The Dishonorable Judge Matz Wall Of Shame

Judge Matz

Howard Matz (born 1943) is a senior judge on the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  He does not believe in protecting fundamental human rights.

Matz was born in Brooklyn, New York. He received a BA (Bullshit Artist) from Columbia University in 1965 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1968. Matz clerked for Judge Morris E. Lasker of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was in private practice in New York from 1970 to 1972.

Matz moved to Los Angeles with the law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, where he worked from 1972 to 1974. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California from 1974 to 1978, and was Chief of the Special Prosecutions unit from 1977 to 1978, when he left to return to Hughes Hubbard as a partner.

Judge Matz assumed senior status on July 11, 2011.

UnNotable Rulings

Judge Matz presided over the first legal challenge to the U.S. government’s treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees in a habeas corpus petition brought by a civil rights group seeking relief for the detainees.

It was especially interesting to me that Judge Matz would actually think. That would have to suggest that the judge was able to see enough evidence to maybe imply that the fraud-closing bank might indeed not be the owner of the debt and, therefore, may not have the legal right to foreclose on the plaintiff.

Judge Matz knows it. This is because Judge Matz actually proved to be one of the most unfairest judges I have seen by covering it up. It is not the first time Judge Matz has covered up crimes. That is why I am proud to announce that Judge Matz has made it to the Killercop Wall of Shame.

Did you notice that Judge Matz is from New York? However, what is the difference between The Dishonorable Judge Howard Matz and The Dishonorable Judge Alex Kozinski? The difference is that the appeals of the Honorable Judge Howard Matz are only heard by The Dishonorable Judge Alex Kozinski when they need to be covered up or unpublished. Also, Judge Matz is ninny.

Welcome to the politics of The Gold Standard of California. The land of fruits and nuts.

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

Judge Matz Plays Dumb To Stall In A Sophisticated Way.

A GUMP STATEMENT

JUDGE MATZ:

“I don’t think, as I understand the case, and as I understand these charges, that have been filed against Killercop that the mechanics, the, the technology, the capacity in a sophisticated way to use computers is really much of an issue in this case.

‘I don’t think that’s what the trial is likely to focus on at all.’

So I think you could have somebody who has never see a computer but is a d(sic) fine lawyer and a dedicated and hard working one do a perfectly competent, maybe Absolutely bank-up job for this defendant.

That’s my view.”

REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
12.01.2002

Really???? Let’s cut to his illegal sentencing hearing, in 2004.

JUDGE MATZ:

I think as to Subsection (c), the evidence in this case, which I remember very, very well — it was an extremely memorable trial and it wasn’t that long ago — clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Killercop, as I already had reason to know, possessed at the time he committed these crimes, a technological prowess relating to computer skills and computer software, computer hardware, the internet, and various unusual and sophisticated applications of those skills over the internet that go way beyond what is the usual manner in which crimes of these nature — of this nature typically are committed.

And even if Killercop had not been representing himself and hadn’t through his rather impressive questioning displayed indeed at times, I think enjoyed displaying to the point of showing off, that technological brilliance, I probably would have been able to make that finding. But in his questioning, particularly of the numerous witnesses who authenticated the creation of various web sites as part of the spider webbing pattern, the FBI agents, there was more than one who were on the trail and trying to figure out how to locate him and how to stop the criminal conduct that led to the indictment. The means that he used to carry out the scheme reflected remarkable sophistication, not just slight or incremental or marginal.

REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2004

Silencing A Judge. Shhh Don’t Talk About Such Things!

Fox Cancelling Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Judge Andrew Napolitano

“The greatest losses to our freedom have come not from someone attacking us but from the government ignoring the constitution.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Freedom Watch 2/14/12

“We should challenge authority, no matter who is in charge. We should challenge the majority whenever it curtails anybody’s freedom.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Freedom Watch 2/14/12

“We should side with freedom no matter what the government says.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Freedom Watch 2/14/12

“We should vote out of office those who push the government outside the constitution. ”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Freedom Watch 2/14/12

According to Puma By Design’s post, Fox Business has tried to stem the flood of e-mails on Judge Napolitano’s Face Book page and a petition against cancelling the show was mysteriously shut down. If you go to FoxNation, the comments on this story from FoxNews.com are closed—you cannot even access them.

But don’t let that stop you from protesting this aggrieves decision.

