Wednesday, 26 August 2015

White Racist Leader Endorses Trump Immigration Plan!



Stopping short of endorsing Trump himself at this juncture, Reverend Matt Hale, America's most well-known political prisoner and former leader of the pro-White and anti-Jewish Church of the Creator, today endorsed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's controversial immigration plan, calling it "an excellent step in the right direction."

It will be recalled that Reverend Hale was convicted in Chicago in 2004 on federal charges of having solicited a government informant to murder district court Judge Joan Lefkow during a pending trademark lawsuit involving his church. However, there is no evidence that any such solicitation occurred and the entire transcript of his trial is now posted at Freematthale.net  so that the public can see for itself that he is the victim of a horrible miscarriage of justice. Until his arrest in 2003, Reverend Hale was the most effective public advocate for the White racist cause in America, renown for his public speeches around the country and appearing on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Dateline NBC, and numerous other programs. He first made international news in 1999 when he was denied a law license by the State of Illinois for his White racist views and he is the author of the new critically-acclaimed book,Ending White Slavery, now available at Amazon.com
Ending White Slavery By Matthew Hale  His case for freedom is now in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Number 14-1294.

From his solitary cell at the infamous "Supermax" prison in Florence, Colorado, here is what Reverend Hale had to say about Trump's immigration plan:
 
***********************************************************************************************
"Trump's plan is an excellent step in the right direction and I am therefore happy to endorse it. He is the only presidential candidate that I think we have ever had who has the guts to say that all of the millions of illigal invaders of our once-great country must be deported, plain and simple, and I think that Trump would have the guts to actually follow through with that, unlike the others. Furthermore, the idea that a pregnant Mezican can cross a mere inch of the border, spew out her baby on the ground, and that that somehow bestows 'citizenship' on it is a travesty that never should have been tolerated in the first place and must be ended now. I therefore endorse his plan for that reason as well. However, all of that said, Trump's plan must be just the beginning of the general Whitening of America, that once the illegal immigrant invaders are deported, additional policies must be implemented to reclaim this country for the White Race."

As for the practicality of deporting millions of non-white illegal immigrants, here is what Hale had to say:

"Trump's plan on this point coincides with that of my own plan as expressed in Ending White Slavery, something that I would urge every American to read as soon as possible. The simple fact of the matter is that if the millions of illegal immigrants could trickle into this country in the first place, there is simply no rational argument why they cannot be made to trickle out of the country now. If it was practical enough for them to come in the first place, it is just as practical for them to leave, plain and simple, and thus the argument that Trump's plan is impractical is a copout by traitors that is merely designed to continue the invasion unchecked."
 
Rev Matt Hale
Aug 42AC (2015)


 
  
 
**********************************************************************************************
For further comment from Reverend Hale on his endorsement of Trump's plan,
contact him at
 
Rev. Matt Hale
15177-424
U.S.P.-Max. 
P.O. Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226
 
Or email Evelyn Hutcheson at....
evelynhutcheson1938@gmail.com
 



Tuesday, 25 August 2015

Indictment Sect....By Brother Bart

Repeatedly I met with accusations aimed at Creativity, implying that our movement was a "sect". Some time ago I came across an article (something like Top 10), which has placed us as the fourth most dangerous "sect" in the world. We Creators proved to be more dangerous than sexual perverts assembly (Rajneesh sect), the children kidnappers (Holic group/"Christians") or Himavanti Monastic Brotherhood, which threatened to blow up the Jasna Góra Monastery. It is time to once and for all get rid of the accusations that are directed towards our religion.

 Definition

It should start from what does the word "sect" really mean. This is nothing else but created by schism (separation from the structures of a given religion) faction, which creates its own community, while not abandoning or only partially changing the credo of the main branch. So by definition, the sect is nothing but a faction of an existing religion.

In this respect, Christianity can be called a sect of Judaism, in turn, Catholicism or Orthodoxy, sects of Christianity. Perhaps we should introduce the term "sub-sect"? One that is offshoot of another sect.
It turns out already in the introduction that the Creativity Movement is hardly even a cult by definition, because it is not splinter of any existing religion. On the contrary, it has its own creed in crystalline form of three books: Nature's Eternal Religion, White Man Bible and Salubrious Living.

Ben Klassen, the first Pontifex Maximus and founder of The Creativity Movement (then COTC) has not based its creed on any other community. No schism - no sect, but let's move on.


Money, money, money

Further points are outside the definition, but they are characteristic. We could have heard repeatedly that the sects tend to pick up assets of its followers by forcing the community donate all or part of their material goods, whether it's with the help of a strong indoctrination or threats. There are many cases when many members of such groups lost fortunes or the achievements of life, giving it to the community (and most often to its leader). The Creativity Movement does not require paying compulsory (or with the help of indoctrination) tribute, to be "saved," as is the case in many other religions. It does not require a donation of assets in the form of other tangible goods, such as housing or valuables. It is based on sales of books and donations - the free, good will of the people.

 The subordination and lack of free thought


Most religions, no matter how large, has a causative body that indicates which way the community follows. In Catholicism there is the Pope, in Islam (depending on faction) Ajjatolach or Imam, and so on. At the word "sect" we meet with the word "guru", as leaders of the community members. Many times it came to a paranoia, where those supposed gurus, called themselves messiahs, new Jesuses or even the reincarnation of Christ, and the like, more or less absurd cases can be mentioned.

Strong indoctrination in sects made by "gurus" that make community members see only the way indicated by the leader and not trying to make his own interpretation, or reflect on the situation, resulting in often mentioned in the previous section "tribute".

Just like many other religions, Creativity also has a leader, because we believe that the Leadership Principle is the way to coherent existence of the movement. In a similar way it works in political parties and other groupings of people who have a person who outlines the way to go - an example may be an executive of a company you work in.

This does not mean that in our movement there is no "free thought", it is quite the contrary. The Creators believe in common sense, logic and lessons learned from the history. Our religion teaches free thought, assessment of the facts and theories. It promotes liberation from the shackles of the theistic religions, which assume the existence of supernatural gods, ghosts, witches and strigoi, directing our life and fate, lying in wait for us everywhere.


 Apocalypse


Sects like to portray a vision of doomsday, apocalypse or anything of a similar nature. It is directly linked to the indoctrination, in which a member of the community through brainwashing loses contact with reality. He is deluded with visions of a beautiful world beyond the grave, the coming end of the world, and going then to a better place as a member of the community. A great example is the Peoples Temple, whose indoctrinated and beguiled followers committed a mass suicide (about 900 victims!), cut off from the world and reality. "Guru" creates visions that he pushes to the minds of the pupils, so that issues which affect everyday human life, as work, family, self-fulfillment, social problems and civilization become no longer relevant for them.

The Creativity Movement based on the lessons learned from history sees the real problems of civilization of the White Man. It tries to pick up the humiliated White Race from their knees and give them a new path to a better and more stable future. It promotes the perception of real problems and solving them. In our beliefs, there is no word about the supernatural worlds, because the only one that exists is the one discovered by science.

The outside world


The last point that shaped the image of sects, is indoctrinating people in such a way that one is completely cut off from the world around and all his attention is focused on the community. The result is most often blurring or complete loss of contact with the family, society, law - the whole world, outside the sect. In this way, the community loses a believer, and gains a machine that is ready to do everything "gurus" tell them to. It is directly related to the above points. Man loses his own will, then he is easy to intimidate, he willingly gives anything just to remain among his new fellows and to not be excluded.

Creativity, on the contrary, teaches to be open, bold and friendly. It gives strength to cope with the realities in which the person is located. The Creativity Movement does not cut off from society and the world, but promotes participation in it, creating a reality for the benefit of their own and of the movement.


 Why Creativity is called a sect?


I can think of only two reasons. The first is the lack of knowledge about what sect really is and what are its characteristics. Ignorance leads to a nonsense belief that the existence of religions outside the mainstream, four great world religions, is unacceptable. In this respect, if you are not a follower of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Judaism - you are sectarian.

The second reason is of a different nature. Creativity is a religion that openly attacks the current state of affairs and political correctness. As Bob Whitaker wrote, each society has its own "heresy", often hidden under a different name. For the Christians heresy was "paganism" for the Communists every enemy was a "fascist" or "class enemy". So, for a destroyed society possessed with the spirit of multiculturalism, we are "sectarians".

Briefly at the end: it turns out that many of today's accepted religions, such as Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Islam or Hinduism factions, has much more in common with the word "sect" than apparently it may seem. How could we call different factions of Christianity (and the Christianity itself), and hundreds or thousands of doctrines of Hinduism and Islam?

I enclose a letter of our last Pontifex Maximus on a topic close to the one shown in the above work.

                                             "Creativity is not a cult!”


One thing I have realized over the years is that people tend to call a "cult" anything having to do with religion that they have little knowledge of or understanding of. Thus our Church has indeed been called a "cult" by ignorant people, usually people totally immersed in the Christian viewpoint and perspective isolated from other forms of religion. For a lot of people, in fact, a "cult" is any religious group they don't like! In reality our Church is anti-cult for several reasons.

First, we keep no one in it against their will. Second, while we do believe in the leadership principle, we do not believe in a cult of personality. Yes, we salute the leader but we do not consider him some kind of prophet or messiah. Third, we in no way try to isolate our believers from the rest of society as cults do. On the contrary, we try to be a part of society as much as we can. Fourth, unlike cults, we make no claim whatever that the world is coming to an end or other such twaddle . For example, a lot of cults say that the world is coming to an end in "2012" Yeah right!

PME Matt Hale, April 38AC (2011)



Brother Bart
TCM Poland
Aug 42AC (2015)















                                Article originally published in IMPERIUM # 16
                                 The Creativity Movement online Magazine
                                       http://creativitymovement.net/



Saturday, 22 August 2015

Rev Hale Civil Suit.....Appellant's Reply Brief (Aug 2015)

                                                 
                                                          CASE NO. 14-1294

                                      IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                     FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT




MATTHEW HALE,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

                v


J. OLIVER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.


                On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
                              The Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, Senior U.S. District Judge
                                                       D.C. No. 1:14-CV-1233-LTB


                                        
                                                 APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
  



   Respectfully submitted,

   VIRGINIA L. GRADY        Federal Public Defender
    DEAN SANDERFORD      Assistant Federal Public Defender

     633 17th Street, Suite 1000
     Denver, CO  80202
    (303) 294-7002
     Dean_Sanderford@fd.org


August 19, 2015




 
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................iii

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1

I.  The Parties Agree That the Prost Test Does Not Apply and That If It Did,
Mr. Hale’s Claim Would Satisfy It. .................................................................. 1

II. Mr. Hale’s Claim Satisfies the Government’s Proposed Test. ..................... 1

III. The Savings Clause Should Be Available In the Unique Circumstances  of
This Case. ............................................................................................................. 3

IV. The Savings Clause Should Be Available Under the Canon of 
Constitutional Avoidance. ................................................................................. 4

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 6

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION ......................................................... 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................... 8



                                           TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
                                                          
                                                           Cases


Caravalho v. Pugh, 
 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 4

Felker v. Turpin,  
 518 U.S. 651 (1996) ............................................................................................... 6

I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 
 533 U.S. 289 (2001) ............................................................................................... 6

Irvin v. Dowd, 
 366 U.S. 717 (1961) ............................................................................................... 3

Prost v. Anderson, 
 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 1, 3

Stouffer v. Trammell, 
 738 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 3

Triestman v. United States, 
 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 1997) ................................................................................... 5

Webster v. Daniels, 
 784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 3

                                                       Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 2241 ................................................................................................ 1, 5, 6

28 U.S.C. § 2254 ........................................................................................................ 5

28 U.S.C. § 2255 ............................................................................................... passim



                                                           ARGUMENT


1.  The Parties Agree That the Prost Test Does Not Apply and That If It  Did, Mr. Hale’s Claim Would Satisfy It.

The parties agree on two points central to this appeal.  First, they agree that the Prost test does not apply because Mr. Hale’s claim is predicated on new evidence.  Supp. Op. Br. at 7-8; Supp. Ans. Br. at 4.  Second, they agree that Mr. Hale’s claim would satisfy Prost’s test if it did apply.  Supp. Op. Br. at 8-9; Supp. Ans. Br. at 5.  As the government puts it, under the Prost test, “the savings clause would allow a claim of new evidence in a § 2241 petition.”  Supp. Ans. Br. at 5.  


II. Mr. Hale’s Claim Satisfies the Government’s Proposed Test.

Operating outside of Prost, the government proposes the following rule:  if a claim doesn’t “categorically elude permission for § 2255 relief,” the savings clause is unavailable.  Supp. Ans. Br. at 6.  Under this test, any claim that falls within the class of claims for which § 2255(h) authorizes a second or successive § 2255 motion is barred under the savings clause.  The government contends that Mr. Hale’s claim falls within that class because it is based on new evidence.  This argument fails for two reasons.
First, the government cites no authority in support of its proposed rule.  It does not appear that any circuit – or any other court, for that matter – has adopted it.  It’s a test entirely of the government’s own creation. 
   
Second, even if the government’s test was the correct one, Mr. Hale’s claim would satisfy it because his claim does not fall within the class of claims for which a second or successive § 2255 motion is authorized.  Section 2255(h) authorizes a second or successive motion in two circumstances: where the claim involves either (1) new evidence that proves the prisoner’s innocence by clear and convincing evidence, or (2) a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.  The government contends that Mr. Hale’s claim falls into the first category because it involves new evidence.
 
But not just any new evidence counts under the statute.  It has to be evidence of innocence, and as the government concedes (at 7), Mr. Hale’s new evidence has nothing to do with innocence.  It’s evidence of juror misconduct, which bears solely on the integrity of the trial.  Evidence of this sort, no matter how compelling, would never relate to a defendant’s guilt or innocence.  A prisoner armed with conclusive proof that all 12 of his jurors were bribed to convict would fail at the very threshold.  As a result, this isn’t a case of evidence that simply falls short of § 2255(h)’s clear-and-convincing proof requirements.  It’s a case involving evidence of another nature altogether.  The difference is one of kind, not degree.    Thus, Mr. Hale’s claim does, in the government’s words, “categorically elude permission” for § 2255 relief.  And according to the government, claims that fall into that category are governed by the Prost test.  Supp. Ans. Br. at 4 (asserting that Prost “adopted a savings-clause test for claims that categorically elude permission for a successive § 2255 motion”).  Thus, Mr. Hale wins under the government’s own approach, for the government concedes that Mr. Hale’s claim
satisfies the Prost test.


III. The Savings Clause Should Be Available In the Unique Circumstances  of This Case.


 In his supplemental opening brief (at 11-15), Mr. Hale argued that the unique circumstances of his case entitle him to pursue his claim by way of the savings clause.  Those circumstances include that the evidence of Juror Hoffman’s misconduct existed at the time of trial but was not discovered or discoverable by Mr. Hale until after his initial § 2255 motion was due and filed.  They also include the fact that the new evidence implicates the right to an impartial jury, a right that the Supreme Court has described as our “most priceless” safeguard of individual liberty, Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 721 (1961), and that this Court has described as “the cornerstone of our system of justice,” Stouffer v. Trammell, 738 F.3d 1205, 1213 (10th Cir. 2013).
 The government doesn’t respond to this argument except to point out (at
12-13) that the case Mr. Hale cited as persuasive authority, Webster v. Daniels, 784
F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015), relied on a case that Prost disagreed with.  But as both parties agree, Prost has no bearing on this case because the claim here is based on new evidence.  Webster also involved new evidence.  Id. at 1140.  In light of Prost’s inapplicability, this Court is free to look to Webster for its persuasive value.


IV. The Savings Clause Should Be Available Under the Canon of  Constitutional Avoidance.


As Mr. Hale argued in his supplemental opening brief (at 16-21), an interpretation of the savings clause that barred his claim of juror misconduct would pose serious constitutional questions.  Thus, even were this Court to reject the government’s concessions and Mr. Hale’s other arguments, it should invoke the canon of constitutional avoidance and allow Mr. Hale’s claim to go forward.  
The government disputes that blocking Mr. Hale’s claim would raise constitutional concerns, but much of its argument doesn’t bear on the issue at all.  For example, the government points out (at 9) that Mr. Hale’s claim does not meet the statutory criteria for a second or successive § 2255 motion under § 2255(h).  True but irrelevant.  Mr. Hale’s failure to meet the statutory requirements under subsection (h) has nothing to do with whether it might be unconstitutional to bar him from using a different subsection.  The government similarly points out that this Court’s prior cases have permitted access to the savings clause in limited circumstances such as when the original sentencing court no longer exists.  Supp.Ans. Br. at 11 (citing Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999).
    

Again, that’s true but irrelevant.  None of those cases even discuss the canon of constitutional avoidance, let alone opine on the circumstances in which the canon might permit access to § 2241.
The government also notes (at 10) that the Second and Third Circuits have invoked the canon to allow a § 2241 petition only where a new interpretation of a statute revealed that the petitioner’s conduct had not in fact been criminal.  While that’s true, neither circuit suggested that those were the only circumstances that would raise constitutional concerns.  To the contrary, as the Second Circuit noted, the canon is available whenever “serious questions as to § 2255’s constitutional validity are presented.”  Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361, 377 (2d Cir.1997).

They’re presented here: if Mr. Hale is denied the ability to litigate his claim in a § 2241 proceeding, he will never obtain any review whatsoever of the claim.  As Mr. Hale explained in his supplemental opening brief (at 19-21), to foreclose any and all avenues of relief on this question of constitutional law would pose serious concerns under both the Due Process Clause and the Suspension Clause.
The government doesn’t respond to the due process argument at all.  And its only response on the Suspension Clause is that the Supreme Court upheld statutory restrictions on successive § 2254 petitions that are similar to § 2255(h)’s  restrictions against a Suspension Clause challenge.  Supp. Ans. Br. at 11-12 (citing Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996)).

But unlike here, Felker’s challenge was a facial one: he claimed that the restrictions on successive petitions violated the Suspension Clause per se, that is, in every case.  Felker, 518 U.S. at 663-64.  Mr.Hale has expressly disclaimed a facial challenge like Felker’s.  Op. Br. at 64-65

Instead, he argues that barring access to § 2241 would violate the Suspension Clause on the facts of this case because he would be wholly deprived of any review of his claim.  Felker didn’t involve much less decide an “as applied” challenge of this kind, and it is therefore irrelevant to this case.
  
As explained in Mr. Hale’s supplemental opening brief (at 20), the relevant precedent is I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), which holds that entirely foreclosing review of an important question of law raises serious questions under the Suspension Clause.  Id. at 300-01, 314.  That was reason enough to invoke the canon of constitutional avoidance in St. Cyr, and it should be here as well.


                                                        CONCLUSION


 For the reasons stated here, in the supplemental opening brief, and in Mr. Hale’s pro se briefs, this Court should vacate the judgment and remand for a determination of the merits of Mr. Hale’s § 2241 petition. 
   

       Respectfully submitted,
       VIRGINIA L. GRADY
       Federal Public Defender
      By: s/ Dean Sanderford              
       DEAN SANDERFORD
       Assistant Federal Public Defender
       633 17th Street, Suite 1000        Denver, CO  80202
       (303) 294-7002
       Dean_Sanderford@fd.org


                                        CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION


I hereby certify that with respect to the foregoing APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF:

(1)  all required privacy redactions have been made;

(2)  if required to file additional hard copies, that the ECF submission is an exact copy of those documents;

(3)  the ECF submission was scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program Symantec Endpoint Protection version 12.1.5337.5000, Virus Definition File Dated:  8/18/15, r4, and, according to the program is free of viruses.


    s/ Dean Sanderford                                    
    DEAN SANDERFORD
    Assistant Federal Public Defender



                                      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


 I hereby certify that on August 19, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:



 Michael Johnson
 Assistant United States Attorney
 Email: michael.johnson2@usdoj.gov
      s/ Cassandra Hill                                  
      Cassandra Hill, Legal Secretary



Friday, 14 August 2015

Shootings. rebels and gays, Oh my! ... By Rev Logsdon

 
I have remained quiet about recent issues for many reasons. One of the biggest reasons is simple oversaturation. I felt my opinion will just be another voice in society that gets ignored and brushed to the side. This is also how most white Americans feel. That their opinion won’t be heard or simply won’t matter. Because frankly it won’t. In this despicable modern society so many people carry on with the "victim" mentality. Constantly talking about the wrongs done to us and the double standards we all know exist. That doesn’t matter a hill of beans to these people, to society or the system. They know what they are doing is wrong and they don’t care. So why should we!?

The teaching in Creativity constantly harp about, "never again through a serpents eye", these people actually live it. They don’t look at life through our eyes, they don’t try to justify our actions, like we do theirs. Because once again they don’t care, they only care for themselves. These are people who rob, rape and murder. Who torture, maim and slaughter at will. With no sense of morality, ethics or conscience. So white men need to wake up, let go of their hang ups and be prepared to do whatever is necessary for the survival of our people!

When I refer to these people, I refer to niggers, spics, sand jockey terrorists, kikes, white traitors and anybody else who stands in the way of the survival, expansion and advancement of the white race! There are those who will say this type of language is cruel, harsh. That it shows a "lack of intelligence". No it shows I no longer care who I offend because this isn’t going to be a war of words or a political debate. This is going to be a very ugly, bloody war for our survival. And when you’re staring down a mob of black savages who will rape and murder your whole family, your opinion won’t matter to them. Nor your sense of morality, intelligence or education! It will be you versus them, survival of the fittest! Nature in its purest form. Will you stand and fight or go sh.. about it over and over again on social media!

Now that I got my little rant out of the way here. LOL! We can talk about the recent issues facing our people here in the US. Let us start off with this mentally disturbed individual and the media hype to follow. As you all know Dylann Roof shot up a black church. No planning, no exact point just random murder. This is no martyr, this is no hero and this man is not one of us!!! Now don’t get me wrong I don’t care one bit for the deaths of these people he killed, but in no way do we support it or condone it. I know that might seem hypocritical to what I send above so let me explain. This action does nothing strategically for the battle for our survival. Not one person was a key figure in the destruction of our people. Once again simple pawns to be made into martyrs to justify their attacks on our people.

They used it as a ramrod of political correctness to destroy a cultural iconic symbol of the south. But more on that later. For now lets look deeper at this Roof situation. By simple first glance at a picture of this disturbed kid, you can see there is something off about him. I know nothing about this kid, his life and history. I can only speculate. I see a kid who, odds are was a social outcast, shunned by society as a whole because he didn’t fit into todays "norm". Someone who had deep seeded issues that festered and grew into a maniacal rage that ended in destruction. Someone who didn’t have any positive ways to direct his hatred.

We Creators know hatred is a natural emotion, but left unchecked without the proper channel for release can twist and corrupt the thoughts of even the strongest men. But beyond that his actions were purely selfish. I talked about it in my article "Birds of a feather flock together", in regards to Glenn Miller.
The Glenn Miller situation birds of a feather flock together...By Rev Logsdon

Lets think hypothetically you want to deeply impact and disrupt the black race. You wouldn’t attack random people, especially at their place of worship. The whole situation stinks of high heaven of a conspiracy theory!!! Instead you would go after those who actively, specifically work towards our destruction. Those leaders of black militant groups who call for the death of "white babies". Those who are the image of the anti-white system. The people who make a living out of race baiting! Or one might go for their icons of "black superiority", the athletes, the entertainers, the politicians. So with that being said the enemy tries to twist this as some attack on them by "White supremacists", instead of realizing it was a random act of violence by a lone nut!

I won’t openly condemn it until every black leader, including Obama, openly condemns the murders and rapes committed against my people by theirs! But I damn sure won’t support it. Those that do, namely one group led by a homosexual man who performed fellatio in prison for protection, is damn sure not a part of the same cause I am!!!

Now lets move on to this debacle over the confederate flag. I own a confederate flag and proudly display, hanging in my garage. I was born in Texas but raised in Illinois, so I don’t do it for "southern pride" as many do. I simply do as it is a cultural symbol of American heritage. That and it pisses off niggers, LOL, hey I’m honest. I have a "Nazi" battle flag tattooed across my chest but I don’t consider myself a "Nazi" either. However, the most disturbing thing out of  all this to me isn’t the fact they removed a cultural icon, that they are trying to banish it as well. Just to make a political statement. It isn’t the first and won’t be the last in this century old plan to destroy American culture and identity. To take away and destroy the strongest "White nation" by using the same system we instilled to protect ourselves from our own tyranny! The irony is outstanding. But like I said it doesn’t shock me, it bothers me but nothing unexpected. Just a bump on the road we are heading.

Next they will start banning other flags protected by free speech, then "hate" language similar to Canada’s law. Then who knows what else, banning Whites from breeding with one another? White slavery? Who knows what more they will do before we as a people start fighting back.

I however sit back and see the lack of true education and the re-write of history as one of the most sickening parts of this. They compare the rebel flag as one of racism and black oppression. Well, the new age history teaches them that this is true, but if they truly knew that if it wasn’t for the assassination of Lincoln, the man they praise as their hero, they would be starving with bones through their noses back in their "motherland" of Africa. Very few people are educated to Lincolns recolonization program. In which during the civil war he set up towns in many African countries, to help them along their way when he shipped all black slaves back to Africa.

My professor of sociology (a complete Marxist nigger) grew up in Liberia in a former recolonization camp, turned city, set up by the Lincoln administration during the civil war. PME Klassen talked about it in the NER, the Jewish Rothschilds were the largest slave owner in the south at that time. They realized that after the north won Lincoln would be re-elected and begin his program of deportation of blacks back to Africa and by so doing taking their entire labor force. Then they would be forced to pay White labor. Instead they had him assassinated which completely shut down Lincoln’s plan.

The man who killed him, known as John Wilkes Booth was born John Botha. An employee of the Rothschild family! In so doing blacks, uneducated, unskilled and still rejected by white society was forced to remain on plantations and work for near to nothing and in most cases room and board. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, look it all up yourself. The proof is there. From Botha's birth record, to Lincolns address to congress for the funding of the recolonization camp. Then when you find the truth you will see how ridiculous it is for them to blame a simple flag for all the "racism" of the south and it being the focal point of their hate.

No, instead see it for what it is my brothers. It isn’t a personal thing against the confederate flag. It is just another patsy they use to further their plan for our destruction. But stand strong and defiant regardless. Wave it proudly and keep it in their face! The confederate flag means allot of things to different people. For most people in the south it is their culture. Hell, look how many blacks in the south proudly display it. The liberals tear its image apart. But it stands for the simpler life of the south, of southern hospitality. Of years of history and heritage. Yet they tear it down and at the same time modern society as a whole embraces a flag of degeneracy. Now let me get to this mess.

If I was a man of traditional "faith" I would honestly believe that this would be the signs of the "end of days". The morale depravity and degeneracy we see nowadays is unbelievable. Half naked and in some cases actually naked men running around kissing other men, acting like women. With children present encouraging them to participate in the same degenerate actions. Millions of people supporting these actions openly, simply to "fit in" with what the MTV, Marxist Jew run media says is the popular opinion. This was a larger action then many believe. It was the final death moan of morality and ethics in America. I know many outside the US just by viewing our media and entertainment probably believe there probably wasn’t much left to begin with. But there remained a thread of decency in society here that is now gone.

I normally didn’t have much hatred or opinion about gays. If they kept it out of site then no one knew. There were homosexuals throughout history, people knew it existed, but NEVER excepted. Prominent people, even a well know "Nazi" who was a BIG part of Hitler’s rise to power, Ernst Röhm. They knew he was a fag, but he kept it in the closet. Soon as Hitler gained power and had no more use for him he had him executed. But to be so brazen with abnormality and degeneracy is a big example of a society and culture on the brink of death. I believe and studies have proven most homosexual men are prone to pedophilia. Now that this has passed now child molesters are demanding their rights. Rights?! What rights do these people think they have other than a swift and very painful death?

So here we are, we have nonwhites and white traitors wanting to kill our kids and fags wanting to f… them! Sorry for being brutally harsh but that is what’s going on in a nutshell. I for one will gladly spend the rest of my life in the ZOG gulags before I ever let them hurt my child. But if we do nothing what future are we really leaving them? In Creativity we find the answers to allot of these problems. In the 7 foundations of a White society.

The first that sticks out to me as vital is "land and territory". Here at TCM we have been working on buying property away from the hodge podge of nonwhite chaos. We encourage others to do so as well. To leave large metro areas that will be absolute war zones. Get your wife and children away while you still can. We understand one must still provide for the family but it’s easier to commute to and from work then to fight behind enemy lines.

The next one is a "racial soul". I have written about it before. But in recent events we have seen an absolute assassination of the White racial soul. Many try to hold on to the cultural soul from our ancient heritages, but in order to live in the NOW we must understand we have to rebuild our peoples spirit. A spirit that has been broken and if we are to survive it will be stained in blood. But time will heal us only if we act. I am not talking about "let’s get someone elected to office". Such an unrealistic outlook! Only a fool would believe that one person can change the fate they have put on us. Do you really think Obama did this to us? Obama was a hand-picked, hand raised puppet chimp, probably one out of dozens they bred for such a role. You can view "they" as the Jewish system or you can go recent specifics and point the finger at the Bilderberg group, or your George Soros types.

Point is they have corrupted that system so well that no true change can happen through it. Is it going to be done by whining on social media and making hashtags trend? Give me a break! I understand many of you are obsessed with it, things like Twitter and FB. Even I have a FB and check it once a day. But only post about once a month! It might entertain us and make us feel we are getting people on our side but it’s all just a mirage. Just like how they used television to zombify generations and turn them into sheep. I can go on.

Blood alone moves the wheel of history. If you are in this fight you need to understand we WILL be at a physical war at some time. The more we run from it and avoid it the more inevitable it becomes. Many of us will die, many of us are dying today. Only when you except this obvious fate can we truly understand and prepare for our future. The above things I talked about are just tid bits, minuscule of what is to come. Prepare yourself comrades. And educate as many along the way as you can. And together may we win this Racial Holy War!

Rev Logsdon
July 42AC (2015)
Rev Logsdon's Personal Blog


                                         Article taken from IMPERIUM # 16
                                               http://creativitymovement.net/


 
 

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

White Racial Loyalists Exposed

There are many preconceived notions about White Racial Loyalists (WRL) most are negative because they have been implanted by the controlled mediums. Over the past years I have interacted with many different WRL's, some live up to the negative clichés attached their subsection of the Racialist movement but most do not. A cliché that I have not heard is that WRL's are strong supporters for the welfare of animals. I am not a Hardcore animal rights activist, I eat meat (not very Salubrious of me) but having a dog and cat around for most of my life I developed a great respect/love for them, not many people in your life will be as loyal as your pets.
 
I have noticed that almost all of the WRL's I have interacted with have one thing in common besides racial loyalty, they all care deeply about the welfare of animals. Some do rescue work and volunteer at shelters others refuse to eat meat and pass around those disturbing abuse vids that make me shake with rage, almost all have pets in their house. The compassion I see in the movement for animals is a true reflection of the people, the propaganda from the controlled media becomes transparent to those who take the time to look.          
 
Why is it that an overwhelming amount of WRL's have this passion for the well being of animals? The compassion, empathy and desire to protect animals shouldn't come as shock as Loyalists are people who are concerned for the future of an entire race and are not selfishly consumed with just their own future. The concern for the welfare of others and the desire to protect are traits that are not just turned on and off and are transferred to all other aspects of ones life.  Naturally an animal in despair would bring the attention and action of a protector.  
 
The cliché's that should be tagged with WRL's are compassion, empathy and the desire to protect. Despite the many different ideologies within the Racialist movement these characteristics are common and should be a unifying factor. Our enemies have quite successfully succeeded in engraining the perceptions of the public with thoughts of hatred and violence when associated with WRL's, but we must not let our enemies define us. The venom directed from the enemy is understandable they are the oppressors, the bullies and cannot afford to have WRL's exposed for what they really are....... Compassionate, empathetic and protective! 
 
Brother Smith
Creativity Movement Toronto
Aug 42AC ( 2015)   


                          

Saturday, 8 August 2015

Rev Logsdon on Aryan Nations Sadistic Souls MC Radio...(Aug 6th 2015)

Listen to Rev Logsdon on Aryan Nations Sadistic Souls MC Radio (Aug 6 2015) Rev Logsdon shares his thoughts on the Confederate Flag, Obama's plan for a Black reparations act, fake hate crimes, Donald Trump, Abortion, the state of the White pride movement, recruiting, TCM and more!


ARYAN NATIONS SADISTIC SOULS MC RADIO
                Rev Logsdon on at (00 24 00)


Thursday, 6 August 2015

Rev Hale Civil suit... Appellee's Supplemental Answer brief (Aug 2015)

                                                        
                                                  CASE NO. 14-1294

   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT




MATTHEW HALE, Applicant - Appellant,

                              v.

J. OLIVER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.




Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado The Honorable Lewis T.    Babcock, Senior Judge Civil Action No. 14-cv-01233-LTB


                       APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER BRIEF

JOHN F. WALSH United States Attorney
MICHAEL C. JOHNSON
Assistant United States Attorney 1225 17th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0134
Attorneys for Appellee J. Oliver, Warden
August 5, 2015



The court has determined that oral argument would be beneficial.


                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .. iii
  ISSUES PRESENTED .. 1
  STATEMENT OF THE CASE .. 1
  A. Mr. Hale’s previous motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.. 1
  B. Mr. Hale’s present habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2
  SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .. 3
  ARGUMENT .. 4
  I  Standard of Review ... 4
  II.  Discussion .. 4

(1) Does the question regarding the availability of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 584 (10th Cir. 2011) “whether a petitioner’s argument challenging the legality of his detention could have been tested in an initial § 2255 motion”—apply to a claim where the facts were not known to the prisoner at the time he filed his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion?

(2) If the Prost framework does not apply, what should the Court consider when determining whether such a claim may be brought via the savings clause and § 2241?

(3) If Mr. Hale is barred from bringing his juror misconduct claim in a § 2241 petition, does his due process challenge implicate the type of serious constitutional question that this court left open in Prost, 636 F.3d at 593-94?


