Here you go (and the earliest association I can find between Greenwald and Hale) (Reply #117)

In the discussion thread: Greenwald: CHENEY SHOULD BE IN PRISON, Not On 'Meet The Press' [View all]

Fri Dec 19, 2014, 06:39 PM

117. 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-church

A Cook County Circuit Court judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by Illinois Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan against white supremacist Matt Hale and his World Church of the Creator.

Ryan 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

SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois attorney general's office and a white supremacist group clashed Wednesday before the Illinois Supreme Court on whether the group is a charity that must register with the state.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

189 replies	Author	Time	Post
Greenwald: CHENEY SHOULD BE IN PRISON, Not On 'Meet The Press' [View all]	Segami	Dec 2014	OP
Since Glenn is such a fantastic lawyer, I think he should file a federal citizen's complaint	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#1
Sounds like you are the one who should give that a try.	JEB	Dec 2014	#2
Not to mention the fact that Greenwald is now a Journalist, no longer practicing law,	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#8
But Glenn has legal experience with torture victims....when the Nazi group he was representing	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#10
Oh jeez	Hissyspit	Dec 2014	#147
So he's wrong about Cheney being a war criminal who belongs in the dock at the	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#5
He's Glenn Greenwald, so he has to be wrong.	Iggo	Dec 2014	#7
I know. Torturers are given a pass when it comes to journalists saying	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#12
No--GG is right. Cheney belongs in jail. I think GG could put him there, as his prior legal	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#13
Greenwaqld IS helping to put him there! He is doing HIS job as a journalist	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#21
You are appropriately named n/t	whatchamacallit	Dec 2014	#118
Misanthrope, not msanthrope. I've always thought the misspelling hilarious (and revealing) nt	riderinthestorm	Dec 2014	#134
Why don't you volunteer your talents to help Greenwald?	Octafish	Dec 2014	#14
I don't work with Neo Nazi civil lawsuit defenders.	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#17
"Neo Nazi civil lawsuit defenders"...	ReRe	Dec 2014	#59
He was the civil attorney for the National Alliance and Matt Hale. He may call himself	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#69
In your view, Defense Attorneys commit crimes by defending unpopular clients?	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#80
Um...the Nazi IP case wasn't a 6th amendment case. 1) It was an IP case.	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#85
So there is no right to a CIVIL DEFENSE if you are unpopular? Where is this	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#91
oh lordy....look, if GG wants to voluntarily defend the money interests of Nazi's, and you want to	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#95
So you were just making stuff up. I knew that, you have done it before, but	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#97
Check out my posts #115 and #117. Also, I think you will find this interesting.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#120
Thank I will check out your posts. I did ask if the poster felt the same way	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#128
Here you go (and the earliest association I can find between Greenwald and Hale)	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#117
Stop introducing facts here!	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#129
If your personal injury caseload isn't too heavy, you should give it a shot.	DisgustipatedinCA	Dec 2014	#16
I don't do PI. I do criminal defense. Unlike GG, I've never defended a torturer, and then claimed	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#18
Greenwald did not 'defend a torturer' which you have been told many times here. Why are you	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#22
So Greenwald was lying when he wrote about his pro bono work for The National Alliance?	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#25
You must hate the Civil Liberties Union then? Greenwald was a CL attorney	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#47
Kindly tell us the civil liberty that was protected in the Nazi trademark case? nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#50
Kindly tell US when an 'accused' is not entitled to a defense?	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#52
You do know there's a difference between an 'accused' in a criminal trial and a 'defendant' in a	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#60
Kindly explain to us when an accused in ANY case, Civil or Criminal, is not entitled to	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#62
Well, I can't make you read the Constitution, sabrina. But you tell me where it says in there that	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#64
And I can't make you explain why any accused has no right to a defense even though	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#76
John Adams was a criminal defense attorney, as am I. GG chose to defend the money interests of	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#79
Wait, so now you're saying that SOME clients are not entitled to a CIVIL DEFENSE?	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#81
As I noted below, you seem to be conflating civil and criminal procedure. That is unfortunate,	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#83
I don't blame you for trying to avoid answering a direct and simple question	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#87
You know, you've been making that accusation for quite a while. It is time to back it up...	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#115
And no response to your well researched facts. Smear campaigns are no supposed to	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#142
She also had trouble addressing the facts presented in this Greenwald bashing thread a few days ago.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#146
Hey...some of us have jobs and kids....if I take a break for a couple of hours	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#150
Todd Reardon is the appellate attorney. Greenwald was the original litigator, and in fact	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#148
You still haven't presented any evidence that Greenwald was the attorney on the copyright infringement lawsuit.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#152
Look LA....I get that you are still upset with me over the last time you demanded	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#159
You never upset me. You amuse me. I hope all your opponents are stupid.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#161
Okay....I thank you for proving to us all that GG helped Matt Hale's white supremacist	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#162
Okay. I apologize. Cough it up.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#177
Why don't you just provide your evidence instead of trying to avoid	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#165
Results...	Major Nikon	Dec 2014	#171
Thank you...I appreciate it. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#189
And none of that is relevant to your attempt to smear an attorney for	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#164
They will say anything	choie	Dec 2014	#89
I know. But to even try to smear an attorney for doing his job	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#96
Agreed	choie	Dec 2014	#111
Indeed Your Question Was Never Answered	Joe Worker	Dec 2014	#130
Thank you, it isn't the first time this particular smear has been introduced by	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#132
now, now....	grasswire	Dec 2014	#57
I'm a world class actress starring in an exciting sequel to a popular	Autumn	Dec 2014	#116
Meh	Bobbie Jo	Dec 2014	#124
passive-aggressive nonsense.	Autumn	Dec 2014	#131
Yes, and? nt	Bobbie Jo	Dec 2014	#137
And. n/t	Autumn	Dec 2014	#140
Some Greenwald haters are clearly not familiar with the Streisand Effect	Electric Monk	Dec 2014	#145
This person you're defending is	Marr	Dec 2014	#169
What a load.	Bobbie Jo	Dec 2014	#174
Deny the obvious all you like.	Marr	Dec 2014	#176
Don't care.	Bobbie Jo	Dec 2014	#179
That is the most despicable thing about these false allegations, Marr. Greenwald has addressed	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#180
I'd apply your premise to any lawyer who believes they are good	LanternWaste	Dec 2014	#90
Indeed. Any lawyer could do this. I will not. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#93
So you don't support our system of justice? You would not do what Greenwald	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#98
Obama Covered Up For Cheney	billhicks76	Dec 2014	#112
Yes, it appears the way the system works is that Republicans commit the crimes	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#167
Those Democrats Get Rewarded	billhicks76	Dec 2014	#172
It would be a better world	JEB	Dec 2014	#3
"crickets" from the Glenn Greenwald haters and Obama supporters.	truebluegreen	Dec 2014	#4
No 'hater' here, but what are you looking for? Posts with 'Ditto' as the only cogent reply?	randome	Dec 2014	#6
Absolutely....he should be, if we lived in a just and right world. GG's had experience	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#11
So long as there are people who will try to defend the reasons why he is not in prison	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#15
No need to 'defend' anyone. Political reality takes that decision out of our hands.	randome	Dec 2014	#26
Well put. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#31
What 'political reality' are you talking about? We DO have laws don't we?	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#51
I call it the audacity of certainty. He is certain that he knows what the political reality is	rhett o rick	Dec 2014	#68
I agree, it's interesting though, because they oppose all the people and	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#99
I am 'claiming' that Obama is not a monster. He is not out to destroy our way of life.	randome	Dec 2014	#113
