More Dog Walker Briefs

Bud Dickman · Post by **Bud Dickman** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:51 pm

http://static.scribd.com/docs/6us7cjixy ... VIEW=width

http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/2007/12/ ... preme.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/948510/State- ... eas-Corpus

Post by **notorial dissent** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:21 am

Well, that didn't take long to go bouncing down the pike. I wonder what the excuse will be this time.

Post by **grixit** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:49 am

That's a gutsy amicus brief. The petitioner presumes to educate the judges on the history of the constitution and the meaning of federalism.

Post by **notorial dissent** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:58 am

grixit wrote:That's a gutsy amicus brief. The petitioner presumes to educate the judges on the history of the constitution and the meaning of federalism.

And yet does it so poorly.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:19 am

CaptainKickback wrote:I had assumed Danny was a boxers kind of guy, not a briefs kind of guy.......I stand corrected.

I just caught his YouTube video the other day and I was wondering if was indeed wearing boxers or briefs in it - he certainly didn't have a shirt on.

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:12 pm

DANNY RILEY IS REPRESENTING HIMSELF, SUI JURIS ...

DANNY RILEY WILL BE ARGUING THE CASE

It was my understanding the natural person Danny Riley was representing the artificial person DANNY RILEY. It appears for argument sake the artificial person is stepping forward.

Sui Juris, Pro Se, repeat Pro Se ... I predict he's already lost.

Post by **LPC** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:23 pm

notorial dissent wrote:
grixit wrote:That's a gutsy amicus brief. The petitioner presumes to educate the judges on the history of the constitution and the meaning of federalism.
And yet does it so poorly.

Don't let Larry Becraft hear you say that, because the brief Haas submitted is a rip-off of a brief prepared by Larry Becraft and published on his website.

I wonder if it's the same brief that got him sanctioned by the 9th Circuit? (See In re Lowell H. Becraft (United States v. Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989), in which Becraft was fined $2,500 for arguing that the jurisdiction of the United States was limited to the District of Columbia and federal forts.)

If so, would it be appropriate (or persuasive) to point out to the New Hampshire Supreme Court that not only the same argument, but the same brief, has previously been rejected by a federal Court of Appeals in a published decision?

. · Post by . » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:28 pm

Slow-motion crash and burn.

Will it take the TP "public" less time to forget about about the erstwhile "supporters" than it took them to forget about E&E: family delusional and long-term incarcerated, which was about a week?

Probably. Perhaps later on we should publicize their prisoner numbers and FCI addresses so that their fan can send them nice "keep up the fight" letters and provide some humor to break the monotony of their inevitable 20+ year sentences.

. · Post by . » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:31 pm

If so, would it be appropriate (or persuasive) to point out to the New Hampshire Supreme Court that not only the same argument, but the same brief, has previously been rejected by a federal Court of Appeals in a published decision?

Amicus! [/end Belushi Animal House voice]

I like it.

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:33 pm

. wrote:
If so, would it be appropriate (or persuasive) to point out to the New Hampshire Supreme Court that not only the same argument, but the same brief, has previously been rejected by a federal Court of Appeals in a published decision?
Amicus! [/end Belushi Animal House voice]

I like it.

I was thinking the same thing. Go, Dan, go! Just for the fun of it.

Post by **webhick** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:14 pm

Doktor Avalanche wrote:
CaptainKickback wrote:I had assumed Danny was a boxers kind of guy, not a briefs kind of guy.......I stand corrected.
I just caught his YouTube video the other day and I was wondering if was indeed wearing boxers or briefs in it - he certainly didn't have a shirt on.

Neither. Sequined thong. Now, please, a moment of silence for poor Denise, who was mortally blinded on the above mission.

ErsatzAnatchist · Post by **ErsatzAnatchist** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:48 pm

This is going to drive the poor law clerks nuts. They get to cite check every one of those ancient cases cited in those briefs. At least the amicus brief will probably get punted as i was filed without leave of the court.

Post by **LPC** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:01 pm

ASITStands wrote:
. wrote:
If so, would it be appropriate (or persuasive) to point out to the New Hampshire Supreme Court that not only the same argument, but the same brief, has previously been rejected by a federal Court of Appeals in a published decision?
Amicus! [/end Belushi Animal House voice]

I like it.
I was thinking the same thing. Go, Dan, go! Just for the fun of it.

