Danny the Dogwalker & Habeas Corpus

[ElfNinosMom]

Daniel Riley's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been accepted.

Links to all the documents are here: http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/

[Nikki]

Or should I say, "What the H?" It's all better now.

[ElfNinosMom]

Missing the leading "h" from the above link.

But thanks. It works with the "h" prefixed

Or should I say, "What the H?"

"What the H" works for me.


Let me explain .....

Laptop: $1000

Delicious homemade hot cocoa: $2.00

Spewing hot cocoa through my nose onto the keyboard in a fit of uncontrollable laughter due to Webhick's commentaries: Priceless (and extremely painful)

[Nikki]

Per the State of New Hampshire Supreme Court

An original and eight copies of plaintiff's brief must be filed on or before December 26...

... The appealing party must attach a copy of any decisions being appealed. ...

Danny is in for a couple of weeks of serious jail-house lawyering only to be blown out of the water by the government's reply (due January 25).

SCOOP here's another one for you. If you play it right, you might be able to get a gig on Court TV.

[ElfNinosMom]

Danny's plan seems to be to represent himself while pleading the Fifth. When the judge told him he couldn't do both, and appointed him an attorney, he sent the judge a letter explaining that .... well, I'm not exactly sure what he's explaining, except that he thinks "Esquire" after an attorney's name means he's British, and that the judge is actually a Captain because there is fringe on the flag and the judge thinks they're floating out in the ocean somewhere .... oh, and he refused to go to court so he was shot with paintballs, hog-tied, and carried out of the jail half-naked.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/471651/Letter ... ain-Singal

I suspect there's a mental competency exam in that particular dogwalker's near future.

[LPC]

Daniel Riley's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been accepted.

That's all really very cool, but how does an appeal of a conviction in federal court lie with the New Hampshire Supreme Court?

I think that when the NH Supreme Court realizes that they've been lied to, they're going to be very, very pissed.

[ElfNinosMom]

Daniel Riley's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been accepted.

That's all really very cool, but how does an appeal of a conviction in federal court lie with the New Hampshire Supreme Court?

I think that when the NH Supreme Court realizes that they've been lied to, they're going to be very, very pissed.

Has he been convicted already?

I got the impression from his other documents that he's filing this with New Hampshire because he believes the US government has no jurisdiction over him (and he also believes it does not exist, since the Delaware corporation "United States of America, Incorporated" no longer exists) and that resultantly the state of New Hampshire will agree, and just let him go.

And you're right, they're probably not going to be happy when they realize they got played by a lunatic.

[Scoop]

I suspect there's a mental competency exam in that particular dogwalker's near future.

Dunno. Neither Danny's new lawyer nor the prosecutor think he's incompetent.

[ElfNinosMom]

Does Danny have an attorney he's actually cooperating with? It appears from what I have read that he still believes he is representing himself, and that he is refusing the assistance of an attorney (and is filing documents on his own) because he thinks all attorneys are British.

[webhick]

He didn't state that he was Daniel Riley, Sui Juris, not Pro Se repeat not Pro Se, representing the fictional entity DANIEL RILEY so this whole appeal business is null and void.

That's all really very cool, but how does an appeal of a conviction in federal court lie with the New Hampshire Supreme Court?

See below:

37. The appellant is incarcerated at a New Hampshire Jail not a Federal Jail. A New Hampshire Officer or employee is physically detaining the appelant. The appellant will argue New Hampshire has jurisdiction over the appellant.

I think the government needs to incarcerate him at Chuck E. Cheese so CEC Entertainment, Inc. will have jurisdiction. And then the rat...I mean mouse can decide his fate. Would be fitting, after all, to have Danny's fate decided by his peer.

[The Operative]

I think the government needs to incarcerate him at Chuck E. Cheese so CEC Entertainment, Inc. will have jurisdiction. And then the rat...I mean mouse can decide his fate. Would be fitting, after all, to have Danny's fate decided by his peer.

His peer? How dare you insult the rat...I mean mouse, in such a manner!

[LPC]

That's all really very cool, but how does an appeal of a conviction in federal court lie with the New Hampshire Supreme Court?

Has he been convicted already?

My mistake. But he's under federal indictment, not state, even if he's in a state facility.

And there's still the question of why he is filing with an appellate court. (I wondered if NH might have emulated NY and named its trial level courts "Supreme Courts," but no, the Supreme Court is the appellate court in NH.)