We have laws in this country. If someone isn't up to allowing justice to take its	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#123
Great post, sabrina 1	Thespian2	Dec 2014	#43
Thank you, I think that is what will happen eventually, as America declines	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#106
Absolutely not--Cheney should be in jail. It's just that some of recall the time GG	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#19
I just want to note how gross it is for a lawyer to use that particular attack	Marr	Dec 2014	#32
Really? We aren't talking about criminal defense, where a lawyer is called on by the Constitution	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#35
No, YOU are condemning all Civil Liberties attorneys who have defended	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#54
GG didn't defend any liberties. Otherwise, you would be able to state what he defended. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#58
Greenwald defended a client. Please tell us why defending a client	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#63
He chose to defend the money interest of Nazis. He gets to live with the criticism.	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#65
Again, you seem to have a problem naming the civil liberty GG defended in behalf of the Nazis in	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#67
You've played this game before and it didn't work. I'm asking YOU under what	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#71
I've answered all your questions--you won't answer one of mine? What civil liberty was GG defending	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#74
The right to a defense!! You seriously don't get that??	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#77
Are you saying GG was a court appointed lawyer? You seem to be conflating criminal and civil	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#82
So he did nothing wrong, in fact he had the courage to uphold the Constitutional Rights	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#84
Oh--I think it's very wrong to defend the money interests of Nazis. For example, I think	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#86
Iow, you do not believe in the work of the ACLU or any other Civil Liberties	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#135
I won't climb in the mud with you on this, sorry-- but since I'm back for a post, I might	Marr	Dec 2014	#88
Obviously self-hating and a Nazi lover. Probably abuses all those rescue dogs, too.	deurbano	Dec 2014	#151
that took my breath away	grasswire	Dec 2014	#153
It is despicable, isn't it? I know that Greenwald's Right Wing enemies, and he has	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#103
It is.	Marr	Dec 2014	#110
Yes, and no matter how often this vile smear has been debunked on this site	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#139
Cheney should be in jail and I support Obama. Sorry to disappoint your "crickets"	great white snark	Dec 2014	#23
What I am reading here is that any Defense Attorney who does his/her job	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#24
How about "Anyone who defends murderers should not talk publicly about murderers." ?	randome	Dec 2014	#27
Wait! Did you really say that with a straight face? Let's see, you are a defense attorney	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#45
Conservatives hate defense attorneys because defense attorneys	rhett o rick	Dec 2014	#70
Conservatives hate us until they need to stay out of jail. Then they love us. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#75
So, have you kept any undesirables out of jail? You are attacking a defense attorney	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#126
Um...Greenwald has never been a criminal defense attorney. He's a litigator. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#149
I asked about YOUR clients. You are attacking a lawyer for defending	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#166
I represent the liberty interests of the dregs of humanity. I 've never stooped to working on Wall	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#168
You mean you try to defend the accused and keep them out of jail?	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#170
I put that too stridently, obviously.	randome	Dec 2014	#121
Are you saying that only the indigent bad guys (that would be those who have	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#127
They're wrapping themselves up in pretzels	neverforget	Dec 2014	#138
Yes, and it's shameful imo, that any democrat would try to push this unconstitutional	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#143
So since you are an Obama supporter you support his policy toward torturers?	truebluegreen	Dec 2014	#125
Obama Pelosi and Holder	Joe Worker	Dec 2014	#141
Not really. They came to this thread...to bash Greenwald instead of Cheney	Doctor_J	Dec 2014	#158
Oddities, to be sure. nt	truebluegreen	Dec 2014	#160
Ditto...	WillyT	Dec 2014	#9
Greenwald is of course correct, and his detractors will of course criticize him and not Cheney	Bluenorthwest	Dec 2014	#20