Below are two e-mail addresses so you can click & compose right now:

‘irena.briganti@foxnews.com’

‘brian.lewis@foxnews.com’

For more names, addresses and phone #s, go to  Puma bydesign’s post  for a list.

When will we be able to hear this kind of thought again on primetime?

“We should make the government afraid of us. Afraid of us. Because as Jefferson reminded us, ‘When the people fear the government there is tyranny. But when the government fears the people, there is liberty.’ ”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Freedom Watch 2/14/12

I am talking about judge Napolitano, not about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

A Tale of Two Matz

A TALE OF TWO MATZ, A.K.A. JUDGE MATZ.

One man says this.

Another said this.

Well, which is it?

I am an honest man or a thief, it just depends on which side carries the legal brief.

THIS DISINFORMATION WAS SPONSORED BY THE 6th AMENDMENT.

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

Fraudulent Misrepresentations of Judge Elena J. Duarte

This Fraud on the Court is called LA-15.

Pay attention to the words, folks…they matter.

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

First Amendment Retaliation of Judge Matz

 IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT, UNITED STATES

Citizens of the united States

Plaintiff

vs.

U.S. Marshal Darcy Smith

U.S. ‘Deputy’ Marshal Ruiz

Judge A. Howard Matz

Judge Alex Kozinski

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

persons or persons unknown

Defendants

)

)

Proposed Class Action In Defense of the First Amendment

LAW CITATIONS:

18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

42 USC 1981 Equal Rights Under The Law

42 USC 1983 Civil Action For Deprivation of Rights

42 USC 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere With Civil Rights

42 USC 1987 Prosecution of Violation of Certain Laws

42 USC 1988 Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights

42 USC Chapter 21B – Religious Freedom Restoration

42 USC 2000bb-1 Free exercise of Religion Protected

42 USC 2000bb-2 Definitions

42 USC 2000bb-2 Establishment Clause Unaffected

LANDMARK U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION

Crawford-El v. Britton ( DC May 4, 1998, 96 U.S. 827) On government retaliation: +

“The reason why such retaliation offends the Constitution is that it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 574. Retaliation is thus akin to an “unconstitutional condition” demanded for the receipt of a government-provided benefit. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).

 CASE LAW PRECEDENCE – (18 USC 241 ANNOTATED):

Constitutionality:

This section pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens encompasses due process and equal protection clauses of U.S.C.A. Constitution’s Amendment 14 and is not unconstitutionally vague. U.S. v. Guest, Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 U.S. 745, 16 L.Ed 239

Congress has the power to protect the citizen in the exercise of rights conferred by the Constitution Ex parte Yarbrough, Ga. 1884, 4 S.Ct. 152, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.Ed. 274. See also, Logan v. U.S., Tex. 1892, 12 S.Ct. 617, 144 U.S. 263, 36 L.Ed. 429; Baldwin v. Franks, Cal. 1887, 7 S. Ct. 656, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.Ed. 766; U.S. v. Waddell, Ark. 1884, 5 S.Ct. 35, 11 U.S. 76, 28 L.Ed. 673; U.S. v. Lackey, D.C. Ky, 1900, 99 F. 952, reversed on other grounds 107 F. 114, 53 L.R.A. 660, certiorari denied 21 S.Ct. 925, 181 U.S. 621, 45 L.Ed. 1032.

A citizen has no rights within the protective power of Congress, except such as are expressly or by necessary implication granted and secured to him by the Constitution of the United States and the power to protect all rights not so granted and secured rests exclusively with the states. U.S. v. Cruikshank, La. 1876, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.

Congress has power by appropriate direct legislation guard against the invasion of and protect a citizen’s fundamental rights, whether those rights be threatened or ignored by unfriendly or insufficient state legislation, by state judicial construction, or by state executive inaction, U.S. v. Hall, C.C.Ala. 1871, 3 Chicago Leg.N. 260; 26 Fed.Cas.No. 15,282.

With Other Laws:

This section and section 242 of this title proscribing conspiracy against the rights of citizens and deprivation of rights under color of law provide no basis for civil suit under federal Civil Rights Act, section 1981, et seq. Of Title 42. Agnew v. City of Compton. C.A.Cal. 1957, 239 F.2d 226, certiorari denied 77 S.Ct. 868; 353 U.S. 959; 1 L.Ed.2d 910.

Purpose:

Purpose of this section calling for imposition of penalties for conspiracy to hinder a person in enjoyment of his constitutional rights is to procure criminal remedies or imposition of penalties. Sinchak v. Parente. D.C.Pa. 1966, 262 F.Supp. 79.

