Luminous Animal
Luminous Animal's JournalCheck out my posts #115 and #117. Also, I think you will find this interesting.
The ACLU defended Hale's efforts to obtain a law license in IL.
Aclu Sides With Supremacist On Right To Obtain Law License
In a legal motion accepted Monday by the state Supreme Court, the ACLU argues that denying Hale a law license on the basis of racist beliefs is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-08-12/news/9908120284_1_law-license-aclu-first-time-hale
Here you go (and the earliest association I can find between Greenwald and Hale)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-02-08/news/0004010077_1_matt-hale-solicitation-world-churchRyan filed the suit in July, alleging that Hale's group is an unregistered charity. The civil suit contended that Hale's organization was subject to the state's Solicitation for Charity Act.
But today, Judge Julia M. Nowicki released a written ruling stating that the act is vague and unconstitutional, violating the defendants' 1st and 14th Amendment rights -- freedom of speech and due process, respectively.
….
Hale's attorney, Glenn Greenwald, said Hale is very happy with the decision, "but also very surprised that the judge was courageous enough to signify that all citizens, including Matt Hale, have the right to the same constitutional protections." Neither Hale nor his attorney, who practices in New York, was present at today's hearing at the Richard J. Daley Cente
The IL AG appealed to the IL Supreme Court. Greenwald defended Hale on Constitutional grounds in that venue, as well.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-03-22/news/0103220049_1_matt-hale-file-world-church
The World Church of the Creator, headed by Matt Hale of East Peoria, contended that the state's Solicitation for Charity Act was unconstitutionally vague--a position already upheld by a Cook County judge--and questioned whether Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan selectively enforced the law to quash the group's activities.
Hale's attorney, Glenn Greenwald of New York, argued that provisions in the law that call for patriotic, philanthropic and benevolent organizations to register as charities are ill defined. Greenwald contended that potential penalties for failing to abide by the law--such as a permanent ban on raising funds--are too severe if a group guesses wrong about how the law applies to it.
"Is it constitutional to have a law in which you don't know you have fallen afoul of it until you've been sued, and even then you have severe questions? I don't think so," Hale said after the hearing.
You know, you've been making that accusation for quite a while. It is time to back it up...
Unfortunately, I cannot "see" the original copyright infringement lawsuit that was decided in January of 2002. What I can see is the are the appeals. The all cite attorney Todd Reardon as the attorney for Hale's church in regards to that matter.
Here is the link to the first and second appeals and also the link for the case which Hale sought to have Lefkow removed when she enforced the appeals court's decision AGAINST Hale:
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/392/392.F3d.248.03-4085.html
http://openjurist.org/297/f3d/662/te-ta-ma-truth-foundation-family-of-uri-inc-v-world-church-of-the-creator
http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031226246FSupp2d980_11126
All list Todd Reardon as Hale's attorney.
It cites the case that Judge Lefkow decided FOR Hale (below is the citation)
TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation — Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator, 2002 WL 126103, 2002 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1478 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 31, 2002)
The case and the decision will not come up in any search.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayCurrent location: San Francisco
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2003, 02:06 PM
Number of posts: 27,310