Believe it or not, there is a U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the power of state courts to grant habeas corpus to federal prisoners. See Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858), holding that the supremacy clause of the Constitution prevents state courts from interfering with federal courts.

[wserra]

And you're right, they're probably not going to be happy when they realize they got played by a lunatic.

I don't know that they've really been "played" in these circumstances. I don't know New Hampshire law, but, if he is in a New Hampshire state facility, NH state courts do exercise a certain amount of control over his incarceration. Sure, I realize that there is a contract between NH and the USMS or BOP to house federal inmates. However, I question whether, if the NH Constitution has a habeas corpus provision, Riley might not have a right to file, contract notwithstanding.

Of course, in any event NH state courts have no power to direct the USMS or BOP to release him from custody altogether - that is what I read Dan's Booth case to hold - even if they arguably have the power (which it is difficult to believe they would ever exercise) to direct his release from a NH facility. So the best of all possible worlds for our friend Danny would be to go to a federal detention facility. Given that they house the most dangerous detainees, all federal detention facilities are maxes - not nice places. Be careful what you wish for, Danny.

[BTW - Dan, when are you going to tell the Dogwalker to stop using your name?]

[ErsatzAnatchist]

And you're right, they're probably not going to be happy when they realize they got played by a lunatic.

I don't know that they've really been "played" in these circumstances. I don't know New Hampshire law, but, if he is in a New Hampshire state facility, NH state courts do exercise a certain amount of control over his incarceration. Sure, I realize that there is a contract between NH and the USMS or BOP to house federal inmates. However, I question whether, if the NH Constitution has a habeas corpus provision, Riley might not have a right to file, contract notwithstanding.

Of course, in any event NH state courts have no power to direct the USMS or BOP to release him from custody altogether - that is what I read Dan's Booth case to hold - even if they arguably have the power (which it is difficult to believe they would ever exercise) to direct his release from a NH facility. So the best of all possible worlds for our friend Danny would be to go to a federal detention facility. Given that they house the most dangerous detainees, all federal detention facilities are maxes - not nice places. Be careful what you wish for, Danny.

[BTW - Dan, when are you going to tell the Dogwalker to stop using your name?]

Federal prisons come in all detention levels. However, there are none which are particularly convenient for travel to hearings in Concord, where the trial will be held). Federal pretrial detainees are held at the local county jails (like where Dogwalker is) or at the state prison. Some pretrial detainees are held in Mass. jails. However, Danny should be careful. If he pisses of the marshal's service, they will transport his *ss to a prison in Texas that has a high Mexican Mafia population.

In prison, the squeaky wheel does not get the oil.

EDIT: The trail courts have original jurisdiction on Writs of Habeas Corpus. The New Hampshire Superior Court is obligated to accept all appeals in certain types of cases, including the denial of a Writ of Habe. In any event, while the New Hampshire Courts would be willing to address a Habe based upon something like conditions of detention (e.g. prisoner not being fed), the Courts will not touch a request to be released from custody when the prisoner is a being held by a federal court order. This one is going away on summary disposition. (my prediction)

I will check with my spies and see if I can learn more about the NH Supreme Court Habe process.

[Dezcad]

The Dogwalker originally filed his Writ for HC with the NH Superior Court for Strattford County. This Writ was summarily denied and the Dogwalker filed an appeal to the NH Supreme Court at the same time he filed the Motion with the NH Supreme Court mentioned in the first post in this thread.

The order denying the original Writl is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/415223/State- ... eas-Corpus

A copy of that appeal is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/455691/State- ... eas-Corpus

[wserra]

Federal prisons come in all detention levels.

True, of course. But prisons don't hold detainees like Danny - inmates awaiting trial or sentence. Federal institutions which do so must be (as BOP says) "capable of holding inmates in all security categories". Thus, while they are not officially classified as "max" (officially "administrative facilities"), that's what they are. Trust me. In my former life, I spent far too much time at three of them.

In any event, while the New Hampshire Courts would be willing to address a Habe based upon something like conditions of detention (e.g. prisoner not being fed), the Courts will not touch a request to be released from custody when the prisoner is a being held by a federal court order.

Released from custody completely, absolutely. State courts don't have the power. It's not clear to me, however, that a state court doesn't have the power to order someone released from a state facility, even a federal inmate.

This one is going away on summary disposition. (my prediction)

With something approaching mathematical certainty.