Greetings once again, my White Brothers and Sisters! Welcome to another episode of In Klassen We Trust: The White Power Hour with Rev. Matt Hale. This indeed is Rev. Matt Hale, speaking to you from East Peoria, Illinois. I’m very happy to be with you once again, on this our third episode of this program. The first two episodes were resoundingly successful. Many of you have commented on this show. Many of you have decided to purchase copies of this show to help this show continue. Many of you have encouraged and brought new listeners forward, to listen to this message – the message of White Racial Loyalty.
On this weeks episode I wish to step back in time a little bit and speak about my fight for a law license. For many of you this will be something that you have thought about before or heard about before, but I hope to present the full ramifications of this fight and how this fight is indeed far from over.
As many of you know and for those of you who didn’t know, and I’ll just step back as if you don’t know, I graduated from law-school in May of 1998. I had attended Southern Illinois University, I graduated in that time period, took the bar exam in July of 1998 and passed it on my first attempt. I was told right after I took the bar exam that I would have to meet with a member of the Character and Fitness Committee in the third judicial district of Illinois. When I received this notification I didn’t really know what to make of it, but I found after shortly thereafter that it is common practice, in fact standard practice for each bar applicant to meet with an attorney or a judge who would either sign off on their moral character as they call it or not sign off on their moral character.
Now in Illinois as in all other states, it is extremely rare for someone to be denied a law-license based on moral character. And when it does happens, in which a person have been denied a law-license based on their moral character, it is because of various immoral things they have done. Perhaps in the past they were a thief or something and somehow that that habit has been maintained and not eradicated in the nature and the psyche of the person so to speak, and there’s a concern that that person might steal from their clients for example. Or perhaps the individual has a history of violence against people, a person might be a murderer and maybe be denied a law-license based on their morale character. Or perhaps a person might be a cheat, a person who have cheated on tests in the past or cheated on a law-school exam or something like that, in which the Character And Fitness Committee, which is appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court would deny them the law-license.
However, it is extremely, even more rare to deny someone a law-license based on their beliefs and in fact in the state of Illinois, before my case it had not been done for the past 35 years. I believe it was 1959 was the last time that it had happened. So almost 40 years had passed between that period, the McCarthy period as a matter of fact, and what happened with me. But in any case I met with this person, his name was judge Gregory McClintock, he is still a judge in ? and ? counties and this person, met with him for about a half hour. Nothing was unusual about that meeting, he did not say that he would deny me based on my beliefs, in fact the last thing this individual said to me, when I met with him in August of 1998, is as follows: ”Good luck with your legal career”. Those were his last words to me, and obviously that assumes a pretty ominous and disgusting significance as I relates this story.
Well nothing happened after that, for a while I didn’t hear anything. I did not hear anything concerned either my moral character or my bar results until October 3rd I believe it was of 1998, in which I received a latter as all other applicants did notifying them as to whether or not they’ve passed the bar. I was very happy to read that I did pass the bar but an ”X” unfortunately had been checked on the form letters saying that my moral character had not been approved yet, and that I need to find out why that was the case. Well at that point I thought it was still an oversight or thought it was an oversight of some kind. I thought: ”Well, judge McClintock has not yet made his decision or maybe he made it and somehow it was not related or something to that effect.”. But I called up judge McClintock and I left a message on his answering machine saying well I need my moral character approved, I would like and of course need to sit for the bar examinee, not the bar examination but the bar oath that would be occurring in November. I wanted to swear in with my classmates and so I needed him to quickly move on approving my good moral character. Well I didn’t hear anything from judge McClintock for 2-3 weeks, in fact it was very shortly before I was set or due to swear in at Bradley University in Peoria Illinois when I finally received a letter from him notifying me that he had not approved my moral character and that it would have to be, the matter would have to be referred to an inquiry panel an accordance with supreme court rule.
Well in December of 1998 I appeared before the inquiry panel, which unfortunately and perhaps illegally, and this is something that is going to be decided in the days ahead, included judge McClintock again. So we here we have a situation where the man did not approve and had opted not to approve my good moral character, or approve my character, and yet he was going to sit as the chair essentially of a three-person panel deciding whether or not I should be allowed to take my oath. So in other words out of the three I already had one against me going into the process. Well in any case, we had our meeting in December, I believe it was December twenty… or actually, no, I think it was more like November 23rd or something to that effect, and I received the decision in November and the decision denied me 2-1. Joining judge McClintock and his opinion against me was a person named Stuart Lefstein. Well it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize and figure out that he was Jewish, and that opposed my being admitted into the bar largely because he was Jewish. And in their decision that the two wrote they essentially compared me to Hitler and they said that people with views such as mine were responsible for the ”Holocaust” and further and most glaringly unconstitutional about their decision, was that they said basically and I don’t have the decision in front of me, but they said to the extent our decision today infringes upon the first amendment rights of lawyers, we believe its justified and necessary and so forth. Well in essence they said that the first amendment does not apply to attorneys. Well obviously this is incorrect, this was a direct violation of existing U.S. Supreme Court presidency and in fact their entire decision gave all the reasons why I must be admitted to the bar, while ruling the opposite way, which is something we will be using in the fight ahead and have used already.
Well, in any case, once I was denied my law-license in this 2-1 decision. And by the way, the descending opinion was a very good opinion. A man who actually had character who has sat upon my character, has sat a judgement upon it – Lawrence Baxter – I appreciate and respect him to this day. And he has said throughout the past few years, throughout these three years or so that we’ve had this fight, that I should get my license and that my views are irrelevant, and that I have been mistreated by this system. So let me say that at this point. But in any case, we have the situation, I finally announced, I went ahead and announced to our membership in very strong and stark detail the struggle that was commencing and how I had been essentially and obviously denied a law-license because of my belief in our World Church of The Creator, my belief in the White Race, my belief that the Jews have too much power in this country, my belief that race matters, my belief that White people should stand up for their own interests – I was denied a law-license because I dared say these things – and they even admitted it, basically. They admitted in their decision, in the inquiry panel decision, that part of my ”problem” as they put it is that I speak my beliefs, that I am not just a silent racist but I actually advocate racist beliefs. And that the legal profession cannot allow someone to enter its ranks that openly advocates racist beliefs.
Now of course it begs the question: What kind of attorneys are they looking for? Are they looking for lawyers that simply look you in the eye and lie? Or go along with the prevalent notions of society without trying to challenge them? Or are they looking in other words for cowards or lackeys, instead of actual men? Obviously it takes a lot more moral character to stand up for your beliefs through thick and thin, than to simply bow like sheep and follow the existing customs and mores pushed upon you by the majority or by the system. Obviously though for them it really wasn’t a matter of good moral character, and of course, as a lot of members have indicated to me, it is very funny to hear lawyers talking about good moral character. It’s almost as if the clergy rather than the legal profession. Obviously a lot of people have negative feelings towards the legal profession – and with good reason. There are lot of attorneys out there that are corrupt, that mistreat their clients, that lie etcetera and for these individuals to say or to equate our belief in our great White people, our love for our White people, as being bad moral character, really is shameful. This is another reason why the legal system is looked upon in such a negative way.
In any event, the opening of the year 1999 or as we would like to call it the year 26 A.C., 26 Anno Creativitates, the twenty-sixth year of Creativity, was very eventful. New year begins with crucial struggle, I believe that was the title of my lead article in The Struggle, our monthly publication. This fight of course for the first time, this was the first time in which I thought that maybe, maybe somehow despite my going to law-school for three, despite working me tail off to get my degree and leading our church, helping to put our church back together, leading that effort after the death of our founder Ben Klassen. Passing the bar exam the first time, I thought for the first time that maybe, maybe the powers that be would actually succeed in denying me the right to practice law based on what I believe in – in direct contravention to what they themselves teach!
And it was amazing and it was sickeningly, but at the same time the good news, and this was in fact the great news of the whole situation, was that by them denying me a law-license I was able to reach millions and millions of people. Because on February the 1st that year I held my first press conference and that press conference at the Courthouse steps on Peoria county I announced my fight, I announced to the world what was happening and for the next month and a halfth or two months I was on talk-shows across the country, I was on television talk shows, I was on Politically Incorrect, I was on Dateline NBC, I was on The Today Show, I was on Talkback Live – CNN Talkback LIve. I was on countless radio shows, I was in the New York Times, The New York Post, newspapers all across the world. Newspapers in Germany, newspapers in England, newspapers in Australia etcetera. The law-license fight, the law-license denial, my being basically betrayed in a sense by the supposed ”leaders” of the bar etcetera in this state enabled me to reach you.
And in fact, I probably would not be speaking to you right now if it weren’t for me being denied a law-license, because it set in motion a chain of events that enabled us to become a household name and it enabled us to reach you. In fact, I would say probably half of our members are members right now, at least of our members, because of the publicity surrounding my fight for a law-license. That because I was on all these shows, you heard about us, you contacted us, we have a great many talented people in the church right now who watched me on television, we’re happy with what I had to say, were happy with the message of The World Church of The Creator and joined up.
In any case, the next step after the 2-1 defeat of sorts, and it was a defeat obviously for the purposes of trying to get the license, was to met before a five-person hearing board as it was called. Five new people finally and this meeting would be held in Joliet, Illinois in April of 1999. Well, as soon as I walked into Joliet and saw the way they treated me, the way they treated witnesses, their attitude I knew that essentially they had made their decision before we even walked into the courthouse. And it wasn’t a courthouse, and the media were allowed in and I allowed that, I wanted that. I wanted the media to see if I were going to be mistreated or if I was going to be denied the supposedly ”sacred” rights under the constitution, I wanted the light of day on this. And in fact, during this hearing, that lasted seven hours by the way, before this five-person board, I said a number of times that basically we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the fact that I was denied a law-license of course and as far as the media goes, I wouldn’t have all this publicity if it weren’t for the fact that people tried to deprive me of my rights.
Well, as I pretty much indicated and as obvious, they denied me as well. In a 5-0 decision issued on June 30th of 1999 I was denied once again. In their decision, their decision was even more pathetic than the first one, because whereas the first one actually at least cited constitutional law, where the first decision actually mentioned actually mentioned legal reasons for denying someone a law-license, the second decision had no law whatsoever cited in it. It was simply an attack upon me and an attack upon what we believe in, while the Hearing Board that this case is not about Mr. Hale’s first amendment rights – obviously, obviously it was!
Now what were some of the things that they cited? You know, this has been talked about now and then in the media. Now and then there have been individuals that have tried to twist the grounds for their denial, trying to say it had something to do with good moral character. Well let’s look at the situation here. For one thing, I sometime ago had burned an Israeli flag. Well that’s not a ground for denying me a law-license, that’s obviously free speech. I burned an Israeli flag during the Persian Gulf war in September 1990, I was very happy about that, I had a right to do that. One thing they mentioned… boy, I’m trying to even remember various things. They mentioned my obstruction of justice situation, where I was charged with this at one time and the police had driven me around in a squad car for a half-hour badgering me, telling me to answer their questions about a certain incident my brother and I were involved in. I refused to answer their questions and I invoked my right to counsel, and I was denied my right to counsel. Well, initially I was convicted of this in 1991, but the appellate court threw it out in a 3-0 decision. So, that legally that was intenuous I guess you could say, or not tenuous, as a ground for denying me a law-license.
Then there was the situation in which at Bradley University I supposedly disrupted a prayer breakfast, by giving a quote ”nazi salute”. Well once again it’s speech, the right to speak or the right not to speak. And so that in itself obviously is not tenable as a reason to deny me a law-license. I put up flyers at Bradley University 11 years ago when I was a student there. I believe they cited that in their decision that I somehow disrupted the school or something to that effect. Well, obviously if you put up flyers in a bulletin board that is constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
So here were some of the things that they mentioned and certainly the other side tried to attack this business, they tried to say that these are grounds to deny me a law-license, but let’s face it. There are individuals within the state of Illinois and in fact all 50 states who are practicing law who are convicted felons, which I’m not, I don’t have a criminal record. There are individuals who have a history of various problems of various kinds, I don’t have these same histories. What I have essentially is that I speak my mind. Yes I burned an Israeli flag, yes I passed out literature, yes there is a situation in which I was told I had to operate with the police at one time and I refused in accordance with my constitutional rights and the appellate court upheld that.
So, all of the grounds of the supposed bad moral character or bad acts I think they like to, they wanted to call them… really weren’t bad acts, they weren’t bad acts certainly rising to the level in which I could be denied my livelihood. And I would challenge in fact anyone out there, any opponent who wants to say or try to insinuate that we are falsifying the record, that we are falsifying the facts to present their own facts as to why I was denied a law-license and let’s compare, because the reality is once again that I was denied because of what I believe in, because of what we preach – namely Creativity. And in fact the first group even admitted that. They admitted it much more honestly. The inquiry panel said, you know, basically has proven his good moral character in other ways except for his beliefs. In fact one of the things he said was that I had proven my non-criminal background by clear and convincing evidence, they actually made that part of the record and they ? that I mentioned earlier have any effect in that the only thing they had to consider was my beliefs, and they decided that they could constitutionally or maybe even not that, but they could in any case deny me a law-license based on what I believe in and because I advocate it. They talked about this racist advocacy business. Well on he second opinion on the hearing board, they just talked about these various situations in my background.
Oh, one of the things I forget to mention, this is a key part and they spent some time on this. In both decisions they talked about a letter I wrote to a Roverson, that was her name, a lady named Roverson, criticizing her for her stance on affirmative action, in which I said something like: ”Is it going to take you a rape or a murder at the hands of a savage nigger beast before you become aware of the problem?”. Obviously that was not a threat, that was simply a strong way of pointing out to this person that integration is bad and that they shouldn’t be aiding and abetting blacks. They didn’t even try to call it a threat in their decision, but they found that it was discrimination, and discrimination can be grounds for denying someone a law-license. Well that’s not the law, that has never been the law, that’s not constitutional to deny someone the right to privately discriminate even if they wish to discriminate. So they use this in their rationale, but once again: how many attorneys do you know of who have said mean things to people? If there’s an attorney out there that has never used a cuss word for example – I’d like to know who they are, because perhaps they need a halo on their head. Obviously attorneys are people, attorneys are people just as much as anybody else and people do sometimes use strong language to make points. And that was I was doing in my letter and that’s what I did.
Now for the complete decision on each one of these… well let me back up, for the ruling, the written decision on my law-license fight at the inquiry panel in the hearing board level, check out creator.org/legal/ and the complete decisions are all there and you can read about all of this for yourself, that’s very clear.
So, next comes of course the event that has of course been very big for the church, no question about that. On June 30th I was denied 5-0 and the decision was mailed to me. I received the decision on July 1st. Well after receiving that decision I decided to not do anything for that day. I wanted to think about it, I wanted to ponder exactly what happened, get my breath so to speak because I was extremely sickened by it. And send out a press release on July 2nd and that’s what I did, July 2nd, the morning of July 2nd I began sending out the press releases announcing that I had been once again denied my constitutional right to practice law.
Well, the evening of July 2nd Brother ”August” Smith, who the world knows as Ben Smith, but I knew him as August at the time because that’s the name he went by and because the word August means ”revered” and he was a big admirer of Caesar Augustus I called him that. Brother August Smith began shooting at non-whites that evening. I believe today as much as I did then that there is only one motivation that could have inspired or motivated him to do what he did and that is the denial of my license. The timing involved, the way things happened, how the man I knew was a peaceful man, a legal man and all of a sudden the evening of the day in which I announced the denial of my law-license he’s out shooting non-whites.
And so that began the second round of intense media publicity, which after the denial by the hearing board 5-0 I wanted the world of course to know about the denial of my license. Now obviously it was all distorted after that though after the August Smith shootings, because the media was focusing on what he did and not what the criminals did to me, which in my view once again motivated and provided the spark to August Smith to begin doing what he did. Though once again, one could never prove that, we don’t know but once again something had to motivate him and since I know for fact that he wanted me to get my license, he very much believed in my getting my license. In fact the last time I saw him he said something to the effect that the decision would be coming down soon, because the powers that be would never allow me to get my license, or at least he suspected that. I believe that’s why these things happened.
But in any case, we have the situation where CNN was calling me, ABC, I was on all three morning talk-shows, I was on Dateline again, I was on Good Morning America, I was on 20/20, I went on all kinds of programs, I was live on CNN several times, I was on Court TV talking about why this man would do such a thing and opining that my belief was that he did it because of the incredible injustices. I put it to them: if you kick someone around like a dog, they might bite. I believe that’s what happened with brother Smith. I believe that he would be alive right now if it weren’t for the decision. I don’t have any empirical data to support that, but I knew the man and this was extremely out of his character – obviously, obviously I didn’t know he was going to do this. If I had known I would have done everything I could to prevent him from doing this, because once again the non-whites are not worth our lives in a sense and it’s counter-productive to engage in violence against them. What we have to do instead is educate our people, not worry so much about the non-whites. We’re going to take a little pause here to change the tape to side B, we will be right back.
Okay, we’re back with In Klassen We Trust: The White Power Hour with Rev. Matt Hale. We’re talking about my law-license fight. Forgive me if I’m talking about somewhat in terms in which I would assume you would understand, it’s been so much part of my life the past three years that it is in fact difficult for me to step back and remember how life was like before the law-license. But in any case, I will try to do so on this program for the remaining thirty minutes.
Well, what we had to do after the Hearing Board denied me 5-0 was appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court which we promptly did. Well though, the problem is that in November, I believe November or December of 2000, or actually 1999 still, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear my case. Rather than to approach the issue and be fair about it or objective or even just give me the shaft, they decided not to hear the case at all. They decided to pass the buck though there was one descending justice who believed strongly that my case should had been heard. His name was ? and he was one of the few individuals on that court with character. So we had to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, we filed our appeal but unfortunately in June of 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to hear my case.
So what we have is a situation in which I have been denied due progress, I’ve been denied my right to be heard in a court. I’ve been denied my law-license in direct contravention to the constitution of the United States and to numerous cases concerning bar applicants. One of the cases being Bear vs Arizona in which the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a person cannot be denied a law-license because of their political beliefs. Well obviously if you can’t deny a law-license to someone because of their political beliefs, you cannot deny someone a law-license because of their religious beliefs – it’s just common sense. But in any case, both the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which put me somewhat dead in the water. There’s only one thing left to do and that is file a law-suit against the state of Illinois, against the Illinois Supreme Court, against the Character and Fitness Committee, against the various individuals who denied me a law-license. And that’s what we did in June of this year 2001. We filed this law-suit, a 32-page law-suit against these individuals.
They are currently, or they have filed a motion to dismiss the case, we have followed that up with a motion in opposition or a brief in response to their motion making it very clear that the case must go on, that their reasons in which they alleged that the case must be dismissed are ? and that overwhelmingly I do have a right to bring this claim. Now what they are saying in their motion to dismiss is that essentially I have already had a bite at the apple and I’m not entitled to two bites at the apple. Well that argument doesn’t hold water for the simple fact that the Character and Fitness Committee of the inquiry panel and the Hearing Board were not constitutionally given the power to adjudicate to decide whether my constitutional rights have been violated. Instead they simple have the power to decide whether somebody has good moral character or not to practice law. Well obviously if I couldn’t have my constitutional claims, deprivation of first amendment rights, deprivation of religious rights, deprivation of equal protection under the law decided by these people at the inquiry panel and the Hearing Board stage. I have a right to have them decided somewhere else and if the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t hear those claims, I have a right under the constitutional to have those claims heard by a federal district court. And that’s where we’re at right now. We have made this argument, we hope to have a decision sometime soon as to whether or not the case will go on. I am very optimistic, very confident that it will go on.
In the meantime though before we actually filed suit I applied to other states, I don’t want to give all the states identity so to speak that I have applied, because our opposition are very feverish about contacting these states and trying to derail my efforts to get a law-license. But one of them of course you’ve heard about probably is the state of Montana. I applied to them and first I was recommended for denial by a two-person group, but then they reversed their decision and are now waiting to see how things go in the state of Illinois with the various law-suits that were filed against me in the wake of the ”August” Smith’s shootings. Now let’s talk about that for a little bit, these lawsuits. Now, at first glance it might seem like, well okay, we’re being sued and you’re probably going to lose considering the political climate, considering the fact that it’s very difficult for a White racist to get a fair trial in this country today. However, in this case we have very good legal counsel, we have extremely good arguments and there’s absolutely no evidence to support the contention that I had anything whatsoever to do with the actions of Brother Smith. Couldn’t be more clear that I had nothing do with his actions and therefore any law-suit attempting to hold the church libel and hold me liable for his actions will be defeated – it’s as simple as that. You can’t simply hold an organization or an individual liable because they knew somebody who committed a crime and that’s what they are trying to do in our case.
Now we are not fools – we realize that they are doing this because they want to stop our great message. The Jews, the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center and all individuals in cahoots with them want to stop us from preaching what we preach! But the reality is, is that even if, even if they were completely successful, even if they accomplished everything they sought to accomplish with these suits and they got some ridiculously high judgement against us, it would not stop me from speaking just as I am speaking right now. It would not stop The World Church of The Creator from going forth into the world with its message. Why? Because we are a religion, we are a church. We are not a business entity, simple taking our money is not going to stop the message. As long as we have a voice box, as long as we have dedicated comrades in the world, dedicated White men and women, who are devoted to the truth and devoted to the exposition of the truth there is no stopping us. So that’s the foolhardy nature of these claims against us and there is what I like to call the wounded nigger-case in which a nigger suing who were shot a few times supposedly by Brother Smith, there’s the wounded Jew-case in which a Jew were similarly shot and then there’s the attorney general case which is still going on though we haven’t heard a peep from the U.S. – or not the U.S. but the Illinois Supreme Court – in some time.
There’s a case in which the attorney general of this state, Jim Ryan, claims that we are a charity, and in violation of charity law by not registering with the state. It’s gotta be one of the most ridiculous law-suits that’s ever been filed in this country. Here we are, on the one hand supposedly a ”hate group”, but then on the other hand we’re a ”charity” – and this guy manages to call us the same in one breath. I don’t know how I does it, perhaps he’s a ”magician” or maybe he’s a puppeteer. In any case he wants to also be the next governor of this state, so that is quite appropriate apparently considering the current pool of politicians that we have in America today. But, yeah, that’s the situation, he’s bringing this suit. At the trial court level it was thrown out, the judge realized how ridiculous it was and threw it out. Well, he appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, reheard oral arguments I believe in April of this year or perhaps it was May, but we haven’t heard anything ever since. So I don’t know if the Illinois Supreme Court is struggling with this issue or simply haven’t made a decision, but hopefully they will in the near future. I do not expect a bad outcome, I expect a very good outcome, I don’t see how this case can continue forward.
But even if, once again, even if somehow this was bumped back to the trial court level and the trial court had to decide whether or not we’re a charity or not, I don’t see how they can rationally make that decision considering the facts. And part of the problem or part of the issue is that the law does not define what a charitable organization is, and if the law doesn’t define what something is, how can it expect, how can the creators of the law expect the people to be able to follow it? In our example, in our case, how can we be expected to follow a law that just on its face does not apply to us? A charity, when you think of a charity your thinking of Jerry’s Kids, your thinking of the United Way, your thinking of somewhat to this effect, the Red Cross, you’re not thinking of The World Church of The Creator – and if they are thinking of The World Church of The Creator we would like them to promptly quit using the term ”hate group” and start lumping us together with the United Way and other ”good guy”-organization. So they can’t have it both ways. So we’ll see what happens with that.
These are all what I like to call the post-Ben Smith law suits. These are the lawsuits that politicians such as Jim Ryans decided to file because he wanted to get political mileage out of it, shyster lawyers as I would like to call them like Michael Bender, he is a Jew of course and he filed this suit on behalf of this Ephraim Wolf, this wounded Jew he wants to make a case out of dust. The wounded nigger-case you have this situation where this nigger’s shot and they just want to assume that because I knew a man that committed a crime that somehow The World Church of The Creator and I are responsible – obviously it’s ficticious. But that’s been the result, this has been all a result of me being denied my constitutional right. I’m not the first person for example to say when you deny someone their constitutional rights, it can come back to bite you in the ass so to speak. If you deny someone their rights people will take notice. The supposedly benevolent government ceases to appear so benevolent, the supposedly fair system ceases to be so fair – and people ask questions! So many people have come into The World Church of The Creator because of my being denied, it’s just so obvious that I was denied in contravention to the supposed liberties they constantly espouse. It’s like well, on the one hand they want to say: well you have the right to believe as you choose in America but if you dare exercise your right and you dare say what you believe in, we’re going to deny you your livelihood. It just shows them to be hypocritical and shows us to be right.
Now, let me address for a bit why this law-license is so important. There might be some of you out there and I want to cover this program as if there are people who are naysayers out there, I want to cover it that way, so that you can understand completely from where we are coming from. Why is the law-license so important? The law-license is so important because we need representation in the legal realm, we White Racial Loyalists cannot always count on the legal services of those who despise or hate us. We do not want to go always to individuals that do not believe in what we believe in, we need representation from those who believe the same way. And if the powers that be in Illinois can deny me a law-license based on our belief in the White Race, my belief in Creativity, then other states and other places will decide that hey, its open season on White Racial Loyalists, they can’t have any support in the legal realms, we can just charge them with various crimes and nobody will succeed in exonerating them and nobody will want to. We have to have representation, that’s very simple, it’s kind of the colonists of 1776, they said: no taxation without representation. Well, we don’t want any court action without representation from those who believe as we do. It’s as simple as that.
I can tell you for example that so many individuals have called me or written me the past three years wanting my help for various legal problems that they are involved in. Sometimes we have members for example get fired from their jobs because of their religion. Obviously in violation of existing law and they need somebody to represent them, but if they go to a regular lawyer out there he’s not interested, because it’s too controversial as they will say. ”Well it’s just too controversial for my practice.”. Afraid that their friends in the bar will alienate themselves from them. And that’s a shame! Whatever happened to principle? Whatever happened to idealism? Instead of the all-mighty dollar. The bar in this country, the legal professional has become simply a monopoly of puppets, of sheep and it’s just obviously a direct violation of what law is supposed to be all about – helping those who need help, helping those who need a defense, helping those who need representation of their best interests.
Well look also at the history of this country. Let’s realize that many of the pivotal events in this country began in a courtroom. Certainly school segregation or school desegregation, in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education began in a courtroom. If we had opposed successfully that action, if we had attorneys back then in 1954 who were little better than the ones that they had and fought it, perhaps the school would still be segregated and the White Race would be a lot better off. You can look at Roe V. Wade, how many millions of White children have been butchered by abortion doctors because of that decision? What if we had had excellent legal representation in the courtroom against abortion, maybe abortion wouldn’t be the law of the land today? Certainly cases involving homosexuals, maybe homosexuals wouldn’t be parading around the streets if we have had interests opposing that.
So the leader realms is where a lot of key changes occur. It’s a vestige of power, it’s an institution of power. In fact in the first decision denying me my license the inquiry panel said we can’t allow governmental power be held by Matt Hale. I mean, they said it pretty outright, they said that I’m a danger, they said that I was trying to do exactly was… or what I successfully did. Well I’m not going to make any bones about that – Hitler came to power in Germany legally, I intent to come to power legally in America. There’s no question about that, I need of course a lot of help, I need a lot of support. The World Church of The Creator must come to power and once we come to power we will eliminate those provisions, legally and peacefully, in the current laws that made citizens out of blacks, made citizens of Orientals, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs etcetera and we will repatriate them. That is our plan, that is our desire, that’s what we will, that’s what we must do. So that is the situation with that. Also, another reason why the law license fight is so important is because it’s good for our esteem, it’s good for our appearance, it’s good for our PR, our public relations, there’s no question about that. When I appear on a talk-show and some… you know, some clown, I hate to call them a clown but some clown in the audience says: ”Hey I suspect you don’t have much of an education” – it’s very nice to be able to say: ”Oh, yes sir I do, I went to college, I went to law-school, I’m a graduate of both, I have two degrees, I have all the requirements of another degree as well in music.” You know, and then watch them, with their open mouth, sit down.
I like that, I think that’s important. I think that we need to have a reputation of excellence, I don’t think that we should simply allow our enemies to dominate the professions. I think that we need to have our people as doctors, our people as lawyers, our people as bankers, our people as accounters, what have you – we need to be in the professions just as much as our opposition.
And also, certainly it’s more attractive, there’s no question about that. It’s more attractive to potential members, a lot of our members are a higher quality. That’s not to say that we’re not interested in all White people, because we are. But at the same time we have to be honest with outrselves and honest with others, that there are no equality in anything at any time. There are some members that are more able than other members. We are not all square blocks, we have various personalities, various abilities and we have to utilize whatever abilities we have for our great cause.
Now this cause of course or this battle for a law-license has been a long battle. When I first went to law school in May, or not May but August of 1995, I had no inkling that this would ever happen. When I graduated in 1998 I had no inkling, I thought that I would quickly take the bar exam, I would practice law in Champaign, Illinois. I was working for a law firm there in fact in expectation and anticipation of getting my law license. But I can say that at the end of the day, when I finally am able to raise my right hand and swear on the oath to the constitution or on the rule of law and that’s all that mean, taking an oath to the rule of law, that everything would have been worth it. I’m ready to endure whatever sacrifice is necessary in order to win you, my Brother or Sister. If it’s necessary for me to be denied again, in the great schemes, then so be it. But I believe that this law-suit against the scoundrels that’s pending right now will result in my being licensed in the state of Illinois and will result in me being able to say to the world that: ”Hey, I told you so”, because I’ve said all along that I would win, that we will win, I’ve always had this beliefs though now and then it’s been shaken for obvious reasons, I believe that ultimately we will prevail in this great effort.
And the reason why I use the word ”we” is because it’s all of us. When I was denied a law-license, all of us were slapped in the face. We were told specifically that our religion ”is no good”. We were told by the powers that be that well, you can be a Jew, you can be a nigger, you can be a Black Panther, in fact there are a Black Panther attorney in Washington D.C., his name is Malik Shabazz I believe, and he’s the head of the new Black Panther party – isn’t that interesting?
Then we have the fellow in Ohio, I believe his names is James Foreman or something like that, who was convicted of a cop-killing in 1972. Well, he’s practising law happily enough in Ohio. You have individuals all over this country who have done bad things, real bad things. You have individuals who are communists and who are practicing attorneys, especially in Jew York city. You have people who are anarchists, people who are pro-abortion, people are anti-abortion, what have you. Obviously, if they have the right to practice law irregardless of their beliefs, so do I.
And once, once I have that license and once we have the ability to take on our enemies in the courtroom – on the offensive for a change! We’ve been on the defensive for a few years. We have been responding to their attacks in the courtroom but we’re going to turn the tables, my Brothers and Sisters, and it will be a great day when we do so. It will be a great day when I am able to help you if you call upon me in your various struggles for your rights. It will be a great day indeed and the day is coming soon. That is my faith, that is my goal.
