News By Tag
* Judge A. Howard Matz
* U S Marshals
* Darcy Smith
* Fleur De Lis Film Studios
* More Tags...
News By Location
Follow on Google News
Judge A. Howard Matz Utilizes the US Marshal’s Office to Silence Victims
Internet censorship exemplifies the diminishing constitutional rights under the color of law
By: B. Harris
Central Federal 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”
Several websites pertaining to Judge Matz have been shut down in such a manner over a year ago and remain “suspended”
www.JudgeAHowardMatz.com (taken down by the U.S. Marshals in December of 2009)
www.JudgeForSale.com (taken down by the U.S. Marshals in December of 2009)
www.AHowardMatz.com (taken down by the U.S. Marshals in July of 2010)
The websites reportedly contained Judge 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 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 Fox News Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out in his book, Judge A. Howard 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”
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.
Judge Matz is known for going to any lengths to conceal his judicial conduct from the public. He has added the following to at least 15 recent orders: “This order is not intended for publication or for inclusion in the databases of Westlaw or Lexis.”
Unpublished opinions are traditionally treated as not having any precedential effect. But Matz's request to exclude his orders from legal databases is out of the ordinary, according to David Cleveland, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center. Cleveland said, “This court's order strikes me as impractical, inappropriate and potentially unconstitutional."
He points out that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure were recently amended to bar courts from prohibiting or restricting citation to newly issued unpublished opinions. He also notes the E-Government Act of 2002 requiring courts to make available all written opinions on their websites. Cleveland notes that it’s inappropriate to try to create a secret body of law.
A Senate Judicial Complaint against Judge Matz was reportedly made on August 25, 2009, with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at the Senate Judicial Committee for serious misconduct that warrants his impeachment. Judges lose their immunities when they have knowledge of or participate in crimes in violation of their oath of office. It remains to be seen how long it might take before justice finally catches up with Judge A. Howard Matz.