Judge A. Howard Matz Utilizes the U.S. Marshal's Office to Censor and Silence Victims.
Internet censorship by Judge Matz exemplifies the diminishing constitutional rights under the color of law.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Fleur De Lis Film Studios television series "Whistleblowers - The Untold Stories" and "Rogues In Robes" have obviously struck a political and judicial nerve with Judge Matz. Instead of upholding the law and protecting American taxpayers, the U.S. Marshal Office is apparently hard at work shutting down websites that expose judicial corruption. Such Internet censorship exemplifies the diminishing constitutional rights under the color of law.
Federal Central District of California Judge A. Howard Matz seems to have figured out the best way to silence investigative reporters, attorneys and litigants criticizing his unconstitutional rulings. U.S. Marshals’ Los Angeles office located in Matz’ courthouse has been contacting website hosts, claiming that websites outlining the disgraced jurist’s dirty deeds are "under investigation" and must therefore be shut down.
U.S. Marshal Darcy Smith claims to be conducting such "investigations."
"You understand it's a pretty sensitive comment that he made, he can't do that."
Several websites pertaining to Judge Matz have been shut down in such a manner over a year ago and remain "suspended" to date. Owners of the websites independently tell us that no one from the U.S. Marshals contacted them with respect to any "investigations." Some of the websites shut down in this manner include:
http://www.JudgeAHowardMatz.com (taken down by the U.S. Marshals in December of 2009)
http://www.JudgeForSale.com (taken down by the U.S. Marshals in December of 2009)
http://www.ahowardmatz.com (taken down by U.S. Marshal Darcy Smith on or about July of 2010) (Recently moved and back online January 2012).
The websites reportedly contained Judge A. Howard Matz’ biography, as well as the history of his political ties and contributions. Two of them also provided an interactive tool allowing attorneys and litigants to rate Judge Matz’ performance, akin to "The Robing Room". Judge Andrew Napolitano’s book, "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks its Own Laws", was prominently featured on the websites in question.
Addressing Judge Howard Matz’ notorious rulings towards the Guantanamo detainees, Judge Napolitano wrote, "Judge Howard Matz - the same judge who came up with the "not welcome" ruling - again dismissed the action, finding another means of circumventing the Constitution in order to allow the government to violate the Camp Delta detainees’ due process protections."
As former Fox News Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, Central District Judge Matz did nothing "to defend the Constitution rather than sit back and let the government have unlimited wartime powers." The Supreme Court overturned Matz’ decision, ruling that Guantanamo detainees were guaranteed habeas corpus due process rights and were entitled to their day in federal court.
Judge Matz notoriously presided over what was referred to as "the most sensational" whistleblower case of this century, where the Department of Homeland Security sent a Blackhawk helicopter, a fixed wing airplane and a 27-man Special Response Team to the home of a former Customs and Border Protection Officer Julia Davis. She prevailed in litigation against the agency and along with her husband, BJ Davis, was subsequently subjected to malicious prosecutions and false imprisonments. Judge Matz failed to recuse himself from the case, in spite of his ties to former Commissioner for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Robert Bonner.
Andrew Haggerty, U.S. Marshal from the Riverside, CA office, participated in the warrantless search of the Davis’ residence. Haggerty refused to appear in the case or produce any documents pursuant to the subpoenas issued in the case. All false charges against the Davises have been dismissed and a court has issued a finding of factual innocence in their favor, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to return everything taken in two warrantless searches. The government failed to return the bulk of the unlawfully seized property, in direct violation of a standing court order.
The Davises sued the agency and the case was subsequently settled in March of 2010, but the U.S. Marshals Office and Judge A. Howard Matz are apparently continuing their efforts to silence their disclosures and engage in retaliatory acts of reprisal.
--- end ---
As witnessed in a post, United States District Judge Howard Matz (C.D. of California) issued an astounding ruling denying defendants challenge. See here for a transcript of that hearing.
As noted in the hearing transcript, Judge Matz stated that challenge warrants and will receive a very "considered written ruling" but did nothing.
Yesterday, Judge Matz issued his written decision. See here.
According to Judge Matz, "the question presented by the motion is whether an officer or employee of the government can extort Citizens and publishers for purposes of censorship of critical reports against them." In his footnote, Judge Matz noted, "The law is pretty clear and I did not follow it." (emphasis added)].
Judge Matz's holding was as follows. "HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED, BUT NOT ALL"
As to the meaning of "a situation" Judge Matz stated as follows. ""The fact is that Killercop.com used not only entirely different language but was in a situation, was perceived to be in a situation, was none at the time of the indictment to be in a situation that there was no information suggesting Schmoe, whoever that is, was in." Judge Matz then analyzed those definitions.
As to the history, Judge Matz stated as follows. "The reason I didn't want to make that finding and declined to make that finding was primarily because I didn't want to inflame him...not because I had any doubts about applying the applicable standards to what I perceived to be his 'then' condition."
After providing such a summary, Judge Matz stated in dicta as follows. "Sometimes people are too smart for their own good. I have had that said about me, and other people in our lives. I Know you understand."
"The Court finds that his ruling is inconclusive. Although it does not demonstrate that Congress intended to include extortions within the ambit, neither does it provide support for Judge Matz insistence that it is 'prudent' that Defendants represent themselves in a criminal trial." (emphasis in original).
As discussed above, Judge Matz's decision contains an Addendum. It begins as follows. "So a prudent thing to do for somebody in your situation would be is I'll take my best shot at it. You can take your best shot at being your own lawyer, if you want, or you can be a lawyer."
"After the jury trial had been underway for more than two weeks, and just before this order was to be filed, the Government asked the Court to take judicial notice of what the Government claims is this fact. 'He can take his best shot at being his own lawyer, if he wants, or he can be a lawyer.' This request is astounding."
Judge Matz then stated, among other things, that: "You don't think you don't have the ability to defend yourself against the United States of America, but you're wrong about that. I disagree with you 100 percent. Do it, I dare you."
Judge Matz then ends the Addendum as follows. "For you to go to bat and take the case to trial or even to pursue a plea, if that's what you were alluding to before, with these lawyers, is going to be totally in your interest even without any effective assistance of counsel."
Who is the most corrupted judge in America...