I faxed a letter to the AUSA and the Strafford County Attorney pointing to Becraft's brief and the 9th Circuit opinion. That should be good enough. If either of them wants to use the information, fine. If they don't, that's fine also. It's not like Riley is going anywhere.

Post by **webhick** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:28 am

LPC wrote:I faxed a letter to the AUSA and the Strafford County Attorney pointing to Becraft's brief and the 9th Circuit opinion. That should be good enough. If either of them wants to use the information, fine. If they don't, that's fine also. It's not like Riley is going anywhere.

Do you want me to call and ask if they have paper in the fax machine? I don't know how many times I've faxed stuff to government offices up here and they don't get it and when I call and tell them to look at the display it says "Insert Paper" and they respond that they don't know what to do. Sometimes I'm in a bad mood and tell them that they need to insert a paperclip between the positronic regulator and the landing matrix while powering on the subsonic pulse inhibitor. Sadly, they never get it.

Post by **grixit** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:46 am

webhick wrote:
LPC wrote:I faxed a letter to the AUSA and the Strafford County Attorney pointing to Becraft's brief and the 9th Circuit opinion. That should be good enough. If either of them wants to use the information, fine. If they don't, that's fine also. It's not like Riley is going anywhere.
Do you want me to call and ask if they have paper in the fax machine? I don't know how many times I've faxed stuff to government offices up here and they don't get it and when I call and tell them to look at the display it says "Insert Paper" and they respond that they don't know what to do. Sometimes I'm in a bad mood and tell them that they need to insert a paperclip between the positronic regulator and the landing matrix while powering on the subsonic pulse inhibitor. Sadly, they never get it.

That's because those operation require access to the auxilary control panel, which in turn means someone has to crawl through the Jeffries Tubes.

Post by **webhick** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:04 am

Does anyone remember that time we convinced Ensign Chapman that the only way to make the replicators produce alcohol instead of synthehol was to crawl through the Jeffries Tubes and insert a blue tribble at every third turbolift junction and he found out he couldn't fit in the corridors so he stripped naked and greased up his fat ass and for 7 months we could tell what part of the ship he was working in from the faint sound of "squeeky squeeky"?

Good times. Its a shame that we lost track of him around the same time we did a test firing of that photon torpedo, but that was the only way we could clear the blockage.

But anyway, back to Danny Riley. Do you think we can convince him to put the blue tribbles at every third turbolift junction?

Post by **LPC** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:08 am

webhick wrote:Does anyone remember that time we convinced Ensign Chapman that the only way to make the replicators produce alcohol instead of synthehol was to crawl through the Jeffries Tubes ....

What a way to end the year, with champagne all over the keyboard.

Happy new year!

Dr. Caligari · Post by **Dr. Caligari** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:59 am

Happy new year to you, Dan. God bless.

Post by **webhick** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:53 am

LPC wrote:What a way to end the year, with champagne all over the keyboard.

I hope you realize that every time you do that, Sally Struthers snatches a twinkie out of the mouth of a starving Ethiopian child. Out of curiosity, did it come out your nose? If it did, Dick Clark also aged a year. It's a rule. He can only age when LPC shoots champagne out his nose.

Happy New Year! Here's to many more dead, sticky keyboards...without porn.

Post by **LPC** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:08 pm

ASITStands wrote:
. wrote:
If so, would it be appropriate (or persuasive) to point out to the New Hampshire Supreme Court that not only the same argument, but the same brief, has previously been rejected by a federal Court of Appeals in a published decision?
Amicus! [/end Belushi Animal House voice]

I like it.
I was thinking the same thing. Go, Dan, go! Just for the fun of it.

I sent a fax to the AUSA for NH and the Strafford County Attorney, giving them the essential facts, and that will most likely end my involvement.

Meanwhile, I have received email (and a voicemail) from Joe Haas, who has pointed me to a forum in which he has an active (and long-term) thread on the E&E Browns.

Joe Haas has discovered my FAQ, and pronounces it "excellent."