Danny "Dogwalker" Riley's latest pleadings

[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.

[wserra]

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!

[.]

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.

[Dezcad]

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.

[.]

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!

[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]

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.

[grixit]

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

[LPC]

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?

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.

[buck09]

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]

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]

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.

[webhick]

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.

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!

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.

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!

[grixit]

Ok, no more eggnog for Webhick!

[Imalawman]

Ok, no more eggnog for Webhick!

No, keep on drinking it, I want to see what happens next.

[Nikki]

Wrong

Try some FRNS that feature someone who wasn't a president.

[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]

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]

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.

[Dezcad]

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....