalty Portfolio"; 18) violation of the freedom of speech due to refusing to allow Plaintiff to receive the "Racial Loyalty Portfolio"; 19) violation of the freedom of speech based on withholding mail that mentions the title of books authored by Plaintiff; 20) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising from an incident report based on Plaintiff asking his mother to sell his personal belongings for money to pay legal costs; 21) violation of the freedom of speech due to the delayed mailing of Plaintiff’s letters; and 22) state law defamation arising from the characterization of Creativity advocating for "violence motivated by racial discrimination." (See ECF No. 1). Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and money damages. (Id. at 29-30).



II. Issue Preclusion




Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also referred to as issue preclusion, "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970). "[I]ssue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an issue once it has suffered an adverse determination on the issue, even if the issue arises when the party is pursuing or defending against a different claim." Park Lake Res. Ltd. Liab. v. U.S. Dep't of Agr., 378 F.3d 1132, 1136 (10th Cir. 2004). (citation omitted).
In general, issue preclusion applies when: (1) the issue previously decided is identical with the one presented in the action in question, (2) the prior action has been finally adjudicated on the merits, (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior adjudication, and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is raised had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.

Id. (citation and quotation omitted). "[I]f a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua sponte, even though the defense has not been raised." Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412, suppl., 531 U.S. 1 (2000) (citation omitted).

In 2014, Plaintiff commenced a similar action, Case No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW. On March 28, 2018, summary judgment was granted in favor of the federal Bureau of Prisons and against Plaintiff. Hale v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW, 2018 WL 1535508, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2018), aff'd, No. 18-1141, 2019 WL 117616 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019). The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on January 7, 2019. Hale v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 18-1141, -- F. App’x --, 2019 WL 117616, at *1 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019).


In an Order and Judgment, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff’s alleged religion of Creativity does not qualify as a religion subject to protection under RFRA 2019 WL 117616, at *5. The Tenth Circuit also determined that Creativity does not constitute "beliefs that are religious in nature" as required for the protections of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. Id. at *6. Regarding mail restrictions, the court concluded,  the mail restrictions on Mr. Hale are rationally connected to the BOP’s security interests. There is overwhelming evidence in the record that Creativity poses an institutional security risk and that Mr. Hale has sought to advance the white-supremacist goals of Creativity in ways that pose a danger both inside and outside of ADX. By limiting Mr. Hale’s ability to send and receive mail communicating Creativity’s message, the BOP mitigates internal and external safety risks. Id. at *7.
Issue preclusion bars Plaintiff from relitigating the Tenth Circuit’s determinations in this action. Plaintiff’s RFRA and Free Exercise claims in this action rely on the allegation that Creativity is a religion. The Tenth Circuit decided this identical issue in the negative in the January 7, 2019 Order concerning Case No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW. That action has been finally adjudicated on the merits, as the court entered summary judgment, which was affirmed. Rivera v. Levitt, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1141 (D. Colo. 2000), aff'd sub nom., 44 F. App'x 934 (10th Cir. 2002) ("granting summary judgment on these claims constituted a final judgment on the merits") (collecting cases). Plaintiff was the plaintiff in that action and fully and fairly litigated the issues over nearly five years. See Case No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW. Thus, I recommend that Plaintiff’s RFRA and Free Exercise claims, specifically Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 16, and 17, be dismissed with prejudice on the basis of issue preclusion. See Khan v. Thorley, 23 F. App'x 978 (10th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of claims barred by collateral estoppel).
 
Likewise, the claims regarding freedom of speech, mail restrictions, and alleged "censorship" of Plaintiff’s writings are barred by issue preclusion. The Tenth Circuit explained, The BOP has designated Creativity a security threat group (STG), because inmates following its tenets have engaged in acts of violence, including murdering other inmates and instigating race riots. Accordingly, the BOP has placed restrictions on Mr. Hale impacting his participation in Creativity.
 
Mr. Hale contends that the restrictions on Creativity-based communications violate his free speech and association rights. Restrictions on STG communications are imposed for security reasons existing inside and outside the prison.
 
We conclude that the mail restrictions on Mr. Hale are rationally connected to the BOP’s security interests. There is overwhelming evidence in the record that Creativity poses an institutional security risk and that Mr. Hale has sought to advance the white-supremacist goals of Creativity in ways that pose a danger both inside and outside of ADX. By limiting Mr. Hale’s ability to send and receive mail communicating Creativity’s message, the BOP mitigates internal and external safety risks.
 

Upon considering the Turner factors, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriate on Mr. Hale’s free speech/association claims targeting the BOP’s mail restrictions. Those restrictions are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. 2019 WL 117616, at *1, *6-*8.

Certain of Plaintiff’s freedom of speech claims in this action rely on allegations that the speech at issue is based on Creativity and Plaintiff’s "philosophy." As explained above, the Tenth Circuit decided this speech correctly is subject to the BOP’s restrictions in the January 7, 2019 Order concerning Case No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW. That action has been finally adjudicated on the merits, as the court entered summary judgment, which was affirmed. Rivera, 88 F. Supp. 2d at 1141. Plaintiff was the plaintiff in that action and fully and fairly litigated the issues over nearly five years. See Case 1:19-cv-00752-LTB-GPG Document 8 Filed 05/01/19 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
Case No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW. Thus, I recommend that certain of Plaintiff’s free speech claims, specifically Claims 2, 5, 8, 13, 18, and 19, be dismissed with prejudice on the basis of issue preclusion.

III. Retaliation
"Prison officials may not retaliate against an inmate because of the inmate’s exercise of First Amendment rights." 2019 WL 117616, at *8 (citation omitted). As noted above, certain of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims are barred by issue preclusion. Thus, retaliation based on these claims likewise fails. On this basis, I recommend that Claims 9 and 14 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to show that Plaintiff is entitled to relief as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).


IV. Defamation

In Claim 22, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Matevousian stated in a letter to a United States Senator that "Creativity ‘advocates for violence motivated by racial discrimination,’ meaning to imply that Hale does likewise since he is an adherent of that religion." (ECF No. 1 at 26). Plaintiff contends this statement "was false and defamatory to Hale’s character, and was meant to prejudice Senator Duckworth against his person. Matevousian knew, or should have known, that the statement is untrue." (Id.).

The Court recommends that Claim 22 be dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires a court to dismiss sua sponte a prisoner’ s action or claim at any time if it is frivolous. "[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A legally frivolous claim is one based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as the alleged infringement of a legal interest that clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. There is considerable overlap between the standards for frivolousness and failure to state a claim, and a claim that lacks an arguable basis in law is dismissible under both standards. Id. at 326, 328.
Colorado law governs Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim. "Defamation is a communication that holds an individual up to contempt or ridicule thereby causing him to incur injury or damage." Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293, 1297 (Colo. 1994). Defamation consists of two types of communication, libel (written communication) and slander (oral communication). See id. at n.5. The elements of defamation are (1) a defamatory statement concerning another; (2) published to a third party; (3) with fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special damages or the existence of special damages to the plaintiff caused by the publication. See Larson v. Stow, 327 P.3d 340, 345 (Colo. App. 2014).

"A statement is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." Bustos v. A & E Television Networks, 646 F.3d 762, 763 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). In Colorado, a plaintiff must "show the falsity of a defamatory statement by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’" Id. at 764 (citation omitted). "Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified." Id. (quoting Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 517 (1991)).  
As recounted by the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff "is serving a forty-year sentence for obstructing justice and soliciting the murder of a federal judge who entered a judgment against the church’s predecessor." 2019 WL 117616, at *1. The Tenth Circuit upheld the prison restrictions imposed against Plaintiff because of his adherence to Creativity, which is designated as a security threat "because inmates following its tenets have engaged in acts of violence, including murdering other inmates and instigating race riots." Id. The Tenth Circuit determined, "[t]here is overwhelming evidence in the record that Creativity poses an institutional security risk and that Mr. Hale has sought to advance the white-supremacist goals of Creativity in ways that pose a danger both inside and outside of ADX." Id. at *7. Thus, Defendant Matevousian’s allegedly defamatory statement is not defamatory because, in light of the Tenth Circuit’s findings, Plaintiff cannot show it is false. Because Claim 22 lacks an arguable basis in law, the Court recommends that it be dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous.




V. Recommendation

For the reasons set forth herein, this Magistrate Judge respectfully
RECOMMENDS that Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the basis of issue preclusion. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Claims 9 and 14 be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Claim 22 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as legally frivolous. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, and 21 be drawn to Senior Judge Marcia S. Krieger. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c), 40.1(d)(1); Hale v. Case 1:19-cv-00752-LTB-GPG Document 8 Filed 05/01/19 USDC Colorado Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., Case No. 14-cv-00245-MSK-MJW (final judgment entered March 29, 2018).


DATED at Grand Junction, Colorado, this 1st day of May, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge