Source: http://creativitymovementtoronto.blogspot.com/2012/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:03:01+00:00

Document:
The district court denied a COA on July 22, 2010 when it denied Mr. Hale’s § 2255 motion.
2, Doc. # 68, Opinion and Order at 22.
the banner placed on the document by the CM/ECF system from Mr. Hale’s district court case.
is required to demonstrate that his or her appeal exceeds the “good faith” requirements of 28 U.S.C.
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. at 894 (emphasis added).
... a COA does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed.
debatable even though every jurist of reason might agree, after the COA has beengranted and the case has received full consideration, that petitioner will not prevail.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 336-37, 338 (2003) (emphasis added).
305, 308 (7th Cir. 2008).
jury) could have found merit (not guilt), a certificate should issue.
innocent of the charge for which he is incarcerated.” Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 452 (1995).
been the victim of a miscarriage of justice that can only be rectified by this Court reviewing his case.
claim by taking the evidence of the case in the light most favorable to the government.
critical stages of his trial.
Why reasonable jurists could disagree with or debate the lower court’s resolution of Mr. Hale’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
A reasonable jurist could disagree with or debate that a lawyer’s failure to understand the facts of his client’s case and present evidence of his innocence is objectively reasonable.
1. The events of December, 2002 leading to the charges.
O’Shea who represented the opposing party in a trademark suit against his church.
although this was omitted in the government’s transcript.
get it, we gonna exterminate the rat?
provided. If you wish to, ah, do anything yourself, you can, you know?
Gov’t Tr. 12-5-02 at 7, lines 1-6 (emphasis added).
left and he never made any attempt on the Judge’s life.
and with obstruction of justice by virtue of that alleged solicitation.
2. Counsel’s failure to understand the facts of Mr. Hale’s case.
about Judge Lefkow on December 5, 2002 as a “Jew rat” and, therefore, there was no federal target.
investigation. Counsel, however, failed to present such evidence to the jury.
December 17, 2002 were an exculpatory refusal to join Evola’s new plans to kill Judge Lefkow.
than negligible chance that he would have been acquitted. See United States ex rel Hampton v.
counsel claim has been established “so long as the chances of acquittal are better than negligible”).
debate whether that is the case, thus mandating appellate review.
Counsel’s failure to present evidence of Mr. Hale’s innocence.
Doc. # 8-4 at 15, para. 32, at 31, para. 16, and at 38, para. 16; Doc. # 52-1 generally, para.
Mr. Hale did not think that Judge Lefkow was Jewish. (Doc. # 8-4 at 37, para. 11; Tr. Trans.
Mr. Hale’s refusal as “silliness.” (Vol. 4 at 32.) See Bragg v. Galaza, 242 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir.
sufficient doubt on that question to undermine confidence in the verdict).
were members of the state and federal bars.
... may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel’s ... litigation decisions.” Strickland, 466 U.S.
reasonable jurist could find or debate. Mr. Hale is serving decades in prison as a consequence.
this essential element of both charges. See United States v. Glover, 97 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir.
and in the years since.
Since the lower court found it unlikely that any reasonable jury could have found Mr. Hale entrapped, the entrapment defense presented by counsel in Mr.
Hale’s case was objectively unreasonable.
that any reasonable jury would ever arrive at such a labyrinthine conclusion.
Case No. 03 CR 011, Doc. # 249 at 18-19, note 18 (emphasis added).
unlikely that any reasonable jury would ever have arrived at the conclusion that he was entrapped.
the lower court had it right in the first place thus mandating review by this Court.
Since the lower court was mistaken in its understanding of Mr. Hale’s argumentas well as many of the facts of the case, a reasonable jurist could disagree with or debate its conclusion that Mr. Hale received effective assistance.
Q: And was this right after you said you were wanting his address. Do you seethat on line 1?
woman judge, not a man?
obviously very important to a just resolution of Mr. Hale’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
especially in light of the likewise unheard evidence that he knew that Evola was informing for the F.B.I. as well as the fact that he plainly said that he was going to fight within the law. Attacking an element of acharge does not somehow concede a different element.
demonstrate his counsel’s ineffectiveness (see e.g., id. at 13-14, 17-18 and especially 19, note 17).
neither required to prove his innocence at trial nor in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Amend is obviously highly significant since Evola queried about exterminating a “Jew rat,” not a judge, on December 5, 2002.
Amendment protected opinion that the court system had declared war on his Church. Nor did Mr.
that occurred on that date was the issue.
3-5). The lower court cannot have it both ways depending on which of his motions it wishes to deny.
A reasonable jurist could certainly disagree or debate that it can.
latter point was up to his counsel to show through other evidence including witness testimony.
8. Lastly, while the lower court opined that, in its view, the evidence that Mr.
performed effectively as to the other charges.
Hoffman for cause or peremptorily.
Fox subsequently committed suicide in November 2005.
defend any not guilty verdict to neighbors, thus also providing an incentive to find Mr. Hale guilty.
especially considering the fact that Hoffman was made jury foreman.
A reasonable jurist could disagree or debate that Mr. Hale consented to his absence from individual voir dire or that he otherwise waived his presence.
object to his exclusion from individual voir dire was that Mr. Hale consented to that exclusion. (Doc.
to his absence from individual voir dire.
been resolved at an evidentiary hearing rather than resolved against him without one.
consent to his absence, Rodriguez indeed applies and his convictions must therefore be reversed.
Lastly, a reasonable jurist could disagree with or debate the lower court’s conclusion that Mr.
Hale had failed to show prejudice. (Doc. # 50, 7/22/10 Opinion and Order at 69-70.) First, Mr.
outcome, a COA should be granted. Sussman v. Deppisch, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111197 (W.D.
be unreasonable for a jurist to find that he was.
A reasonable jurist could disagree or debate that telling the jury that one’sclient “deserves to be convicted” and other such hostile remarks is objectively reasonable.
F.3d 1150, 1154-60 (6th Cir. 1997). Rickman is similar to Mr. Hale’s case in many respects.
that one error led to another here with the prejudice to Mr. Hale magnified.
Further legal errors that impacted the lower court’s resolution of Mr. Hale’s ineffective assistance claim.
negligible” chance that Mr. Hale would have been acquitted. Leibach, 347 F.3d at 246.
a murder” – whether technically the same legal entity or not – was in the Seventh Circuit opinion.
with Mr. Hale or his church obviously posed a substantial risk of prejudice.
somehow absolve that lack of preparation or so a reasonable jurist could find.
be recalled that he was denied a law license by the State of Illinois and hence had never practiced.
There is obviously a chasm between having graduated from law school and engaging in trial practice.
Thus he should not be held to some kind of higher burden or so a reasonable jurist could find.
and Order at 9, n. 8.) A reasonable jurist could clearly disagree with or debate such a broad notion foundnowhere in the law.
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385 (1986).
Why reasonable jurists could disagree or debate that the lower court employed thecorrect standard of review in deciding Mr. Hale’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
These statements evince that the lower court applied the wrong standard of review to Mr.
motion for judgment of acquittal to repeatedly seep into its reasoning, the lower court subjected Mr.
application of the wrong standard of review.
tended to exculpate him and whether confidence in the outcome was thereby undermined.
Why reasonable jurists could disagree or debate that the lower court properly deniedMr. Hale an evidentiary hearing prior to its ruling on his ineffective assistance ofcounsel claim.
on the basis that the files and records conclusively showed that he was not entitled to any relief.
disputes is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bruce v. United States, 256 F.3d 592, 597 (7th Cir.
...” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See also, Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 494 (1962); Hill v.
cannot be summarily dismissed. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. at 495; Blackledge v.
the potential testimony of these witnesses).
application is vexatious or repetitious, or that his claim lack any substance, must befairly demonstrated.
Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. at 22 (emphasis added).
v. United States, 543 F.3d 399, 413-414 (7th Cir. 2008).
Why reasonable jurists could disagree with or debate the lower court’s resolution ofMr. Hale’s claim that his right to be present at all critical stages of his trial wasviolated.
consented to his absence. Nor, pursuant to United States v. Rodriguez, 67 F.3d 1312, 1316 (7th Cir.
reasonable jurists could disagree or debate that it was adequate here.
lower court but so long as any could disagree or debate the matter, review by this Court is mandated.
Mr. Hale or so a reasonable jurist could find.
Mr. Hale’s absence from individual voir dire was in fact involuntary as Mr. Hale argued it was. (Id.
counsel. Nor was Mr. Hale aware that anybody had ordered the transcripts when he received them.
on appeal and thus could not have been brought on direct appeal or so a reasonable jurist could find.
the trial record or so a reasonable jurist could find.
issues are adequate to deserve further proceedings. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 337-38.
Mr. Hale’s case is not “clearly unmeritorious” Buie v. McAdory, 322 F.3d 980, 981 (7th Cir. 2003).
Appealability (see page 2, supra). Mr. Hale thus respectfully requests the issuance of said certificate.
DATED this 13th day of February, 2012.
Rather, his claim in his § 2255 motion has always been that his Fifth Amendment right to be present at allcritical stages of his trial was violated when he was excluded from in-chambers individual voir dire and hisargument is that any “consent” by his counsel to his absence was not adequate to waive his presence.
A Short Response to "A Critique of Ben Klassen's Creativity Ideology and Its Relation to Other Religions"
Dear Brothers and Sisters! Let me first thank the Aryan Nations for giving me the opportunity to respond to the aforementioned critique by the unknown author, a critique that raises a number of claims about and challenges to my religion, Creativity, that deserve and warrant a response. I do so in the spirit of Racial Loyalist brotherhood, a spirit that those who know me know I have always maintained for all Racial Loyalists of whatever religious faith. In a sense, that spirit is the best response to the critique of all, for if Creativity were really what the critic maintains that it is, namely a religion that is basically crude, totalitarian and oppressive in nature, I as a believer in Creativity would not have the appreciation and love for all Racial Loyalists that I do.
1) That Creators in any way consider themselves "atheists" and/or "materialists".
2) That Creativity means to ever oppress any other religion subscribed to by White people.
3) That Creativity's disdain of belief in an "afterlife" somehow renders Creators less moral and courageous than other people.
4) That Creativity means to make White people less religious.
Any reader of the critique will realize these are the underpinnings of the critic's entire argument that Creativity is somehow harmful to or a danger for our beloved White people. If though the premises of the critic listed above happen to be erroneous as I hope to show briefly, I submit that his negative conclusions about Creativity are in error as well.
The first problem with the critique is that the critic never defines what "spirituality" means and yet it is central to his entire argument. What exactly is he talking about? He seems to imply that spirituality and materialism are opposites and thus can only be for one or the other. Is one required to believe in a deity in order to be "spiritual"? If that is the case, we Creators would admit that indeed, we are not spiritual and in fact disdain "spirituality". Since, on the other hand, we Creators do deeply believe in many non-material values such as honor, love, hope, loyalty, and others, if these are indeed spiritual values -- and many people would say that they indeed are -- we Creators, submit that we are as spiritual as anybody. (We have a print newsletter, for example, called Creator Spirit.) The critic is thus in error that Creativity reduces everything to physicality; rather, we Creators simply believe that physical world is that from which all else follows. Instead of believing in a "supernatural" -- something we deem to be a contradiction in terms -- we believe that everything is in nature. That though does not mean that we disdain the nobel values that I have indicated; quite the contrary is in fact the case. The fact that we Creators consider Creativity a religion at all shows that we disagree with the critic's premise that we are somehow opposed to higher values. Rather, we simply do not hold that one must believe in a god or gods or a personal "afterlife" -- another contradiction in terms -- in order to possess such higher values. Race is thus the foundation of our values, true, but it is not the end of them. For example, the 14th Commandment of our Creativity religion states, "Throughout your life you shall faithfully uphold our pivotal creed of Blood, Soil, and Honor. Practice it diligently, for it is the heart of our faith." We Creators thus believe in our race, the earth, and living an honorable life. None of these things requires believing in a supernatural any more enjoying the Yuletide season requires believing in Santa Claus.
The critic also seems to complain about the fact that Creators wish to convert all White people to Creativity. This though is hardly unusual: Christians wish to convert non-Christians, Muslims wish to convert non-Muslims, and on and on. His inference though that we would ever seek to convert our White people by force is totally false and reveals a general lack of knowledge about our religion. The critic does not seem to be aware that our Founder was fond of quoting the philosopher Voltaire's famous statement, "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to death your right to say it" when it came to the voicing of different beliefs and that our scriptures state that our religion is against any kind of coercion of anyone to believe as we do. Like Christianity today -- and presumably like the paganism of the critic -- we believing in persuading people, not in twisting their arms. It is from Ben Klassen that I personally learned the old saying, "A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." In fact, much of Creativity's disdain of Christianity, as outlined especially in The White Man's Bible, is based upon the fact that Christianity historically used a considerable amount of physical force and other oppression in an effort to make small people conform to that particular religion and it's various sects. Thus the critic's claim and concern that Creativity's widespread triumph would mean the oppression of those who disagree with it is simply untrue and is in fact anathema to what we believe in. As far as we are concerned, a man can worship a rock if he wants to. We will try to persuade him otherwise of course but in the end it remains up to him.
The critic also errs in his claim that Creativity has no regard for ethnic distinctions within the White Race. Instead, we simply say that the best interests of our race as a whole must come first. It is Creativity more than any other religion, ideology, or philosophy that took the Second World War to heart: never again must White people wage war against one another due to ethnic differences or rivalries. Our racial tree has many limbs and branches but all are part of and serve that tree. Thus Creativity does emphasize our White Race over that of any particular ethnicity while rejoicing in the uniqueness of them all. Hence Creators everywhere rejoiced in the re-unification of Germany when it occurred, for example, but at the same time urged the greater unity of all White people for our entire White Race. Yes, Creativity is a racial religion through and through but isn't that about time? What Ben Klassen realized is that our race had reached such a threat to it's existence that only a thoroughly racial religion that puts the minds of our people squarely on it could save it. Can anyone really say that Ben Klassen has been proven wrong in that regard? We today have a mulatto president of the United States who was put in office by millions of White Christians. It is precisely because Creativity is indeed a totally racial religion that there is no way that such a thing could have ever happened were those Christians instead Creators.
What is also remarkable is that the critic, in his ancillary praise of theism of apparently any kind, never bothers to examine whether the idea that there really is a god or gods is in fact true. Instead, the critic is basically saying that we should believe in a god or gods whether they really exist or not. What about the truth? Doesn't it matter? Are we instead to adopt belief systems based on speculation rather than what we think is actually real? Creativity believes that reality should indeed matter and that is what guides Creators in their lives. Creativity says that we who believe in it are willing to believe in anything provided that sufficient evidence has been presented so as to validate the belief in question. We submit that, that is not much to ask. The critic would have us place our faith in that which we can't see (gods) over that which we can see (our race). We think the reverse makes more sense. On a related note, the critic repeatedly attacks atheism and says that Creativity is "atheistic" without realizing that Creators don't consider themselves atheists due to the fact that "atheism" only indicates what a person doesn't believe in rather than what he does. This too shows that the critic is not very knowledgeable about the religion he is critiquing. Since we hold that the idea of a "god" is essentially devoid of meaning, we see little reason to describe ourselves by a lack of belief in such.
Nor apparently is the critic knowledgeable of who the Mennonites were, when it comes to his unfortunate insinuations about Ben Klassen's ancestry, as he complains that Ben Klassen apparently did not look "Ukrainian" to him. Well, the simple answer is that Ben Klassen wasn't a Ukrainian. The Mennonite community that he was born into in the Ukraine were Germans as most people who know anything about the Mennonites would know. They were welcomed into the Ukraine by the Tsarist government to farm the land along with other German settlers. The critic apparently also did not read Ben Klassen's autobiography, Against the Evil Tide, in which he set forth his family tree for several centuries and puts to rest any aspersions along the lines of the critic. Nor did Ben Klassen even have the physical characteristics that the critic claimed he had. Notably, the critic apparently did not know that Ben (Bernhardt) Klassen as a young man living in Canada applied for and was granted in 1939 permission to study engineering in the Third Reich, this being written about in his first and the seminal book of our religion, Nature's Eternal Religion. Since Jews were banned from German universities at that point, that obviously would not have been possible were he indeed jewish.
Does anyone really think that the Nazi government would allow a Jew to enter the country and study engineering there in 1939? I have met many people who met Ben Klassen and none of them ever had the opinion about his ancestry that the unknown critic claims to have. It is unfortunate that he felt compelled to launch such a low blow personal aspersion upon the man in an effort to buttress his critique. Notably, Ron McVan, who he quotes several times on other points, worked side by side with Ben Klassen for several years. Obviously he didn't doubt his ancestry either.
The critc also claims that Creators attack the very idea of White people having religious beliefs and yet the very first pages of Nature's Eternal Religion state that the intent of Creativity is to make our White people more religious. An anti-religion religion is obviously a contradiction in terms and yet that is what the critic would have people believe is the case here. Ben Klassen thoroughly discusses in our books why Creativity is indeed a religion. The fact that we place supreme value in our race instead of in a speculative deity or deities does not negate our religiosity. Again, we have to wonder just how informed the critic is of Creativity.
Of greater value is the critic's philosophical discussion of the origin of the universe that takes place in the closing pages of his critique. The basic error though is the assumption that there has to be an origin in the first place. Again and again the critic makes the error that physical matter in the universe had to come from some non-physical source. It didn't. Rather, matter cannot be "created"; instead, matter can only change form. Furthermore, Creativity submits that there can be no such thing as thought without a brain. In other words, if thought is to be possible, there must be some kind of mechanism to make it possible. This should not be a controversial proposition. You and I think because we have brains. If our brains were to be damaged in some way, our thought would be damaged too regardless of whatever our alleged "souls" had to say about it. Hence when we die and there is no more functioning brain, there can be no more thinking nor an afterlife where people can think either. Hence were a god or gods to exist, they too would have to have a brain in order to think. The basic error of non-physical theism is that it insists that somehow a non-physical world can somehow control the physical world from whence unknown. Creativity says that the reverse is more likely the case. In any event, Creativity is less concerned with whether there could somehow be a "beginning" to life (life likely in fact always existed) than with whether our beloved White Race will survive the existential threat upon it now, today. As our great Founder said, sure, we can debate how many "angels" can dance on the head of a pin as monks did in the Middle Ages but really, we have better things to do!
When we hear the strains of Mozart, it is because we have brains, physicality, that we can discern and pronounce that they have beauty. When we are embraced by our loved ones, it is because we have nerves, physicality, that we feel joy. When we fight for a future for our White people, it is because they have real, tangible, physical being that we can know whether that future can indeed be ensured. There is no shame in that and nor do Creators feel that they are missing out on anything by pronouncing our love for our White people our religion without supernatural thoughts. Nor do we need some kind of assurance that there is another life when we die for us to do our duty in this one. Indeed, it is the Creators, who have less fear of death because as our Founder quotes of the Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero in The White Man's Bible, we view death as merely a long sleep from which we never wake. We fear death no more than we feared being born. All individual lives come and go but the life of our race remains. I do not believe anyone can say that I myself held back from doing my personal duty for our cause due to any fear of death and it is my hope that our critic and all of our Brothers and Sisters for that matter may likewise experience that peaceful state of mind by actually reading The Books of Creativity.
note: Any typographical, spelling, or other errors are that of the transcriber, not that of Rev Hale.
It contains a photo of gang paraphilia.
The rejection of this correspondence is in accordance with the Federal Bureau of Prisons policy on "correspondence" as published in title 28 code of Federal Regulations, part 540 and in the Federal Bureau of Prisons program statement on correspondence. You have the right to appeal this rejection by writing the Warden in care of the above address. The Inmate to whom you addressed your correspondence has been notified that this correspondence has been returned to you and of his or her right to appeal the rejection.
I have received your letter with the subject titled "Correspondence with Inmate returned"
"This correspondence was not delivered to the Inmate because: It contains a photo of gang paraphilia"
I have included the offending picture in this letter for your recollection in this matter.
Simalacrum Candidus (The White Emblem in Latin).
Creativity is a religion, not a gang. Creativity was recognized as a religion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in Peterson v. Wilmur Communications (205 F.Supp.2d 1014) (2002).
Creativity is a religion based on the laws of nature, on the experience of history, on logic and common sense.
This is in response to your correspondence regarding a picture you had attempted to send to inmate Matthew Hale, Register Number 15177-424 presently confined at the United States Federal Penitentiary, ADX, Florence, Colorado. You state the picture depicts the Creativity Movement, formerly known as the Church of the Creator and World Church of the Creator. You state Creativity is a religion based on the laws of nature, on the experience of history, and on logic and common sense.
This picture was rejected per 28 CFR 540.14 (d) (8) as contraband because it is material that can reasonably be expected to adversely affect the security, safety and orderly running of this institution.
I trust this addresses your concern. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.

References: § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2255
 v.