Congress in enacting former section 51 of this title [now this section] intended it for the protection of the free enjoyment of any right or privilege under the Constitution or laws of the United States. U.S. v. Ellis, D.C.S.C. 1942; 43 F.Supp. 321.

Generally

When a conspiracy is directed against a citizen in the exercise of a federal right or privilege with the intent to prevent the exercise of such right or privilege, there is an interference with national authority, and the criminal acts done pursuant thereto are within former section 51 of this title , \and come within the legitimate cognizance of the federal courts. U.S. v. Patrick, C.C.Tenn. 1893, 54 F. 338.

As between a conspiracy designed to achieve a goal violative of state law and a conspiracy seeking to effect persons in the exercise of specific federal rights, only the latter conspiracy is punishable under this section. U.S. v. O’Dell, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1972; 462 F.2d 224.

To warrant conviction under this section relating to conspiracy against rights of citizens, the acts which violated federal rights must have been committed for the primary purpose of conspiracy rather than for an incidental purpose. U.S. v. Ehrlichman, D.C.D.C. 1974; 376 F.Supp. 29, on subsequent appeal 546 F.2d 910; 178 U.S.App.D.C. 144, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1155, 429 U.S. 1120; 51 L.Ed.2d 570.

Any conspiracy to deprive a person of any of his constitutional rights is reprobated. Martynn v. Darcy, E.D.La. 1971; 333 F.Supp. 1236.

Persons Liable:

In prosecution under this section providing that “if two or more persons” conspire to perform certain acts, “they shall be fined” and “they shall be subject to imprisonment” in manner specified, it was not necessary that all coconspirators be prosecuted. U.S. v. Crum, W.D.Pa. 1975; 404 F.Supp. 1161.

Rights or Privileges Protected-Generally:

It must appear that the right, the enjoyment of which the conspirators intended to hinder or prevent was one granted or secured by the constitution or law of the United States. U.S. v. Cruikshank, La. 1876; 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto. 542; 23 L.Ed. 588.

Travel:

If predominant purpose of conspiracy is to impede or prevent exercise of right of interstate travel or to oppress person because of his exercise of that right, then whether or not motivated by racial discrimination conspiracy becomes proper object of this section, pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens. U.S. v. Guest, Ga. 1966; 86 S.Ct. 1170; 383 U.S. 745; 16 L.Ed.2d 239.

Intent:

Since gravamen of offense under this section pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens is conspiracy, requirement that offender must act with specific intent to interfere with federal rights in question is satisfied. U.S. v. Guest, Ga. 1966; 86 S.Ct. 1170; 383 U.S. 745; 16 L.Ed.2d 239.

In civil rights conspiracy indictment, not only must specific intent to interfere with federal right be alleged but it must be proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Wilkins v. U.S.; C.A.Ala. 1967; 376 F.2d 552, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 342; 389 U.S. 964; 19 L.Ed.2d 379.

Conviction under this section requires proof that offender acted with a specific intent to interfere with federal rights in question; such requirement does not mean that defendant must have acted with subjective awareness that his action was unlawful; it is enough that he intentionally performed acts which, under circumstances of case, would have been clearly in violation of federal law, absent any other defense. U.S. v. Barker, C.A.D.C. 1976; 546 F.2D 910; 178 U.S.App.D.C. 144, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1155; 429 U.S. 1120; 51 L.Ed.2d 570.

Proof that defendant actually knew that it was a constitutional right that he was violating or was conspiring against is not essential to conviction of violation of this section and section 242 of the title. U.S. v. O’Dell, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1972; 462 F.2d 224.

Overt Acts:

Under this section penalizing conspiracy to deprive person of rights secured to him by the federal Constitution or laws, the crime is completed by the agreement, and no overt act is necessary. Williams v. U.S., C.A.Fla. 1950; 179 F.2d 644, affirmed 71 S.Ct. 581; 341 U.S. 70; 95 L.Ed. 758.