CONCLUSION ... 13
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . 13

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION ...15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .... 16



                                  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

                                       FEDERAL CASES



al-Marri v. Davis, 714 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.013) ...........4

Bailey v. United States,
516 U.S. 137 (1995) .........10

Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) ......7

Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) ......5

Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) ......8, 11, 13

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) .....11, 12

Hale v. United States, 710 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2013) .......2

Hale v. United States, 2010 WL 2921634 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2010) ......1

Hale v. United States, 2011 WL 5104630 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2011) ........1

In re Alvarado, 2010 WL 9531122 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 2010) ...12

In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) .....12

In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3rd Cir. 1997) .....9, 10

Jameson v. Samuels, 555 F. App’x 743 (10th Cir. Jan. 28, 2014) ......7, 9

Kay Electric Co-op v. City of Newkirk, Okla., 647 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2011) ....8

Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) ....8

Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) ... passim Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) ..13

Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 1997)....9, 10

United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1999) ......7

United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) .......8

United States v. Guerrero, 415 F. App’x 858 (10th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) ....8

United States v. Gilbert, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) ......7, 8, 12

United States v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006) (per curiam), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1158 (2007) ...... 1

United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) .....4

Webster v. Daniels, 784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015) ......12, 13

                                                   FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 2241 ........... passim
28 U.S.C. § 2254 ............11, 12
28 U.S.C. § 2255 ............ passim

                                                  ISSUES PRESENTED

  This Court has ordered supplemental briefing on the following three questions:


(1) Does the question regarding the availability of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 584 (10th Cir. 2011)—“whether a petitioner’s argument challenging the legality of his detention could have been tested in an initial § 2255 motion”—apply to a claim where the facts were not known to the prisoner at the time he filed his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion?

(2) If the Prost framework does not apply, what should the Court consider when determining whether such a claim may be brought via the savings clause and § 2241?

(3) If Mr. Hale is barred from bringing his juror misconduct claim in a § 2241 petition, does his due process challenge implicate the type of serious constitutional question that this court left open in Prost, 636 F.3d at 593-94?

Order (filed Feb. 20, 2015).



                                            STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Mr. Hale’s previous motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Mr. Hale was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois of obstructing justice and soliciting a crime of violence, namely, the murder of a federal district judge. The Seventh Circuit on direct appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction. See United States v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006) (per curiam), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1158 (2007).

Mr. Hale challenged his convictions by way of a timely-filed motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hale v. United States, 2010 WL 2921634, *1 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2010) (unpublished). The Northern District of Illinois denied his motion, id. at 37, and subsequently denied his request for reconsideration of the court’s order. Hale v. United States, 2011 WL 5104630 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2011) (unpublished). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Hale v. United States, 710 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2013).


B. Mr. Hale’s present habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Mr. Hale then filed his § 2241 habeas application in the District of Colorado, raising eight claims for relief. ROA at 4-14.1 In claim seven of his habeas application, Mr. Hale argued that he possessed new evidence of misconduct by “M.H.,” a member of his jury. ROA at 13-14.

Mr. Hale’s new claim is based on M.H.’s 2011 testimony in an unrelated case, United States v. William White. ROA at 47-51. M.H. testified that the day after he was selected to sit on Mr. Hale’s jury, he learned that there was an article in the Chicago Tribune about jury selection in the case “that referenced” him. ROA at 49. He testified that, as a consequence, “I was worried about my safety and my partner’s safety because . . . I’m a white person with an African-American man and we had known that Benjamin Smith went on a shooting rampage after being part of Matthew Hale’s group, and so that was his way of showing obedience or faith to Matthew Hale, and I felt really vulnerable.”

ROA at 50.2 Although M.H. did not testify that he had actually read the Chicago Tribune article, Mr. Hale contends that M.H. did, thereby disobeying the trial court’s order not to read media coverage about the case. ROA at 38. 1 References to a page of the record on appeal filed in this case are to “ROA” and the page number printed on the lower right corner of the page. 2 In essence, M.H. was concerned because he was identified in the media as a juror, and because he was aware of prior violent acts by Benjamin Smith (one of Mr. Hale’s followers). M.H. did not discuss his attitudes toward Mr. Hale or Mr. Hale’s guilt or innocence.

Mr. Hale asserted that he discovered this new evidence in 2011, more than three years after he had filed his § 2255 motion, and more than two and a half years before he filed his present § 2241 application. ROA at 13.

Mr. Hale alleged that, because this new evidence was not discovered until after he had filed his § 2255 motion, he could not have based his initial § 2255 motion on this evidence and thus the remedy provision of § 2255 is inadequate or unavailable. ROA at 13-14.

In addition, he alleged that construing § 2255 as barring a claim of juror prejudice and misconduct would violate the Fifth Amendment. Id. This Court has ordered supplemental briefing on claim seven.


                            SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

This Court in Prost adopted a test for inadequacy or ineffectiveness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause for claims that categorically elude permission for a second or successive motion under § 2255(h). But Mr. Hale does not raise such a claim. Rather, he raises a newly discovered evidence claim. New evidence claims like Mr. Hale’s do not categorically elude permission for § 2255 relief. He can apply under § 2255(h)(1) for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. He may not get approval, but that alone does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective for purposes of the savings clause.

 A convicted criminal can’t resort to § 2241 just because he cannot satisfy § 2255(h). In addition, because Mr. Hale does not argue that his newly discovered evidence demonstrates that he is actually innocent, he has not raised a serious constitutional question. The district court’s judgment should be affirmed.

                            ARGUMENT

I. Standard of Review

When reviewing the denial of a habeas petition under § 2241, this Court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and accepts its factual findings unless clearly erroneous. al-Marri v. Davis, 714 F.3d 1183, 1186 (10th Cir. 2013).

II. Discussion

(1) Does the question regarding the availability of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in Prost—“whether a petitioner’s argument challenging the legality of his detention could have been tested in an initial § 2255 motion”—apply to a claim where the facts were not known to the prisoner at the time he filed his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion?

Answer: No. This Court’s savings-clause test announced in Prost does not apply to Mr. Hale’s claims. Prost did not set forth the framework for § 2241 petitions based on new evidence. See Prost, 636 F.3d at 587 n.7 (“Our holding is confined to circumstances where Congress has not authorized a second or successive motion”) (emphasis in original).

Instead, it adopted a savings-clause test for claims that categorically elude permission for a successive § 2255 motion, such as new retroactive decisions of statutory interpretation. Prost involved such a decision. Mr. Prost had been convicted of money laundering, and after his direct appeal and § 2255 motion became final, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), that the term “proceeds” in the money laundering statute means profits of the business, rather than gross receipts. See 553 U.S. at 514 (plurality opinion); Prost, 636 F.3d at 580.

In response to Santos, Prost filed a § 2241 petition challenging his money-laundering conviction. See Prost, 636 F.3d at 580–81. This Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Prost’s habeas petition, holding that § 2255 was adequate and effective because Prost could have made his “proceeds” argument to the circuit court, even if this argument had been foreclosed by then-controlling circuit precedent. See id. at 590.

Newly discovered evidence claims, like Mr. Hale’s claim, do not categorically elude permission for § 2255 relief. In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Congress made available second or successive § 2255 motions if the movant shows either
(1) clear and convincing newly discovered evidence that the movant is actually innocent or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review.

