The Facts and Circumstances of the Case

1. The (Federal court) system in this case and the FBI (Agent Mueller) have locked away an innocent man for 40 years without any evidence of the elements of the charges because he stood for and believed in the First Amendment guarantee of the given right of Freedom of Speech. Matthew Hale was tried and convicted in federal court in Chicago, Illinois in 2004 for soliciting the murder of Chicago Federal Judge Joan Lefkow. James T. Moody was the judge in the trial. No evidence was ever presented during the trial that Matthew solicited anyone to harm anyone, never mind commit murder. Matthew is an innocent man who has suffered at the hands of corrupt people and groups within the government including the FBI and our dishonest and unethical justice system. Perhaps fifteen years ago, such claims would have been dismissed out of hand, but today we see glaring evidence that such dishonesty does indeed exist!
2. Agents of the government worked with a man named Tony Evola, a government informant. They paid this unscrupulous individual $72,000 of our tax money to tape conversations with Matthew over a two year period in an attempt to obtain “evidence” that they could use to put Matt away.  Yet, on these very tapes, not once did Matthew ever ask this informant to kill anybody or to obtain the services of any third party to do so. In fact, Matthew refused Evola’s offer to engage in illegal acts several times on the tapes, a matter of illegal entrapment. Nearly the last taped statement Matthew said to the informant was, "I know the law Brother and I'm just not interested in breaking it".  Indeed, Evola was confused as to whom the government wanted Matt to ask him to kill! (He thought that the target was a man!) When the FBI realized that their tool believed that the desired target was a man, it had him send Matthew an email referring to “the target” as being “femala” (the word Evola used for female) so as to further their plan to charge Matthew with designs on Judge Lefkow’s life. The fact is, Evola is mentally challenged and any involvement by him in this matter should have rendered it unworthy of legal deliberation. [The entire trial transcript appears on our website (freematthale.org.) for your consideration or the consideration of anyone whom you wish to look further into the matter.] 
3. In January 2003, Matthew arrived at the courthouse in Chicago to go before Judge Joan Lefkow regarding a Trademark case having nothing to do with the matter for which he is now imprisoned. Upon his arrival, he was arrested. Interestingly enough, Judge Lefkow had ruled in Matthew’s favor in the Trademark case but a higher court had ordered her to reverse her decision; Matt was present at the courthouse in Chicago to appeal that ruling.  He had no animosity towards Judge Lefkow; indeed, she had sustained his claim in the first instance. Under the circumstances it is obvious that he never wanted her—or anyone else—killed. His presence before Judge Lefkow was to appeal the ruling that had been reversed at the orders of a higher court.
4. Matthew was not present for the entire jury selection even though he never waived that right. His Chicago attorney, Thomas Durkin, made that decision absent his client’s permission to do so. Matthew was present for about half of the jury selection although legally he had the right to be present for the entire selection.
5. Matthew suspected that Evola was a government informant but  wasn't concerned because he knew that he was an innocent man and would never do anything illegal or dishonorable. Matthew had gone to Law School to become an attorney and thus work to make legal changes in the government and in  our court system.
6. Several years after the trial, Matthew discovered that the jury foreman had testified in an unrelated case that he had disobeyed the judge’s order not to read anything about Matt and the case or listen to the media. After being accepted as one of the jurors, he further testified that he had went home and did in fact follow the media coverage about Matt and the case thus, in effect, disqualifying himself. According to this “juror,” he testified that he had run home and removed a note on his door saying that he was going to be a juror in the Hale trial. He did this, he said, because he was afraid that one of Matt’s “supporters” might harm him or partner! A defendant in any action must be protected from the irrational speculations of any proposed juror. That is what the jury selection process is supposed to prevent! This person should never have been permitted to sit on Matt’s jury! 
7. Matthew’s attorney had a list of over one hundred character witnesses but called none to testify. Since much of the jury’s determinations were swayed by negative presentations of Matt's character, such witnesses were essential to overcome what were opinions, not evidence. Most important, when Matthew told his attorney that he ought to testify, Durkin stated that “he wasn't prepared to do that” thus denying Matt one of his most basic rights at trial—the right to defend himself. In fact, Durkin refused to see Matthew at MCC to prepare for the case because he didn't like the conditions that obtained in that place, this according to Durkin’s associate Patrick Blegen. It would seem that a mistrial should be declared if on no other grounds than incompetent representation on the part of the defendant’s attorney!