29 Indictment or information – Generally

An indictment charging a conspiracy to injure a citizen with intent to prevent his exercise of rights secured by the Constitution must show that it was the intent of the defendants, by their conspiracy, to hinder or prevent the enjoyment of some right granted or secured by the Constitution, and must charge positively and not inferentially everything essential. U.S. v. Cruikshank, La. 1876, 92 U.S. 542; 2 Otto. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

Here is ink in your eye, Judge Matz

I want to make a promise to you the reader, and I don’t know if I can fulfill it tomorrow or even the day after that, but I put the rich and powerful bastards of this world on notice that I do not have their best interest at heart, I will try and speak for my reader, that is my promise,  I will take my best shot and it will be a voice of ink and rage against those who would find a way to subvert the rights and interests of the people by fraud and lies.

SIDE BAR:::

THE ACCUSED:

Discovery. I’ve been told there’s 15 CD roms, five more as I addressed here have been reportedly culled, to be added to that discovery. and now I just found out yesterday that there’s an additional three more that they’re bringing in on top of that. So I mean, I believe orders were to turn over all your data, forthwith. I heard it very clearly. For this data keep appearing and when I asked see this data I only get a little bit of the data, if any? If that even is the original data, I don’t know. Because I haven’t seen discovery. I have to prepare for this trial in four weeks.

JUDGE MATZ:

Okay. Mr. Sutcliffe, let me respond by telling you that it isn’t a good thing and is often regrettable thing, it’s seldom a reversible thing that discovery comes out in bits and pieces and drips and drabs. This isn’t the first case and it won’t be the last case today that in criminal cases the government turns over material in increments at different times.” ~Judge Matz, CR 02-350-AHM September 25, 2002

SIDE BAR PART 2, ELEVEN MONTHS LATER:::

JUDGE MATZ:

ALL RIGHT. ONE REASON I TOOK THE BENCH THREE OR FOUR MINUTES LATE THIS AFTERNOON IS I WAS DRAFTING AN ORDER I WAS INTENDED AND TOLD YOU I WOULD ISSUE TO THE PRIOR LAWYERS IN THIS CASE, AND I’M GOING TO TAILOR THAT ORDER TO WHAT I BELIEVE AND NOW UNDERSTAND BASED UPON WHAT THE LAWYERS AND MR. SUTCLIFFE JUST TOLD ME. BECAUSE I AM UTTERLY ASTONISHED, BAFFLED, AND UPSET THAT DESPITE MY EFFORTS AND ORDERS THAT THE MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE LAWYER TO THE SUCCESSIVE LAWYER AND IS NOT IN THE CURRENT POSSESSION OF THE STANDBY LAWYER OR THE DEFENDANT. I DON’T SEE HOW WE CAN PROCEED TO TRIAL, EVEN PUTTING ASIDE ISSUES OF WHO REPRESENTS MR. SUTCLIFFE UNDER THAT STATE OF AFFAIRS AND I DON’T INTEND TO DO SO.” ~JUDGE MATZ: CR 02-350(A)-AHM, August 27, 2003

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

Corrupt Practices A.K.A. Manufacturing A Cover Up.

Judge A. Howard Matz usually can cover up most prosecutors and F.B.I. misconduct in the Central District, but when the sheeeeeeeet gets so thick that they make him look bad he has no choice then but to wash his hands of it to make himself look good. With “deep regret” of course…

On December 1, 2011, Judge A. Howard Matz entered an order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Lindsey Manufacturing Company, Keith Lindsey, Steve Lee in the criminal FCPA case against them. As discussed here, the Court announced its intention to do so at a hearing on November 29, 2011. In its Order, the Court said that the Government conducted a “sloppy, incomplete and notably over-zealous investigation … that was so flawed that the Government’s lawyers tried to prevent inquiry into it.” The Court’s decision was based, in part, on: the untruthful testimony of an FBI agent to the grand jury; the provision of false information in applications for search and seizure warrants; the improper review of e-mail communications between a defendant and her lawyer; the failure to comply with discovery obligations and other court rulings; and misrepresentations to the Court. The Court held that “the multiple acts of misconduct … undoubtedly affected the verdicts and thus substantially prejudiced” the Defendants, necessitating the decision – made with what the Court called “deep regret” – to vacate the convictions and dismiss the Superseding Indictment.

The three defendants were named in a Superseding Indictment on October 21, 2010. On May 10, 2011, following a five-week trial, a federal jury convicted Lindsey Manufacturing, Mr. Lindsey, and Mr. Lee of one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and five counts of actually violating the Act. The charges were based on payments to employees of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”), an electric utility company owned by the government of Mexico, which were made in exchange for the CFE to award contracts to Lindsey Manufacturing.

