Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

Post by Dezcad »

The Dogwalker has been very busy filing all sorts of pleadings. Here are some, which are quite interesting:

This Motion for Judge Singal to Remove Himself from the Case is based upon the allegation that Judge Singal is a Mason.

This Motion in Limine for an Estopple (sic) to Supress Evidence requests that all the information that Danny blabbed to the Feds be supressed.

This Motion for a Ruling on the Conclusion of Law deals with the yellow fringe on the flag and other nonsense.

NOTE: Keep in mind that when he says "defendant's counsel" in any of these motions, he is referring to himself as counsel to the ALL CAPS - DANIEL RILEY.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7580
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

Post by wserra »

Dezcad wrote:This Motion for Judge Singal to Remove Himself from the Case is based upon the allegation that Judge Singal is a Mason.
From the "motion":
Harvard, a major recruiting ground for Masons
Hah! I knew it!
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

He's one whacky indigent inmate.

Apparently this idiot hasn't figured out that LEOs are allowed to lie to him as often as they wish with total impunity, all court sanctioned and everything, golly, gee whiz, tie a bow on it, you're screwed if you bought the BS and spilled the beans.

Maybe sheer panic has set in as he slowly figures out that everyone on the planet now knows he ratted out everyone he possibly could at the drop of a hat.

And, what happened to any reference to the Queen of England? He's slipping, flag fringe just doesn't cut it.

And where are the proper cites to the UCC? Doesn't he know you can't defeat a federal indictment without proper citations of the UCC? Did he lose his 'Refused for cause' stamp and his red ink-pad? Must be those nasty prison guards denying him access to the tools of his lunacy.

His further filings, of which there will no doubt be many, will no doubt be even more amusing. I look forward to them.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

Post by Dezcad »

Dezcad wrote: This Motion in Limine for an Estopple (sic) to Supress Evidence requests that all the information that Danny blabbed to the Feds be supressed.
In that Motion, Danny states:
10. The defendant also seeks the relief in the from of an estoppel to block any of the information divulged during the three days of interrogation from being able to impeach the defendant during trial.
If Danny is worried about impeachment by prior statements, does Danny intend on testifying?

And if so, he wants the ability to tell a different story during his testimony? Sort of a carte blanche to lie when he testifies.
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

Wes wrote:
Numb-nuts wrote:Harvard, a major recruiting ground for Masons
Hah! I knew it!
You sure? I always thought Harvard was a major recruiting ground for sheet-rock guys.

Merry Christmas!
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

The Dog-Walking Maroon has drunk deeply of the sovereign citizen waters.

He predicated one of the aforesaid motions on Article 1, section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution; to wit
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And
Unfortunately, he lacks the basic knowledge of the English (or American) language to comprehend the critical term highlighted above AND he overlooks the "supreme law of the land" portion of the document.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

I really do think they should be restyled as comedy routines rather than pleadings, they certainly are laughable.

Doggy Danny is just a yuk a minute here. The problem is, that he doesn't realize that the joke is on him.

I seriously doubt that a court appointed attorney would advise their client to admit a number of Federal felonies without some kind of immunity, and I was under the impression that old Danny the D wouldn’t even talk with the PD because he was a "British Accredited Representative" or some such rot-I never can keep it straight it's so silly, so there is some confusion here to begin with.

Besides, I thought he was busy spilling his guts long before he was even formally charged, so I don’t think this is going to wash, but it is amusing to read and I am sure he will provide further hilarity down the road.

I doubt if our boy is bright enough to realize what all his big mouth has done for him, he is too convinced that he knows everything. He will, however, find out otherwise as his world continues to implode into the tiny Federal cell he will come to inhabit for the next many years of his wasted life.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Post by grixit »

Why do the clerks keep accepting these rotten potatoes? Why don't tehy just stamp them "Void for Vagueness", and return them?
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

Post by LPC »

Dezcad wrote:This Motion for Judge Singal to Remove Himself from the Case is based upon the allegation that Judge Singal is a Mason.
Would Judge Singal have ever known that Ed Brown was anti-Mason if Riley hadn't told him?
Dezcad wrote:This Motion in Limine for an Estopple (sic) to Supress Evidence requests that all the information that Danny blabbed to the Feds be supressed.
Here's a challenge: Read the motion and try to figure out what Riley thinks "estoppel" means.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
buck09
Quatloosian Baron of the Unknown Statute
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 6:01 pm

Re: Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

Post by buck09 »

Dezcad wrote:The Dogwalker has been very busy filing all sorts of pleadings. Here are some, which are quite interesting:
Maybe someone mentioned this before, but why does he repeat he's not pro se twice on every single document?
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Post by notorial dissent »

That's easy, it's a big word, it’s legal sounding, and he heard someone use it once, therefore it must be “powerful” and significant. Otherwise, he hasn’t got a clue.
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

