A 3-judge panel accepted his guilty plea, then later rejected it.

Page 4: Those judges had to recuse themselves. Jeopardy had attached.

Page 6: Judge Eyster again rejects the plea agreement, this time claiming its because he doesn't "feel" that jeopardy attached. You can't have it both ways. He also questions proceeding with only one judge, but does it anyway.

He claims the plea agreement doesn't serve the ends of justice. Perhaps he prefers the death penalty.

Page 7: Judge Eyster disrespects the authority of Federal Magistrate Judge Merz.

Page 8: Admits that John has never been convicted, says that the Magistrate's order "is a legal nullity and is in no way controlling in this case," and "this is not the manner in which this case should be resolved," but proceeds to sentence him anyway.

Judge Eyster admits that this case is "an embarrassment to the criminal justice system."

Judge Eyster claims this is an "unusual situation", even though plea agreements are more common than trials with juries.

Page 12: Defense attorney Simmons makes it clear that the entire reason for this hearing is, in fact, pursuant to the Federal Magistrate's order.