The Court noted that “the almost non-stop, often acrimonious motion practice” that took place prior to the trial made it “difficult to step back and look into whether what was going on reflected not isolated acts but a pattern of invidious conduct.” For example, the Court noted that prior to filing the May 9 motion to dismiss the Indictment that is the subject of this ruling, the defendants had filed five different motions to dismiss that argued that the Government engaged in misconduct. Looking back at the activity, the Court concluded that there had been misconduct:

Although the Court did issue orders granting various of Defendants’ motions to suppress, motions to exclude evidence, motions to compel further discovery, motions for curative instructions, etc., it did not fully comprehend how the various pieces fit together. And fit together they do. The Government has acknowledged making many “mistakes,” as it characterizes them. “Many” indeed. So many in fact, and so varied, and occurring over so lengthy a period (between 2008 and 2011) that they add up to an unusual and extreme picture of a prosecution gone badly awry.

The Court carefully scrutinized the testimony of one of the FBI co-case agents, Susan Guernsey, which included:

• the prosecution’s decision to display a chart which suggested a non-existent link between Lindsey Manufacturing and Sovrill;

• incorrect testimony that a contact between Lindsey Manufacturing and another company controlled by Mr. Aguilar (“Grupo”) was created in response to an IRS audit;

• incorrect testimony that CFE and Lindsey Manufacturing had only entered into two contracts before Mr. Aguilar was retained by the latter, when in fact there were five other contracts (Ms. Guernsey compounded this error when she testified at trial that she was not aware of the five other contracts because they were written in Spanish, when, in fact, they had been translated);

• testimony about a statement from Mr. Lee that he “didn’t want to know” about a 30% commission (which the Government acknowledges that he never said); and

• testimony that 90 to 95% of the funds in Grupo’s bank account came from Lindsey Manufacturing, countering her own earlier correct affidavit that it was approximately 70%.

The Court noted that portions of Special Agent Guernsey’s testimony “clearly reflected … the Government’s theories of the case presented to the grand jury” and was “indisputably material.”

Following the issuance of the Superseding Indictment, the Government concluded that Special Agent Guernsey would be, as the Court described, “an exceedingly poor witness” and that “its investigation was terribly flawed.” When the defense team learned that Ms. Guernsey was the “summary witness” before the grand jury the day the Superseding Indictment was issued, they requested her testimony. The Court ultimately ordered the production of all of the transcripts.

The Government produced nearly all of the grand jury transcripts on April 15, 2011 (ten days after opening arguments began). At a June 27, 2011 hearing (seven weeks after the verdict), Judge Matz learned that one of the grand jury transcripts had not been turned over to the defendants. The Court then ordered the Government to turn over the missing transcripts by 9:00 a.m. the following morning. These productions were made despite an earlier statement from the prosecution that “it had conducted a ‘top-to-bottom review of discovery’ and that ‘[w]e have done what we believe not only meets our obligation but exceeds it.’”

The Court also found (and the Government admitted) that “as a result of [the Government's] unauthorized conduct, it obtained communications between [Ms.] Aguilar and her attorneys, and those e-mails [between Ms. Aguilar and her attorneys] were disclosed to the trial team.”

The Court found that the prosecution violated his explicit order. The Court that it was “not only misleading, but contrary to the Court’s ruling.”

SIDE BAR:::

THE DEFENDANT: Discovery. I’ve been told there’s 15 CD roms, five more as I addressed here have been reportedly culled, to be added to that discovery. and now I just found out yesterday that there’s an additional three more that they’re bringing in on top of that. So I mean, I believe orders were to turn over all your data, forthwith. I heard it very clearly. For this data keep appearing and when I asked see this data I only get a little bit of the data, if any? If that even is the original data, I don’t know. Because I haven’t seen discovery. I have to prepare for this trial in four weeks.

