Danny riley's latest pleadings

Dezcad · Post by **Dezcad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:10 pm

For your reading enjoyment, the latest two pleadings filed by the "sovereign fiction" known as Daniel Riley are here and here .

One is a "jurisdiction challenge" and the other is a "discovery demand."

Among other things, I did notice that he attached the "Exhbits" for the jurisdictional challenge to the discovery request.

Post by **wserra** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:15 pm

And I noticed that, in the first of Dezcad's links, he calls himself "Jurius Spurious".

I could go with that.

Post by **LPC** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:21 pm

Riley is acting "Jurios Suprious"?

Neither of those strings of letters correspond to any English or Latin words I have ever heard of.

Or did his misspell "juris" and "spurious?" Which, in combination, don't seem to mean anything either.

Anyone have any idea what he might think he's talking about?

Post by **The Observer** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:33 pm

I'll take a guess that he is mangling Latin by manipulating the terms "juris" and "superior" in the ignorant attempt of conveying the concept that an individual's laws are superior to any other law.

Harrison Bergeron · Post by **Harrison Bergeron** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:49 pm

In his jurisdictional challenge, Danny-Boy claims the judge should be recused, because the government could unduly influence him by leaking information about his activities as a pedophile.

Cobalt Shiva · Post by **Cobalt Shiva** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:10 pm

Harrison Bergeron wrote:In his jurisdictional challenge, Danny-Boy claims the judge should be recused, because the government could unduly influence him by leaking information about his activities as a pedophile.

Perhaps he wants to get the judge to recuse because the subject of the case is libeling him?

Dezcad · Post by **Dezcad** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:20 pm

All the judges in the NH District have recused themselves and it is now being presided over by the District of Maine:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal Case No. 07-cr-189-01-SM
Daniel Riley
O R D E R

All of the judges in this district were recused from
presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case shall be
referred to the District of Maine; sitting by designation.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to
an “emergency” with respect to the referred case as that term is
used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the assignment
of a magistrate judge from the designated district to perform the
duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
Chief Judge
October 16, 2007

cc:
Clerk, USDC, Maine
Arnold H. Huftalen, AUSA
Robert M. Kinsella, AUSA
Mark E. Howard, Esq.
U.S. Probation
U.S. Marshal

ErsatzAnatchist · Post by **ErsatzAnatchist** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:55 pm

CaptainKickback wrote:Methinks a Yankee judge from Maine is not going to put up with a lot of shenanigans from Reno or any of the others that might come his way.

Reno may be in a Federal facility before the leaves are off the trees and before hunting season opens.

A-yep.

To late. While there are still leaves on the tress, they are changing pretty quick. Hunting season has opened already for many species.

While Barbadaro (Sp?) recusing himself may have been a bit of a blessing come sentencing time (I tough nut that one), I suspect some judge having to travel down from Portland is not going to be too pleased. A-yep, none to pleased.

Post by **LPC** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:15 pm

ErsatzAnatchist wrote:While Barbadaro (Sp?) recusing himself may have been a bit of a blessing come sentencing time (I tough nut that one), I suspect some judge having to travel down from Portland is not going to be too pleased. A-yep, none to pleased.

From down east, it would be pronounced "e-ya."

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:36 pm

The Observer wrote:I'll take a guess that he is mangling Latin by manipulating the terms "juris" and "superior" in the ignorant attempt of conveying the concept that an individual's laws are superior to any other law.

He spells it "Jurios Suprious," but I think you have the meaning.

He says, "COMES NOW, making a special appearence, Danny Riley, acting in sovereign capacity, Jurios Suprious ...."

He's trying to say, "juris supras," which still doesn't make sense.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:14 pm

"No red ink available"

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley24.pdf

ArthurRubin · Post by **ArthurRubin** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:05 am

Demosthenes wrote:"No red ink available"

Isn't blood traditional?

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:19 am

"defendant's derogatories" ?

"telling Paul Barbadoro to withdrawl..." ?

"to have every motioned answered ..." ?

"juris spurious" ?

Somebody seems to have dropped out of his ESTTL classes (English for Speakers of Trailer Trash Language)

Post by **The Observer** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:39 am

Demosthenes wrote:"No red ink available"

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley24.pdf

Well, then Riley loses then - everyone knows that motions without red ink are worthless.

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:42 am

Nikki wrote:"defendant's derogatories" ?

"telling Paul Barbadoro to withdrawl..." ?

"to have every motioned answered ..." ?

"juris spurious" ?

Somebody seems to have dropped out of his ESTTL classes (English for Speakers of Trailer Trash Language)

I noticed the same, but what attracted my attention was the difference in spelling "spurious" from the first instance, "suprious."

And, I found a Law Dictionary and Glossary, here that lists "spurious" as relating to "Persons without a father; bastards." Apropos!

Post by **wserra** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:22 am

Nikki wrote:"defendant's derogatories" ?

"to compel answers to defendant's derogatories", to be exact.

Hey, guys, the schmuck is in jail, so perhaps he ought to win one of his motions. So, in the spirit of Christian charity,

A. Yes, Danny, you are an a_____e.

Post by **Quixote** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:05 pm

The correct answer to the defendant's derogatories is, "Same to you, buddy."

Post by **LPC** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:35 pm

Quixote wrote:The correct answer to the defendant's derogatories is, "Same to you, buddy."

I only got through about the first 10 before I lost interest, but I think that they could all be answered "No."

Too bad Riley didn't ask for any explanation of the answers.

Dr. Caligari · Post by **Dr. Caligari** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:05 pm

Too bad Riley didn't ask for any explanation of the answers.

Too bad for Riley that there are no interrogatories under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Dezcad · Post by **Dezcad** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:41 pm

Dr. Caligari wrote:
Too bad Riley didn't ask for any explanation of the answers.
Too bad for Riley that there are no interrogatories under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

I think he's operating under the "Jurious Spurious Rules of Criminal Procedure". Those Rules are quite flexible in that "sovereigns" can make them up as they go along and require the "servant" government to answer.