Subject:                          Bullet point Devens and Promptly Cover Up

Attachments:                 DevensLetterCoverup.pdf; Facts2003_4_ 7_Secret_Hearing.pdf; Promptly_from_MT08_RecurringIssuesRICOandOthers.pdf

You might want to contact the Warden at Ft. Devens on two issues, on the record. One is when did he receive a copy of the transcript of the secret unlawful hearing that took place on April 7th, 2003? When I first stormed into his office almost four months later, or any time before then, say like 10 days?

The reason I ask is because this attorney Matz forced on me, Greg Nicolaysen, called me only once towards the end of the four months of "treatment" to try to convince me to take a plea agreement of "6 years," however, when I told him my thoughts (@#$%#@&!!!!) about his offer then  the transcript ordered sent "promptly" arrived in the mail within days. Until that moment I had no idea of the secret hearing. Only these 3 players.

Had I taken "the deal" the secret hearing and violations of the law regarding the facts would have been moot. So either Maz ignored his duty to follow the law, again, and make a reasonable inquiry as to my "progress," and the transcript, or he knew and arranged the willful disregard of the order with the other players.

My guess is both. And it was clear the "Ninth" was involved in the violation. Of course "IT'S PURELY A COINCEDENCE."

MS. DUARTE: AND IT WAS A PETITION FOR REHEARING. THE COURT'S ALREADY BEEN AFFIRMED ON THE ORDER; AND I SKIMMED IT. AND THE GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION FOR REHEARING WERE THE LACK OF THIS FINDING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.   IT'S PURELY A COINCEDENCE; AND IT CAME UP AFTER HE AND I NOTICED IT, DISCUSSED IT, AND CAME UP WITH --

THE COURT: HE MEANING, MR. NICOLAYSEN?

MS. DUARTE: MR. NICOLAYSEN AND I NOTICED IT AND DISCUSSED IT.

BUT THE 9TH CIRCUIT HAS NOT ORDERED ANY ACTIONS. FRANKLY,

I DON'T EXPECT THEM TO, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE COURT WAS

AWARE OF THIS.

THE COURT: YES. I SAW THAT. WELL, I WANT IT TO BE SENT

BOTH TO THE WARDEN WITH SPECIFIC -- "IT" BEING THE TRANSCRIPT

WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTTIONS THAT IT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THOSE

RESPONSIBLE, NOT ONLY FOR MR. SUTCLIFFE'S TREATMENT -- DIAGNOSIS

AND TREATMENT, BUT ALSO TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CUSTODY; SO

THAT IF HE, FOR SOME REASON, RESPONDS TO THIS, THEY'LL, AT LEAST,

THE COURT: YES. THE U.S. ATTORNEY SHOULD ORDER THE TRANSCRIPT. AND THE TRANSCRIPT SHOULD BE SENT TO -- WHERE IS MR.SUTCLIFFE NOW?

MS. DUARTE: HE IS IN TRANSIT. ACCORDING TO MDC, HE IS GONE FROM THERE. AND ACCORDING TO DEVINS, I CHECKED BOTH THIS MORNING. DEVINS EXPECTS HIM TO ARRIVE WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY, APRIL 9TH OR 10TH OF THIS WEEK.

I ALSO WANT IT TO BE SENT BY MR. NICOLAYSEN DIRECTLY TO

MR. SUTCLIFFE.

MR. NICOLAYSEN: I WILL DO SO, YOUR HONOR, AS I DID THE

MARCH 14TH TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: AND PROMPTLY SO, AT DEVINS, PLEASE.

NICOLAYSEN: I WILL DO THAT.

(OFF THE RECORD.)

THE COURT: IN CASE THE RECORD ISN'T CLEAR, I THINK I

ARRANGED LAST WEEK TO HAVE DR. BACKER'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT.

YES. IT WAS FILED ON APRIL 1ST. IT ACTUALLY WASN'T FILED.

THE CLERK: NO, IT WASN'T FILED.

Have a great weekend!

With the respect,

Steven
PS: Matz says: Promptly means 10 days. (SEE ATTACHED Promptly_from_MT08_RecurringIssuesRICOandOthers.pdf )