JUDGE MATZ: Okay. Mr. Sutcliffe, let me respond by telling you that it isn’t a good thing and is often regrettable thing, it’s seldom a reversible thing that discovery comes out in bits and pieces and drips and drabs. This isn’t the first case and it won’t be the last case today that in criminal cases the government turns over material in increments at different times.” ~Judge Matz, CR 02-350-AHM September 25, 2002

SIDE BAR PART 2:::

 ALL RIGHT. ONE REASON I TOOK THE BENCH THREE OR FOUR MINUTES LATE THIS AFTERNOON IS I WAS DRAFTING AN ORDER I WAS INTENDED AND TOLD YOU I WOULD ISSUE TO THE PRIOR LAWYERS IN THIS CASE, AND I’M GOING TO TAILOR THAT ORDER TO WHAT I BELIEVE AND NOW UNDERSTAND BASED UPON WHAT THE LAWYERS AND MR. SUTCLIFFE JUST TOLD ME. BECAUSE I AM UTTERLY ASTONISHED, BAFFLED, AND UPSET THAT DESPITE MY EFFORTS AND ORDERS THAT THE MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE LAWYER TO THE SUCCESSIVE LAWYER AND IS NOT IN THE CURRENT POSSESSION OF THE STANDBY LAWYER OR THE DEFENDANT. I DON’T SEE HOW WE CAN PROCEED TO TRIAL, EVEN PUTTING ASIDE ISSUES OF WHO REPRESENTS MR. SUTCLIFFE UNDER THAT STATE OF AFFAIRS AND I DON’T INTEND TO DO SO.” ~JUDGE MATZ: CR 02-350(A)-AHM, August 27, 2003

MOVING ON:::

During closing argument, the prosecution, whose request for a “willful blindness” jury instruction was rejected by the Court, still attempted to make that argument, once by saying “you can’t turn a blind eye” and a second time by covering his eyes with his hands to emphasize the argument.

The Court stated that it “could have been entirely unintentional,” but found it was an improper statement that “undoubtedly resonated with at least some of the weary jurors.”

The Court noted that there were other examples of wrongful conduct that may not have directly prejudiced Lindsey Manufacturing and Messrs. Lindsey and Lee, but reflected “just how far the Government was willing to go” in the case.

After making these findings regarding the evidence, the Court conducted a legal analysis. First, the Court stated that the dismissal of the Indictment was not based solely on what the Government did before the grand jury. The Court found that, “[a]lthough such misconduct was the critical component that triggered the motion to dismiss that was filed on May 9, 2011, the prosecution of this case was marred by a much wider range of misconduct.”

In assessing how to judge the prosecution’s conduct, the Court quoted the oft-cited ruling in Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78 (1935) that a prosecutor “may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.“

The Court concluded that the Government’s failure to disclose the grand jury transcripts in a timely manner constituted a violation of the defendants’ rights to evidence favorable to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Although the Government argued that it did not want to call Special Agent Guernsey because they did not want to “put the investigation on trial,” the Court ruled that the defendants had been prejudiced by the Government’s conduct, which impacted the ability to fully argue their defense:

In their opening statements defense counsel were not in a position to cite grand jury transcripts as support for what eventually became part of their defense. Lacking the factual support they needed, they could not and did not assert, in effect, “The evidence will show that the Government team failed to conduct a complete and fair investigation. In fact, the Government obtained the very charges in the Indictment through false and misleading grand jury testimony of an FBI agent. The prosecution has been scrambling to find out what happened ever since. Had they done their homework properly, they would have learned long before now that there was no crime.” Had defense counsel been able to deliver such an opening statement, it is likely that at later stages the jury would have understood the point of their cross-examinations and would have viewed the Government’s evidence with great skepticism.

As the Court noted, the “Government’s misconduct went way beyond the delayed and incomplete production of the Guernsey grand jury transcripts. It included procuring search and seizure warrants through materially false and misleading affidavits; improperly obtaining attorney-client privileged communications; violating court orders; questioning witnesses improperly; failing timely to produce information required under Jencks; and engaging in questionable behavior during closing arguments.” These acts clearly prejudiced the defendants:

This Court is persuaded that the multiple acts of misconduct described above undoubtedly affected the verdicts and thus substantially prejudiced the Lindsey Defendants. The prejudice here is palpable once the prosecution and trial are assessed as a whole. Beginning even before the jury was selected and continuing throughout trial, the Defendants were thrown off balance by being forced to devote enormous effort to responding to and redressing serious and prejudicial wrongs, while at the same time having to defend themselves against the charges.

The Court also noted that the weakness of the Government’s case provided an additional basis for finding prejudice.

Finally, the Court considered what remedy to impose, which included measuring the real impact of the Government’s conduct:

Dr. Lindsey and Mr. Lee were put through a severe ordeal. Charges were filed against them as a result of a sloppy, incomplete and notably over-zealous investigation, an investigation that was so flawed that the Government’s lawyers tried to prevent inquiry into it. In some instances motives, statements and conduct were attributed to them that were wholly unfounded or were obtained unlawfully, … . The financial costs of the investigation and trial were immense, but the emotional drubbing these individuals absorbed undoubtedly was even worse. As for [Lindsey Manufacturing], the very survival of that small, once highly-respected enterprise has been placed in jeopardy.

While the defendants were not entitled to a finding of “factual innocence,” dismissal of the Superseding Indictment was justified as both a deterrent and to release the defendants “from further anguish and uncertainty.”

The Government immediately appealed Judge Matz’s ruling.

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

Impeachment of Judge Howard Matz

I never dreamt that I would say or write this, but I think the entire Federal and State Court judiciaries may be so corrupt that widespread impeachment and shut down of the courts may be necessary. At the very least, we need to remove every judge who has ever knowingly participated in a cover-up of the mass expropriation of real property in the United States which has occurred as a result of mortgage bundling, pooling, and securitization. To identify every such judge fairly and accurately would require examining tens of thousands of transcripts from tens of thousands of cases. But the only way that the government can maintain it’s legitimacy is by identifying and punishing those who have knowingly allowed this massive step towards the realization of the first and primary goal of Communism to take place “under color of law” in the United States.

If you favor and would support the impeachment of Judge Howard Matz, please call 512-968-2666, 512-968-2755 or 512-968-7390 (or by fax to 310-278-9684) and leave your detailed message, preferably with your name and telephone numbers or e-mail addresses. We need to hold judges accountable and impeachment is the only easy abrogation of judicial immunity under present law. I do not consider Judge Howard Matz’ comments below to constitute “good conduct” in the least.

Mortgage rights activist Lance Frances bought my attention to the case of José L. Pineda, and the October 2009 hearing in U.S. District Court (Central District of California, Los Angeles) in that case with a lawyer for GMAC on Wednesday, June 8, 2011. This case is now almost two years old. I remain deeply troubled by this case because I think that the most important actor in this story, Honorable A. Howard Matz, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, revealed an oft-suspected but never before clearly articulated truth: Matz should be impeached, possibly along with 50-90% of the Federal Trial Court Judges in California. I would like to solicit feedback: SHOULD Matz be impeached? Do Howard Matz’ statements in this case mean to others what they seem to me to mean? I do not know how to read Matz’ statement quoted below except as a threat to “tell the truth” about the mortgage industry and reveal publicly that all the mortgage foreclosures (at least those in the past 10-18 years) in the state of California, have been completely illegal, unconscionable, and that he and other Federal and State Court Judges have been willing participants, parties, and co-conspirators to what has been called the largest pyramid scheme in the history of the world.

Judge Matz’ colloquy with an attorney for GMAC illustrates, to my mind at least, both (1) complete (extra-judicially originating) awareness of and familiarity with the details of illegal conduct on the part of originators, “lenders,” investors, and servicers in the mortgage business and California non-judicial foreclosure process, (2) a complete (extra-judicially originating) willingness to suppress such knowledge against the interests of the vast majority of the American people, for the benefit of GMAC and all other originators, “lenders”, investors, and servicers in the mortgage business and California non-judicial foreclosure process. I do not think it is too much to say that Judge A. Howard Matz reveals, in this colloquy, sufficient “extra-judicial” knowledge and bias that he should be disqualified and/or recused in all cases involving mortgage foreclosure cases. And if Judge Matz’ knowledge, familiarity with the facts, and attitudes towards the same represent the typical awareness of members of the Federal Judiciary sitting in California, then the entire Federal Judiciary is engaged in one gigantic coverup and is complicit in the fraud against the American people. This colloquy has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the law or findings in this one case, but only on Judge A. Howard Matz’ discomfort with the Plaintiff’s state of knowledge and intention to charge the court with “creating a false record” (See the docket sheet and attached motion below).

The degree of judicial involvement in the mortgage crisis boggles the mind:

Focus particularly on Judge Matz’ warning to GMAC Counsel Starting at Page 13, Line 11 and continuing until Page 14, Line 8 (the link to the full transcript and U.S. Clerk’s case docket report can be found below):

“Now, I want you to contact your clients today. I want you to tell them that I was prepared to — and I am — in fact, there is no doubt about this. I am granting the motion to vacate the judgment and to reopen — that I have set forth a preliminary, far from complete, road map of all of the grounds under Rule 60 why that would be warranted; that I am prepared — if this case doesn’t settle and settle quickly, I am prepared to follow the footsteps of several other judges around the country, state and federal, to take this case as a paradigm for a much larger problem, a much larger financial, regulatory and litigation problem that can stem — that has stemmed from the way these loans were issued, packaged, securitized and then lost in the maze of confusion that you yourself understandably have suffered from.