8. Judge James T. Moody allowed another man’s crime to intrude into Matthew’s trial as a basis for the charges against him. It became very obvious that Judge Moody was as prejudiced against the defendant as the prosecutor. 
9. Matthew’s attorney, Thomas Durkin, actually insinuated to the jury that Matt deserved to be found  guilty “on moral grounds.” If that doesn’t represent improper representation of a defendant, I cannot imagine what would! 
10. Nearly the last statement prosecutor M. David Weisman made to the jury was that "the government had evidence that the defendant had a member of his organization kill two people and shoot lots of others. Not only was this an egregious lie unworthy of any serious consideration, but, far more important, the prosecutor was not legally permitted to make such a statement in summation. The only matter he could present to the jury was the evidence adduced at trial. Speculations upon other actions by the defendant having nothing to do with the matter being tried could not be raised because the defense would have no opportunity to refute them.
      Simply put, this “trial” was a travesty of justice. First, there was no evidence presented that the defendant was involved in any criminal activity including a murderous  plot against any indivudual, no evidence being produced regarding the elements of the charges.  Second, the criminal actions of the jury forman are openly acknowledged but no consequences have arisen even though the jury was tainted before the trial even started! A defendant is guaranteed an objective and impartial jury panel at any trial. Third, the defense attorney not only suggested that the jury find his own client guilty "on moral grounds"—an absolute betrayal of his obligation to Matthew—but he did not object to the prosecutor's improper statement at summation, neither did the judge demand the jury to disregard same or, more appropriately, call a mistrial.
11. Matthew Hale's trial was both tainted and prejudiced being suitable to an old-time Soviet purge than American justice. The jury foreman, an open  homosexual, professed to fearing "retribution" by Matthew's "supporters" even though there was nothing to justify his supposed fears. This man—and who knows how many others on the jury—went into their “deliberations” prepared to find Matt guilty not based upon any evidence of wrongdoing –because there was no evidence—but because they hated his views on certain cultural issues. Since those views were not the stated “cause” of prosecution—though, in fact, it was!—the matter should have had nothing to do with the finding of the verdict. In other words, Matthew Hale was guilty of having "hate thoughts" and speaking "hate speech" even without the commission of any"hate crime". The idea that being politically incorrect can send a man to prison should cause great concern today. 
12. Upon the guilty verdict Matthew was given a 40 year sentence based upon the sentencing guidelines for terrotists. Matthew Hale was never tried as a terrorist. As the result of this further injustice, he spent over 11 years in solitary confinement at Florence Supermax prison. Then suddenly he was sent to Terre Haute prison in Indiana for a short period and while there falsely charged with some violation of prison rules and placed in solitary confinement there for a further seven months. He has since been returned to Florence Admax and continued solitary confinement where he remains. It is not unreasonable to believe that, because Matt Hale contiues to work against the injustice he suffers, he was sent to Terre Haute prison to be set up yet again  Terre Haute is one of the ten worst prisons in the United States and during the first month of his incarceration in solitary confinement, he lost twenty pounds. Had that treatment continued, there would be no need for our present efforts to win his freedom.  
13. Repeatedly Matt has requested a polygraph test to prove his innocence—and has been refused. The government knows that a polygraph would go far to prove Matt innocent. 
      In conclusion: Matthew Hale has properly and legally fought to regain his freedom for over 16 years and, with God's help and the support of his family and friends, continues strong in that effort.
 Sad to say, as Col. Dreyfus was for the French, Matthew Hale is a political prisoner of the American government. Worse, if President Trump is not successful in stopping the tide of “political correctness,” he will only be one of the first to suffer. Tthere will be far, far more of those imprisoned and tortured for defying the Deep State.
Matthew F. Hale 15177-424				
U. S. Penitentiary Max 				            
P.O. Box 8500 					
Florence, CO 81226	

Evelyn Hutcheson
200 Carlson Ave. 25 H
Washington, IL 61571