Judge A. Howard Matz of the Central District of California is crackers.
Transcript of 08.22.2002
Docket #36 Page 23, Line 19
Judge Matz: “And this is not an unusual case. Okay?”
SAME CASE, ONE YEAR LATER.
Page 44, Lines 19-21
Page 24, Lines 2-14
Judge Matz: “The somewhat tortured history of this case, as reflected by transcripts which I have gotten and reviewed in recent days or weeks
Page 55, Lines 4-16
Judge Matz:” Right now I don’t think this case is ready for trial and much of the reason is not immediately attributable to you. Some of it is not attributable to you at all. All of this mysterious confusion about what happened to the evidence that the government long ago disclosed to your prior lawyers would never have arisen if there never had been all of the efforts which are totally inappropriate or obstructive on your part to interfere with their work, but you’re not responsible for the fact that one lawyer didn’t turn over to the next lawyer what the lawyer was instructed  to turn over to by me and agreed to turn over.
I’m going to get to the root of this one way or another because it’s absolutely unacceptable. Mr. Reed is in no position to provide even Standby position that would be informed in terms of the evidence, if not in terms of the conduct a lawyer goes through and maneuvers and steps and strategies and conduct that a lawyer displays in representing a person at trial because he doesn’t even have the evidence. Now, we’re not going to trial on Tuesday. If you don’t waive any of your rights, we’ll go to trial a week later and I don’t think the Speedy Trial Act will be violated, but you have to tell me what you want to do.”
Page 59, Lines 9-10
Judge Matz: “This is an unusual case and a lot of difficulties in this case,…”
Page 62, Lines 13-20
Judge Matz: “Now, Mr. Reed, I don’t know whether consistent with the law and the application of the Speedy Trial Act that the rights of a defendant would be protected if a jury were impaneled and the actual prosecution of the case, the opening statements, and the submission of evidence were to follow at some relatively brief interval after that. You are sitting here with a understandable worried look, if not a scowl on your face, and I understand why and I’m concerned about that.”
Page 75, Lines 3-8
Judge Matz: “You can arrange for all subpoenas. I want the jury instructions that were previously agreed to, to make sure you make those available to Mr. Reed and I need a diskette, because I lost the one or we can’t find the one. There seems to be a goblin surrounding this case, and I want to fiddle with it so I would benefit from the diskette.
Transcript of 09.02.2003
Judge Matz: “It’s going to be somewhat of an unusual case given Mr. Sutcliffe is proceeding pro per as a result of my decision to deem his prior conduct and course of conduct as a waiver of his 6th Amendment right to appointed counsel.”
 Defendant informed the court as far back as early 2002 that he had been tortured by the Manchester, New Hampshire police while the F.B.I. stood by and laughed. The court never inquired into this but used statements made during the torture against the defendant in order to deny him bail.
 Standby Counsel David Reed.