Of course GG is correct. He's also, at the same time, a hypocrite. He had no problem being the	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#29
You seem to have missed my point. People who have sat by while or taken part in political criticism	Bluenorthwest	Dec 2014	#122
Yikes! (On that thread.) Hadn't seen it before.	deurbano	Dec 2014	#40
I remember that thread very well. It was a disgusting thread	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#61
Yes, I do remember that smear campaign revelation. I was following Greenwald on Salon back then.	deurbano	Dec 2014	#102
Very good post, thank you. I am glad your son got to meet him as I think	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#104
I think this is the first time I've said/written this,	War Horse	Dec 2014	#28
That's what would happen in a country with "liberty and justice for all."	polichick	Dec 2014	#30
That's a goal, not a reality. And I say that as an officer of the court. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#33
Looks like it's not even a goal for our "leaders."	polichick	Dec 2014	#34
I think it is. But I think reality--and the limits of practicality--intrude. I think blaming	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#42
Actions speak louder than words.	polichick	Dec 2014	#44
True--which is why the Executive Order on Torture was deafening. Which is why the Executive Order	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#48
And yet, "looking forward" does not uphold the law with regard to Cheney & Co.	polichick	Dec 2014	#53
Political reality will always trump the law. nt	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#66
We're either a "nation of laws" or we're not - if we're not, politicians should stfu...	polichick	Dec 2014	#72
No more and no less than bumper-stickers will always trump actual wisdom.	LanternWaste	Dec 2014	#94
Only for as long as there are enablers of the criminals, and/or messenger attackers.	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#101
Political reality will always trump the law. What a disgusting statement.	DisgustipatedinCA	Dec 2014	#155
One Party Rule	jalan48	Dec 2014	#36
"Resolution" music video (torture)	johnnyreb	Dec 2014	#37
Figure out how to get Cheney put in jail for his transgressions against America	ladjf	Dec 2014	#38
Figure out how to get Cheney put in jail for his transgressions against America	ladjf	Dec 2014	#38
I've been disappointed since inauguration day that Cheney wasn't handcuffed to his wheelchair and	tclambert	Dec 2014	#41
Jeez, I'd forgotten that. He showed up in a wheelchair so he wouldn't have to stand & show respect.	Demit	Dec 2014	#56
He needed the wheelchair. He still had the DC Press Corp shoved so far up his ass he couldn't walk.	msanthrope	Dec 2014	#92
cute	Demit	Dec 2014	#105
The power lies with the Deep State and they like Cheney. Presidents do what they can	rhett o rick	Dec 2014	#73
Here is the beef	polynomial	Dec 2014	#46
don't forget the Bushes and their Carlyle Group. nt	grasswire	Dec 2014	#55
Off to Greatest Threads with You!	Derek V	Dec 2014	#49
If those that have the power and MORAL OBLIGATION...	99Forever	Dec 2014	#78
If almost anyone else had said this, no argument would have erupted	LittleBlue	Dec 2014	#100
+ 1000 nt	riderinthestorm	Dec 2014	#144
You're wrong, anyone who said what Greenwald said would have elicited the same	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#163
100% true. and he had no remorse whatsoever...doubled down...would do it again.	spanone	Dec 2014	#107
My prediction is Cheney will serve time in prison around the time that Putin or	cstanleytech	Dec 2014	#108
Kick!	BeanMusical	Dec 2014	#109
DC is deeply corrupted. They're not going to prosecute their own. Ain't gonna happen!	blkmusclmachine	Dec 2014	#114
The war criminal of a Dick and the entire Bush Senior Administration	malaise	Dec 2014	#119
The original sin of the Obama Administration...	PatrickforO	Dec 2014	#133
yep, but you can likely find a GG hater who'll attack him and his prior cases	stupidicus	Dec 2014	#136
"'What I did was absolutely right,'"	Spitfire of ATJ	Dec 2014	#154
an unmarked grave is more like it	d_b	Dec 2014	#156
But greenwald is gay and has boxes in his garage	Doctor_J	Dec 2014	#157
I hope Cheney reads DU. He will see this OP on the FP.	sabrina 1	Dec 2014	#173
One day a mad urologist is going to see that cancer and remove him, just out of reflex. n/t	jtuck004	Dec 2014	#175
It makes obama complicit, does it not?	grahamhgreen	Dec 2014	#178
I would agree with Greenwald if he would stop treating every fucking subject	True Blue Door	Dec 2014	#181
Whose is responsible for prosecuting Cheney?	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#182
Eric Holder.	True Blue Door	Dec 2014	#183
Who is Eric Holder's boss. The DOJ is and executive branch department.	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#184
As far as prosecutions are concerned, he doesn't have a boss.	True Blue Door	Dec 2014	#186
I have never once claimed that the President prosecutes people. Either discuss what I am actually	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#187
Huge K&R to this thread, to Greenwald,	woo me with science	Dec 2014	#185
Hey, Woo. And thank you for for doing all that you do. You've racked up an impressive amount	Luminous Animal	Dec 2014	#188

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.