Well, we’re just about out of time so let me close at least this episode of In Klassen We Trust by welcoming you to this program. Keep listening in, I’m sure there’s something I didn’t cover in this episode, undoubtedly, about the law-license fight. Feel free to give me a call though if you’d like any more details: 3096944444 or email me at PMHale1@aol.com. There is plenty of material of course involved in this, once again the website in which you can read much of it is: http://www.creator.org/legal/. The decisions of the inquiry panel and the Hearing Board are posted there, my appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court are posted there, my lawsuit against the bar pending right now is posted there.
It’s my hope in fact to eventually have a team of attorneys across the country. We need to have of course once again our own legal force. We need to challenge so many things, we can challenge affirmative action for example – when a White man or woman gets laid off of their job because of their job or denied a job because of affirmative action or denied a promotion because of affirmative action, we need to sue. And we’re just the people to do it. We can sue about that, we can sue concerning the speech codes for example on college campuses, they’re depriving White people of their right to speak. We can sue concerning the fact that many libraries will refuse and have refused to include our Holy Books on their shelf, even though they have the Christian ”babble” on there and they have the Koran and they have the Old Testament obviously, and they have the Bhagavad Gita and various books of various religions, they refused to put our books on their shelf – some of them. And you might try your local library, maybe they won’t refuse but we’ve had some refused. They need to be sued.
We have a situation where the U.S. government is not enforcing the immigration laws. Well you know what – they could be sued, for not reforcing the law that they are required to enforce. They are so many possibilities in which we can advance our cause legally without any fraud or any kind of frivolous nature in this world. And we need to utilize these means, we need to have a situation where every time for example a White racist is unfairly targeted for passing out literature, the police are sued. If one of our guy gets arrested for ”littering” which is a bogus charge obviously, the police needs to be sued. If we have a situation where, you know, once again someone is… well, how about this: forced to hire or forced to allow non-whites into their business? These are laws that can be challenged, these are customs that can be challenged. Certainly a person should have the right to hire anyone they choose and not be forced to hire a certain ethnic group as currently occurs in this country. These are a multitude of issues that, once I have the license and once we have our Creator teams of lawyers across the country, we can address.
Well this has been a long hour! And in fact if you’ve ever done a radio show for an hour or tried to do a radio show for an hour it’s not always so easy, but we’re going strong and we will continue again next week. Our address once again is P.O. Box 2002, East Peoria, Illinois 61611. I encourage you to join our holy church today, send your dues of 35$ a year – that’s ten cents a day for your White Race, my Brothers and Sisters. Send your dues, 35$ to that address, we will sign you up as a great member of our Great Church. That’s what we need.
We have to remember that the other races [and the anti-White Whites or Whites who care about the other races and looks out for their interests but not about their White Race – and yet call that/themselves anti-racist or not being racist, but why then are they only protecting and caring about non-whites and taking the other races sides all the time? That’s a racial discrimination and that makes them racist against their own White Race because they don’t care about that race, that’s a form of self-racism and own-race racism] are feverishly organizing – constantly. The blacks are organizing, the Jews are organizing, the Latrinos are organizing – we have to organize as well, for our interest. We can turn this around so quickly it’s not even funny, I mean it’d almost be overnight if every White person supported The World Church of The Creator. That’s what we have to strive for. We know there are undoubtedly some individuals who no matter what we do will still side against us, because either they’re opportunists or they’re making money from the non-whites, or the Jews are dangling them from a puppet string or what have you. But the masses, the White masses can be won! We must never give up on the White masses! There are individuals right now who if we give them enough attention, if we talk to them, if we look at them eye to eye, they will support us. I know many of you right now, used to oppose our cause, but you have opened your eyes, for various reasons. And don’t forget that there are others, just like you out there, that need that help, who need that patience, who need that education – to bring them to the light.
I thank you for watching, not watching but listening anyway, I just did a public access television show earlier as well. I thank you for listening, I thank you for having the time to dedicate to your people. But of course it’s expected and it is your duty as well to have that focus, to have that effort. Listen again next week to another episode of In Klassen We Trust. We’re going to be talking about many interesting things next, I’m sure there’s gonna be a number of news items that we will cover. We will talk about, for example, the erosion of our civil liberties under this new terrorist law, in which basically anyone the government doesn’t like can be labeled a ”terrorist” and have their civil rights taken away from them. We’re going to be addressing this issue, we’re going to be talking about the anthrax as well and how of course the media is trying to say that perhaps White racists are responsible, they are insinuating this now, we are going to be addressing that. Listen next time! Do your part for your White Race – and together we will win this Racial Holy War!
RAHOWA!
The Reverend Matt Hale Archive 