Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.svpal.org!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!uchinews2!uchinews!Orac_USA
From: Orac_USA@hotmail.com (Orac)
Subject: Re: Church of the Creator assasin
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ntcs-ip280.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
X-Spam-Bait: Send all spam to president@whitehouse.gov
Organization: The most advanced computer in the universe
X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4
References:  <37839fdb.7154369@news.uniserve.com> <7m08nq$1e75$1@hub.org> <3783b770.13192362@news.uniserve.com> <7m0jeb$312u$1@hub.org> <378939ce.50083718@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:35:59 GMT
Lines: 66
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:538754

In article <378939ce.50083718@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
John.Morris@UAlberta.CA wrote:

>I'm not so sure.  In fact, I'm coming down on the Illinois Bar
>Association's side on this one.
>
>Consider what Matt Hale says in the WCOTC membership manual:
>
>  Make no mistake, my Brothers and Sisters: as stated in The White
>  Man's Bible, should the Jewish Occupied Governments of the world
>  use force to violate our right to freely practice our religion;
>  to peacefully assemble; to peacefully organize; to distribute
>  our publications; to use mails and any other prerogative in
>  promoting and expanding our legal religious organization and
>  the full practice of our religion, then we have every right to
>  declare them as open criminals violating the Constitution and the
>  highest law of the land. They then obviously are the criminals,
>  and we can treat them like the criminal dogs they are and take
>  the law into our own hands. We hope that this day doesn't come,
>  but should it happen, it will be clear from events and expressly
>  stated either by myself or by my successors.
>
>Source: http://www.wcotc.com/extra/manual/index.html (menu frame link
>"Legality")
>
>These are Matt Hale's own words.
>
>It is unfortunate that a candidate for the Illinois Bar arrogates to
>himself the right to decide who is a criminal and uses the words "take
>the law into our own hands," if only on his express orders.

Good point. I had not come across this little tirade from Matt Hale
before. It would indeed appear that Hale advocates "taking the law into
his own hands" if he deems it necessary, which is contrary to everything a
lawyer is supposed to stand for. That statement may be one of the "other
reasons" I speculated about besides Hale's racism and anti-Semitism as
possible reasons for the Illinois Bar Association's rejection of Hale's
application. If Hale's stupid enough to put such things on a web site
accessible to anyone, then what other writings of his may have been placed
into evidence for his application to the Bar? 



>While no one could quarrel with the idea that civil disobedience is an
>appropriate response to unjust laws, I don't recall which section of
>the US Constitution gives Matt Hale the right to decide who is a
>criminal and to act outside of the legal system.  Matt Hale doesn't
>say, "if the Jewish Occupied Government decides to violate our
>constitutional rights, we will fight them by every legal means."  If
>he had, then I don't think the Illinois Bar Association would have
>much reason for blocking Hale's membership.  But his statement
>indicates that he has a weak grasp of "the highest law of the land."

Which just goes to show that even graduating from law school and passing
the bar exam does not guarantee that someone actually understands the
"highest law of the land." One wonders what Hale was doing during his
years in law school that he would make such statements.

[Remainder snipped]

-- 
Orac        |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."--Orac
a.k.a.      |
David Gorski|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
            | inconvenience me with questions?"--Orac again

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor