It's Official: Riley Sings

[LPC]

Demo has provided a copy of the following document, in which the government describes Daniel Riley's cooperation against the other defendants in the Brown-related prosecutions.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL RILEY

Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE Re: POSITION ON COMPETENCY EXAMINATION

Title 18, United States Code, Section 4142(a) provides in part:

if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be
suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to
the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the
proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.
18 U.S.C. 4241(a).

The government, including the undersigned, has met with defendant Daniel Riley on
several separate occasions, each pursuant to a proffer letter, and the defendant has forwarded a
typewritten letter to the undersigned. With respect to all proffer sessions and the letter the
defendant appeared to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings. He
demonstrated a clear understanding that he was facing serious criminal charges that could result
in a significant prison sentence if convicted. He also demonstrated an understanding of the roles
of the various individuals involved in his criminal case: the Judge, the witnesses, the
prosecutors, the investigators, and the defense attorneys.
With his attorney present, the defendant was advised of the terms under which any
meetings between himself and the government would take place, including that he must be
truthful, that if he was not truthful he could suffer serious adverse consequences, and that if he
was truthful the government could not use his statements directly against him but that it could
make derivative use of his statements and use that derivative evidence against him. He
acknowledged that he understood those terms and made what appeared to be a knowing and
intelligent decision to proceed.

He was asked numerous questions that required detailed responses concerning his
observations while at the residence of then fugitives Edward and Elaine Brown. He appeared to
understand the questions and he provided detailed information in response to those questions.

Most of the information he provided has since been corroborated by law enforcement.

Likewise, the letter written by Mr. Riley and sent to the undersigned was clear, coherent
and appeared to have been written by a person who understood the situation in which he found
himself.

Notwithstanding the pro se pleadings that have been filed by the defendant, which are
unorthodox, based upon the direct observations of the defendant by the government, the
government does not have “reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be
suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that
he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to
assist properly in his defense.” 18 U.S.C. 4241(a).

Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS P. COLANTUONO
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Arnold H. Huftalen
Arnold H. Huftalen
Assistant U.S. Attorney
N.H. Bar Assoc. No. 1215
53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 225-1552

November 15, 2007

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading has been filed electronically, this date, to
defense counsel for Mr. Riley, Sven Wiberg, Esq.
/s/ Arnold H. Huftalen
Arnold H. Huftalen
Assistant U.S. Attorney

[Famspear]

So, Danny Riley, "a true patriot and friend of the Browns," (see http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/read ... Num=190377) just might be lucid enough to correctly recognize his own self interest -- and he might even be lucid enough to accurately calculate how to promote that self interest.

Oh, the humanity.

[Quixote]

It's interesting that his public filings are gibberish, but his private letter to the US attorney "was clear, coherent and appeared to have been written by a person who understood the situation in which he found himself." I wonder if Danny, in order to protect his street cred, will deny having written to Colantuono.

[LPC]

OK, I started this thread, and I posted the copy of the pleading from the US, but I just do what I'm told (Demo can be *very* persuasive) whether or not I understand it. And what I don't understand here is this:

Who is questioning Riley's competence to stand trial? The US is responding to something and saying that, no, he looks fine to us. So who is alleging incompetence? Riley?

This could be really interesting. Riley: "Yes, I finked on those helping the Browns, but that just means I'm not competent to stand trial."

Or: The court: "Is this guy for real? What kind of gibberish is this?"

I haven't looked at the docket, so I don't know.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Yes!! I knew it!

Oh...you mean there's no prize this time? Damn...

[wserra]

Who is questioning Riley's competence to stand trial?

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?p=24527#24527

[LPC]

Who is questioning Riley's competence to stand trial?

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?p=24527#24527

Oh yeah, that's right, the captain...I mean judge...is questioning his competence.

[The Observer]

This is getting too close to surreal. Danny is pretending to be incompetent by attacking the integrity of the court, but demonstrating competence to his prosecutors. The court is bending over backwards by examining Riley's mental state and possibly opening the door to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Meanwhile, Danny is telling the TP community how loyal he is to Ed Brown and the rest of the TP movement, but is secretly meeting with the feds and delivering the goods on the Browns in order to get a better sentencing deal.

This is starting to have the possibility of a Coen Bros. movie...

[Cpt Banjo]

This is starting to have the possibility of a Coen Bros. movie...

Who's playing Danny -- John Turturro or Steve Buscemi?

[Nikki]

Steve Martin -- wild and crazy

[wserra]

Paul Reubens.

[Dezcad]

Paul Reubens.

Ahhh, the liberty tool reference.

My vote goes to Verne Troyer.

[Imalawman]

My vote goes to Verne Troyer.

HA!! I love it.

I'd go with a bald Jack Black.

[Dezcad]

Danny and his liberty tool-

[Demosthenes]

Dogwalker's lawyer weighs in. Can a plea agreement be far behind?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS
DANIEL RILEY

APPOINTED COUNSEL’S RESPONSE ON DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY

NOW COMES Sven D. Wiberg, appointed counsel for the accused, and presents the following in response to this Court’s ORDER REQUESTING POSITION ON COMPETENCY EXAMINATION:

1. As a preliminary matter, the undersigned has met on a number of occasions with the accused, but has not yet been authorized by Mr. Riley to act as sole counsel on his
behalf. As the Court will remember and note, this has progressed considerably from the position expressed by Mr. Riley regarding appointment of new counsel at the first hearing
attended by the undersigned in Portland. Counsel expects that the situation will continue to improve and that the question as to his status (i.e., as counsel or as stand-by counsel) will
be fully resolved within a short period of time.

2. Nonetheless, the undersigned has spent a considerable amount of time with Mr. Riley over the last two and one half weeks, and during that time has formed the opinion that the accused is competent to stand trial. Without revealing any attorney/client communications, counsel can say that Mr. Riley appears to be possessed of above-average intelligence and he has a considerable knowledge of legal issues and procedure (although his beliefs about the law are certainly not mainstream views). Moreover, he is very familiar with the concepts and principles that a court would consider when making a determination on competency. For example, he appears to know the roles of the various actors in the
system (judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, jury, etc.) and he knows the legal standards to be applied).

3. Applying the standards enunciated in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), it appears that Mr. Riley is competent. He appears to have a rational understanding of the charges against him (although he does not concede their validity or the power of this Court to consider them), and he could certainly aid his counsel in his own defense, should he decide to proceed with appointed counsel acting on his behalf). Should he choose to act as his own lawyer, with or without the undersigned as standby counsel, he will likely face serious challenges, but these would be the same challenges faced by any defendant electing to proceed in that fashion.

4. Moreover, the undersigned, pursuant to his obligations to the accused, must note that Mr. Riley does not wish to be evaluated and believes himself to be competent.

Consequently, counsel is obliged to ask the Court to forego any such evaluation, especially in light of his own observations regarding the matter of competency, as related above.

November 16, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sven D. Wiberg
Wiberg Law Offices
2456 Lafayette Road, Suite 7
Portsmouth, NH 03801
(603) 686-5454
NH Bar No. 8238
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading will be served upon the Government by ECF
filing.
/s/ Sven D. Wiberg

[The Observer]

Dogwalker's lawyer weighs in. Can a plea agreement be far behind?
.
.
.

(although his beliefs about the law are certainly not mainstream views).

.
.
.

He appears to have a rational understanding of the charges against him (although he does not concede their validity or the power of this Court to consider them)...

I think that there is a major obstacle to a plea agreement and that obstacle is Riley himself. He won't be the first TP to alienate his own counsel and wreck whatever reasonable efforts made on his behalf to minimize the damage Dogwalker did to himself. After all, in Riley's worldview, being in charge is more important than listening to others. He will eventually get around to thinking that a plea agreement is a good idea - but that may happen when the sentence is already handed down.

[Dezcad]

2. Nonetheless, the undersigned has spent a considerable amount of time with Mr. Riley over the last two and one half weeks,

One gets their entertainment wherever you can sometimes.

counsel can say that Mr. Riley appears to be possessed of above-average intelligence

Counsel *can* say it but does he *believe* it. I don't - average would be an overstatement.

and he has a considerable knowledge of legal issues and procedure (although his beliefs about the law are certainly not mainstream views).

He does seem to have a considerable knowledge of admiralty law and what's not mainstream about calling the Judge a *Captain*.

he appears to know the roles of the various actors in thesystem (judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, jury, etc.)

and I'm sure Danny does believe they are *actors* in the cruise ship drama....

He appears to have a rational understanding of the charges against him

Oh really, read the next phrase....

(although he does not concede their validity or the power of this Court to consider them),

sounds rational to me...

Should he choose to act as his own lawyer, with or without the undersigned as standby counsel, he will likely face serious challenges, but these would be the same challenges faced by any defendant electing to proceed in that fashion.

Methinks that Danny may have a few more challenges unless you compare him to a Sooey defendant.

Mr. Riley does not wish to be evaluated and believes himself to be competent.

Sounds good to me, the defendant should be the final arbiter of his competence

[.]

The feds think he's competent, his lawyer (for the moment) sort of claims that he's competent, only the Captain has a modicum of doubt.

Will the Captain send him to a tribunal of psychological inquisators?

Will Ed: family of windmill-tilters ever figure out that he's about to have about 50 years added to his visit to the grey-bar hotel?

Stay tuned, as the world of plea-bargainers turns...

[LPC]

Mr. Riley appears to be possessed of above-average intelligence and he has a considerable knowledge of legal issues and procedure (although his beliefs about the law are certainly not mainstream views).

Do we give awards for outrageous understatements?

4. Moreover, the undersigned, pursuant to his obligations to the accused, must note that Mr. Riley does not wish to be evaluated and believes himself to be competent.

Consequently, counsel is obliged to ask the Court to forego any such evaluation, especially in light of his own observations regarding the matter of competency, as related above.

Sven seems to out of his way to distance himself from those positions. I wonder why.

[grixit]

Wiberg identified himself as addressing the case against DANIEL RILEY, but he refers to Daniel Riley as the defendant, a clear case of New World Order verbal sleight of hand.