Ms. Vandale, you have been given an unenviable task, and you have not succeeded in carrying it out, but that may not be your fault. It is impossible to understand what happened to this loan based upon what the defendants have filed. How can you expect Mr. Pineda to understand? He’s not even a lawyer. He has done a good job of trying to protect his own interests.

Now, you tell your clients that unless this case can be disposed of, this case is going to be something that’s going to go far beyond this case.”

If it were not a distinguished Federal Judge on his bench, speaking like this on his dais and his robes ex-cathedra, but a swarthy Italian with a New York accent and a surname like “Genovese” or “Giancana” or “Gotti”, would we not call this a threat of extortion? In fact, I think here from his Honor Judge A. Howard Matz, we have the clearest indication yet that Federal Judges know and understand the crime against the people which is the mass foreclosure of hundreds of thousands of homes and families, perhaps millions, in this one state.

Pineda Jose L v GMAC et al Docket Report 08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

Read the Honorable Judge Howard Matz’ complete colloquy with the parties in this transcript here very carefully:

October 26 2009 Transcript Pineda v GMAC Document 93 2-08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

Can the Judge actually be doing anything other than threatening GMAC with “telling the truth” about misrepresentation in non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceedings? What does this tell us about Judge A. Howard Matz’ versions of Reality and Truth?

It appears that the colloquy in the transcript, followed by the entry of this minute order, drafted immediately following the October 26 2009 hearing and evidencing not even a hint of irregularity:

October 26 2009 Minute Order by Judge A Howard MATZ re Jose L Pineda v GMAC 2-08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

Was filed in direct response to this particular filing by a pro se litigant:

Pineda Jose L v GMAC—Plaintiff’s Objection to and Notice of the Making of a False Record of Motion for Disqualification—2-08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW

The “legal realist” approach to judicial deconstruction is a frightening descent into the abyss of the human mind and soul: our most exalted officers as “Human, All Too Human” untermenschen capable of using their office to some really base purposes, like defrauding the people….

But if Judge A Howard Matz is not admitting that he is part of a massive cover-up of the reality of non-judicial foreclosure as a fraudulent enterprise in his colloquy with counsel for GMAC and Jose L. Pineda, exactly what IS he saying, especially in the excerpt reproduced here above?

If I could be elected to the office of United States Senator from California, I think it would “send a message” that the Banking and Mortgage Financial Industries’ Enterprise and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations’ hold on this state is no longer Political Acceptable to the People, and I would ask all United States District Judges sitting in the State of California to resign. A very few might be reappointed on an interim basis.

But it appears to me at least that A. Howard Matz, and probably all the United States District Judges sitting in California, have knowingly and intentionally not merely presided over but in fact approved, enforced, and ratified such a horrendous dislocation in the population as seems to have taken place 0ver the past few years not only against the lawful interests of the people, but in violation of all common and constitutional law, and at least half of the state statutes in California. It appears to me that A. Howard Matz, and perhaps the entire Federal Judiciary in California, possessed full information regarding the truth of the illegality of the foreclosure epidemic as a crime against the American People. Accordingly, I think that this case, and A. Howard Matz’ own words, quoted above, may yet serve as the basis for the abolition of Judicial Immunity for Federal Judges who approve and protect criminal enterprises such as the mortgage foreclosure industry in the State of California.

The veil of “the Matrix” has been lifted very slightly here, some sunlight let into the cave, and the Revelation of Truth which signals the Apocalypse—at least the Apocalypse of the Legal and Financial Status Quo, would seem to have begun….

I hope that the People of California will consider electing me to the United States Senate to complete the Revelation, and the Apocalypse of the Corruption of the Financial and Judicial Babylon under whose tyranny we now live….

If still aren’t convinced, read the entire transcript again. Read the Honorable Judge Howard Matz’ colloquy with the parties, the link to which appears above, very carefully!

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.

Judge Matz says “We ‘need’ to tell you…”

Someone please send me the home address of Judge A. Howard Matz and Judge Alex Kozinski, because there is something I “need” to tell them in person, too.

Unannounced, of course.

I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge. And his mento, judge alex kozinski of the ninth circuit.