Post by Quixote »

buck09 wrote:
Dezcad wrote:The Dogwalker has been very busy filing all sorts of pleadings. Here are some, which are quite interesting:
Maybe someone mentioned this before, but why does he repeat he's not pro se twice on every single document?
He contends that the defendant is DANNY RILEY, not Danny Riley. So Danny Riley cannot procede pro se, only DANNY RILEY can procede pro se. I would give him points for consistency, except that he accepts that he is the defendant when it's necessary, such as when he wanted to fire his court appointed lawyer.
Last edited by Quixote on Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Post by webhick »

Danny Dogwalker wrote:In no way can this motion be construed to grant jurisdiction over the defendant, because the defendant's counsel still contends no jurisdiction exist.
In no way can my response to the above sentence be construed to grant jurisdiction of the Tooth Fairy over the Easter Bunny, because the Easter Bunny still contends that the Tooth Fairy belligerently engaged a tryst with the defendant and repeatedly whacked him upside the head with his size 13 pink pump with the frilly feathery stuff that makes a whoosh whoosh sound when you walk really fast. Oh, and there was that one time in Vegas...but you know, what happens there stays there. Unless you get hitched, and then usually the hooker talks you into letting her stay with you for a while and it all goes pretty well until your first wife comes home from work and sees that mess of stretch polyester lazing on your sofa and then she's all, "I'll cut you bitch! Your skank ass can't steal MY man!" and then the hooker calls the cops on your wife because the one thing she doesn't take is a threat. Then you have to use your winnings to bail your wife out of prison because her law firm won't pony up because the other partners are trying to distance themselves from her and then you end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to divorce the hooker - and she ends up with half of everything so your wife leaves you for the hooker.

And the children are so confused.
Danny Dogwalker wrote:The defendant having good reasons to believe Judge George Singal is or was a member of the Masonic Order
You cruel bastard! Stop shaking the Magic 8-Ball until it gives you the answers you want! Look at all the little bubbles forming behind the window! Can't you see that you're hurting it! PUT IT DOWN, DANNY! PUT IT DOWN BEFORE YOU'RE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER INSTEAD OF JUST ASSAULT!
Danny Dogwalker wrote:Judge Singal being a graduate of Harvard, a major recruiting ground for Masons
Could have sworn it was the Cross-Dressing Showtune Singing Woolly Persian Kitties of Alcatraz. But you know, there's not a heck of a lot of difference there.
Danny Dogwalker wrote:and by various web publications saying the judge is a Mason
Cause, everything published on the internet is true! Beware St. Patrick, the leprechaun. If you should be one of the unfortunate few who see him laying his multi-colored eggs on Halloween, we just may find your lucky charms stapled to the end of his rainbow. It's the absolute truth, I tell you!
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Post by grixit »

Ok, no more eggnog for Webhick!
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Post by Imalawman »

grixit wrote:Ok, no more eggnog for Webhick!
No, keep on drinking it, I want to see what happens next.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

Wrong :!:

Try some FRNS that feature someone who wasn't a president.
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Post by Dezcad »

Recent Order regarding the Motions filed by DoggieWalker:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

Criminal No. 07-189-GZS

DANIEL RILEY,
Defendant

ORDER CAUTIONING DEFENDANT RILEY
ABOUT FILING FRIVILOUS MOTIONS



Defendant is hereby CAUTIONED not to file additional frivolous motions. If
Defendant continues to engage in this type of motion practice, the Court may require
Defendant to seek approval of the Court before filing any future motions.

The Government shall not respond to further motions filed by Defendant Riley
until ordered to do so by the Court. The Court does ORDER the Government to respond
to Defendant Riley’s Motion for Severance Objection to Consolidation (Docket # 78 ) and
Demand for Bill of Particulars (Docket # 86).

/s/ George Z. Singal__________________

George Z. Singal

Chief United States District Judge



Dated this 26th day of December, 2007.
Disilloosianed

Post by Disilloosianed »

God bless Judge Singal for telling the poor government schlub in this case not to continue responding. I hate that moment when I pick up some of the latest lunacy and have the internal debate of "but it's the type of thing a mental patient would write.....but....i'm supposed to respond.....but ......"
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Post by Dr. Caligari »

Riley's brief to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in his habeas corpus case was due December 26, but it's not posted on his website. (Nor have any of my comments been accepted on that site-- I wonder why?)

Anyone seen that brief? It should be good for comic relief.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Post by Dezcad »

Dr. Caligari wrote:Riley's brief to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in his habeas corpus case was due December 26, but it's not posted on his website. (Nor have any of my comments been accepted on that site-- I wonder why?)

Anyone seen that brief? It should be good for comic relief.
I can't wait to see it or Joe Haas' amicus brief either....