 See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Prost, 636 F.3d at 583-84. Mr. Hale could have applied under § 2255(h)(1) for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. The Prost framework does not apply to newly discovered evidence because if it did, the savings clause in § 2255(e) would swallow § 2255(h)(1). New evidence, by definition, is evidence that was not available in a prior § 2255 motion.

If Prost’s test applies to such evidence, the savings clause would allow a claim of new evidence in a § 2241 petition, regardless of whether the evidence satisfies § 2255(h)(1) by clearly and convincingly showing that the movant is actually innocent. Congress could not have intended this result in enacting § 2255(h)(1). See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 (1998) (“AEDPA’s central concern [is] that the merits of concluded criminal proceedings not be revisited in the absence of a strong showing of actual innocence.”). In short, the Prost test does not apply to a claim where the facts were not known to the prisoner at the time he filed his initial § 2255 motion.

(2) If the Prost framework does not apply, what should the Court consider when determining whether such a claim may be brought via the savings clause and § 2241?

Answer: The Court should consider whether the claim Mr. Hale is raising categorically eludes permission for § 2255 relief. As shown above, new evidence claims do not categorically elude permission for § 2255 relief. Mr. Hale could have requested leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.

 His request may not have been granted, but that alone does not render § 2255 inadequate. A convicted criminal cannot resort to § 2241 just because he can’t satisfy § 2255(h). The savings clause doesn’t guarantee multiple opportunities to test a conviction or sentence. Section 2255(h) restricts second and successive motions to those raising newly discovered evidence of actual innocence or new constitutional rulings. “When Congress adopted § 2255(h), it was undoubtedly aware that prisoners might wish to press other sorts of arguments in second or successive motions.” Prost, 636 F.3d at 585-86. This Court did acknowledge in Prost that “the savings clause might have an additional role to play in . . . a second collateral attack based on newly discovered evidence [that] could for some reason not be brought in the sentencing court, even though § 2255(h)(1) would permit it.” Prost, 636 F.3d at 587 n. 7 (emphasis added).

 But this Court need not decide the role the savings clause might play in the present case. Mr. Hale’s § 2241 application is not based on newly discovered evidence that would be permitted by § 2255(h)

(1). His juror misconduct claim is not a claim of actual innocence, nor does Mr. Hale contend it is. It does not matter for purposes of the savings clause that Mr. Prost may have no available relief. Nor does it matter that his new evidence of juror misconduct is insufficient to meet § 2255(h)(1)’s stringent standard for filing a second or successive petition.

Although § 2255(h)(1) contemplates that new evidence may be a basis for a second or successive petition, when that evidence falls short, the “[f]ailure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” Prost, 636 F.3d at 586 (emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996)). “The savings clause doesn’t guarantee results, only process.” Id. at 590. Mr. Hale fails to demonstrate that the opportunity to seek a remedy under § 2255 is “genuinely absent.” Id. at 588; Jameson v. Samuels, 555 F. App'x 743, 746 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished).

In other words, the savings clause does not trump § 2255(h). “[I]f the § 2255 remedial mechanism could be deemed ‘inadequate or ineffective’ any time a petitioner is barred from raising a meritorious second or successive challenge to his conviction[,] subsection (h) would become a nullity, ‘a meaningless gesture.’” Prost, 636 F.3d at 586 (quoting United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 50 (1st Cir. 1999)); see United States v. Gilbert, 640 F.3d 1293, 1308 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (recognizing that if the statutory bar on second and successive motions means that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of a prisoner’s detention, “the savings clause would eviscerate the second or successive motions bar, and prisoners could file an endless stream of § 2255 motions….”); see also United States v. Guerrero, 415 F. App’x 858, 859 (10th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (unpublished) (“That [defendant] may be barred from bringing another § 2255 motion . . . does not establish that the remedy set out in § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.”).

Fundamental canons of statutory construction support the conclusion that the generally worded and ambiguous savings clause, which was first enacted in 1947, cannot override the specifically worded and clear statutory bar on second or successive motions that was enacted as part of AEDPA in 1996. Gilbert, 640 F.3d at 1308. An ambiguous or general statutory provision enacted at an earlier time must yield to a specific and clear provision enacted at a later time. See Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550–51 (1974) (“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.”); Kay Elec. Co-op v. City of Newkirk, Okla., 647 F.3d 1039, 1044 (10th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U.S. 517, 530–533 (1998).

Accordingly, the district court in the instant case got it right when it ruled that it lacked statutory jurisdiction over claim seven: Mr. Hale’s argument with respect to claim seven, the claim premised on evidence that allegedly was unknown to him and undiscoverable until 2011, also fails to demonstrate the remedy available pursuant to § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective because § 2255(h)(1) contemplates that newly discovered evidence may be the basis for a second or successive § 2255 motion. Mr. Hale’s assertion that § 2255(h)(1) only applies to newly-discovered evidence of innocence and not other newly-discovered evidence does not alter this conclusion. “[T]he mere fact that [Mr. Hale] is precluded from filing a second § 2255 petition does not establish that the remedy in § 2255 is inadequate.” See Caravalho [v. Pugh], 177 F.3d [1177,] 1179 [(10th Cir. 1999)].

Furthermore, the Court need not consider whether the particular newly-discovered evidence claim Mr. Hale seeks to raise satisfies the requirements of § 2255(h)(1) because “[t]he savings clause doesn’t guarantee results, only process.” Prost, 636 F.3d at 590; see also Jameson v. Samuels, – F. App’x –, No. 13-6237, 2014 WL 292620 at *3 (10th Cir. Jan. 28, 2014) (concluding that remedy provided in the sentencing court pursuant to § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective for claims premised on newly discovered evidence even though the new evidence was insufficient to meet the stringent standard for filing a second or successive motion under § 2255(h)(1)). ROA at 104-05.

Because the Prost framework does not apply, this Court should consider whether Mr. Hale’s claim categorically eludes permission for § 2255 relief. His claim does not, and accordingly, § 2255 is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of his detention.


(3) If Mr. Hale is barred from bringing his juror misconduct claim in a § 2241 petition, does his due process challenge implicate the type of serious constitutional question that this Court left open in Prost, 636 F.3d at 593-94?

Answer: No. Mr. Hale’s due process challenge does not implicate the type of serious constitutional question left open in Prost. No constitutional problem is presented if Mr. Hale’s evidence does not satisfy § 2255(h)(1). Congress has required a clear and convincing showing of actual innocence to satisfy § 2255(h)(1).

 Mr. Hale’s allegations, even if true, don’t satisfy this requirement. In Prost, this Court recognized that [w]hether the savings clause may be used in the fashion the Second and Third Circuits [in Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 1997), and In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3rd Cir. 1997), respectively] have suggested to avoid serious constitutional questions arising from application of § 2255(h) is an important question. So are the questions whether, when, and how the application of § 2255(h)’s limits on second or successive motions might (ever) raise a serious constitutional issue. Prost, 636 F.3d at 594. This Court in Prost “left open the possibility that this circuit in a future case might permit a petitioner in Mr. Prost’s position to invoke the savings clause for the constitutional avoidance reasons stated by the Second and Third Circuits.” Id. at 598 n.15.

The Second and Third Circuits have generally construed the savings clause to permit the filing of a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 only when a change in statutory construction made retroactive by the Supreme Court established that the petitioner had been found guilty of what turned out to be a non-existent offense. See Triestman, 124 F.3d at 378-79 (“[W]e find that serious Eighth Amendment and due process questions would arise with respect to the AEDPA if we were to conclude that, by amending § 2255, Congress had denied Triestman the right” to challenge by way of a § 2241 petition his claim of actual innocence based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)); Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 248 (“Were no other avenue of judicial review available for a party who claims that s/he is factually or legally innocent as a result of a previously unavailable statutory interpretation, we would be faced with a thorny constitutional issue.”).

Mr. Hale’s juror misconduct claim does not fall within this small class of situations. He does not claim that, as a consequence of the alleged juror misconduct, he has been convicted and imprisoned for conduct that is not criminal. As a result, he has not shown—even under Second and Third Circuit jurisprudence—that if § 2255 forecloses judicial review of his juror misconduct claim, then § 2255 violates his right to due process and is unconstitutional. In only “extremely limited circumstances” might § 2255 be inadequate or ineffective.

For example, the remedy available under § 2255 may be inadequate or ineffective if the original sentencing court has been abolished; the sentencing court refuses to consider the § 2255 motion altogether or inordinately delays consideration of the § 2255 motion; or when the petitioner is sentenced by three separate courts, none of which individually could grant complete relief. See Caravalho, 177 F.3d at 1178 (listing cases).

Mr. Hale does not present any of these circumstances. Failure to permit review of Mr. Hale’s juror misconduct claim under § 2241 would not raise serious constitutional questions. Mr. Hale also argues that refusing to apply the savings clause to his juror misconduct claim would violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 9. He is incorrect. In Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996), the petitioner claimed the Suspension Clause prohibited AEDPA’s clamp-down on second or successive petitions in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases. The Supreme Court held that the increased restrictions the statute placed on second or successive habeas petitions do not violate the Suspension Clause. Felker, 518 U.S. at 654.

The Court explained how the “[t]he writ of habeas corpus known to the Framers was quite different from that which exists today,” and traced its evolution over two centuries. Id. at 663–64. The Court acknowledged that the AEDPA “works substantial changes” to the authority of federal courts to grant the writ, id. at 654, and “further restricts the availability of relief to habeas petitioners,” but explained that “judgments about the proper scope of the writ are normally for Congress to make,” id. at 664 (quotation marks omitted).

Describing the law restricting second and successive filings as “a complex and evolving body of equitable principles informed and controlled by historical usage, statutory developments, and judicial decisions,” the Court concluded that “[t]he added restrictions which the Act places on second or successive petitions are well within the compass of this evolutionary process, and we hold that they do not amount to a ‘suspension’ of the writ contrary to Article I, § 9.” Id. at 664. Although Felker was a § 2254 case, the Suspension Clause issue is essentially the same in § 2255 cases. See In re Alvarado, No. 10-4205, 2010 WL 9531122 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 2010) (unpublished) (rejecting a suspension clause challenge to § 2255(h) restrictions).

The changes made by the AEDPA restrictions on second or successive filings are materially identical in both types of cases; the evolution of the remedy and restrictions on it are materially identical; and the relationship of the AEDPA changes to that evolution are materially identical. Gilbert, 640 F.3d at 1317. In addition, Mr. Hale relies on the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Webster v. Daniels, 784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015) (en banc), as authorizing his access to § 2241 via the savings clause.

Webster is inapposite. In that case, the Seventh Circuit held that there is no categorical bar against use of the savings clause—thereby allowing a petitioner to bring a § 2241 petition—in cases where new evidence would reveal that the Constitution categorically prohibits a certain penalty. It noted that a core purpose of habeas corpus is to prevent a custodian from inflicting an unconstitutional sentence. Id. at 1139. The circuit court relied significantly on its earlier decision in In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998), where it held that the remedy under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective for a case in which the Supreme Court had definitively ruled that the conduct for which the petitioner was convicted and incarcerated was not a crime under the statute. Webster, 784 F.3d at 1138. Webster extended the Davenport test, which this Court rejected in Prost. Prost, 636 F.3d at 592-93.

But Mr. Hale’s § 2241 petition does not concern an allegedly unconstitutional sentence. Nor does it concern a change in the law defining the crimes of which Mr. Hale was convicted. Ultimately, the district court’s reading of the savings clause is consistent with the law in this circuit. “Only in rare instances will § 2255 fail as an adequate or effective remedy to challenge a conviction or the sentence imposed.” Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070, 1073 (10th Cir. 2010). See also Caravalho, 177 F.3d at 1178 (The remedy available pursuant to § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective only in “extremely limited circumstances.”). This case does not present such extremely limited circumstances.

                                      CONCLUSION

The district court’s order dismissing Mr. Hale’s § 2241 habeas application for lack of jurisdiction should be affirmed and this matter should be dismissed.

                                 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

This Court has ordered oral argument. DATED: August 5, 2015 Respectfully submitted, JOHN F. WALSH United States Attorney s/ Michael C. Johnson MICHAEL C. JOHNSON Assistant United States Attorney 1225 17th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 454-0100 Email: USACO.ECFAppellate@usdoj.gov Michael.Johnson2@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Appellee J. Oliver, Warden

                                 CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION

I hereby certify that with respect to the foregoing

(1) all required privacy redactions have been made;
(2) if required to file additional hard copies, that the ECF submission is an exact copy of those documents;
(3) The digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program, TREND MICRO Office Scan for Windows, Version 10.6.5614, Engine Version 9.800.1009, Virus Pattern File 11.833.00, dated 8/4/15 and according to the program are free of viruses.

  s/Dorothy Burwell U.S. Attorney’s Office

                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 5, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing using the CM/ECF system which will send an electronic notification to the following e-mail address: Dean Sanderford Dean_Sanderford@fd.org; cox_10ECF@fd.org

s/Dorothy Burwell Dorothy Burwell U.S. Attorney’s Office

Monday, 3 August 2015

Rev Hales Mother Evelyn Hutcheson on Patriotic Front Radio... (Aug 2nd 2015)

Listen to Rev Matt Hales Mother Evelyn Hutcheson interviewed on Patriotic Front Radio (Aug 2nd 2015) by Brother Ken and Crosstar. Evelyn is asked about Rev Hales book Ending White Slavery about Rev Hales Civil suit and the latest denial of his religious rights.
Ending White Slavery By Matthew Hale.. Purchase via Amazon


            PATRIOTIC FRONT RADIO...(Aug 3rd) Interview with Evelyn Hutcheson

                                                Interview starts at.... (00 23 15)



Write Rev Hale........

Matthew F. Hale
15177-424
US Penitentiary Max
PO BOX 8500
Florence, CO
81226-8500