Judge,Judge Roy Bean wrote:
There is a difference between not being able to comprehend a legal concept because of incapacitation and deliberately acting as if you're adhering to nonsense methods to try and appear loyal to the idiot-legal-theory crowd you bought in with.
He's fully capable if there is sufficient motivation. Currently he and the quacks that peddle these myths face no downside when they create snowstorms of paper that are nothing more than excercises in cut-and-paste word processing.ErsatzAnatchist wrote:
Judge,
I assume from your response that you believe that Danny is capable of realizing that his beliefs are nonsense. Why is that?
Going to have to disagree with you on this one judge. In the hundreds of cases I've followed over the years, this is one of the very few where I think the defendant has some serious and debilitating mental issues.Judge Roy Bean wrote:He's fully capable if there is sufficient motivation. Currently he and the quacks that peddle these myths face no downside when they create snowstorms of paper that are nothing more than excercises in cut-and-paste word processing.
I just see far too much tolerance on the part of judges, and the result is a proliferation of these kinds of filings.
'Round here, anyone submitting this garbage is a vexatious quack and the penalty is immediate incarceration and one day of barn cleaning per nonsense paragraph.
Hmm, that must be why all the barns west of the Pecos look more like operating rooms.Judge Roy Bean wrote:He's fully capable if there is sufficient motivation. Currently he and the quacks that peddle these myths face no downside when they create snowstorms of paper that are nothing more than excercises in cut-and-paste word processing.ErsatzAnatchist wrote:
Judge,
I assume from your response that you believe that Danny is capable of realizing that his beliefs are nonsense. Why is that?
I just see far too much tolerance on the part of judges, and the result is a proliferation of these kinds of filings.
'Round here, anyone submitting this garbage is a vexatious quack and the penalty is immediate incarceration and one day of barn cleaning per nonsense paragraph.
I suspect you'd have some additional insight from observing the events first-hand. But I think you'll agree that in most cases this is simple bull-headed stupidity as opposed to organic defect.Demosthenes wrote:...
Going to have to disagree with you on this one judge. In the hundreds of cases I've followed over the years, this is one of the very few where I think the defendant has some serious and debilitating mental issues.
Yep.I think you'll agree that in most cases this is simple bull-headed stupidity as opposed to organic defect.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
Criminal No. 07-189-GZS
DANIEL RILEY,
Defendant
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RILEY’S MOTION
TO PERMIT ATTORNEY SVEN WIBERG TO WITHDRAW
The Court now has before it Defendant Riley’s Motion [to Permit Attorney Wiberg] to
Withdraw or for Hearing. (Docket No. 439.) This motion asserts:
1. Mr. Riley has directed [Attorney Sven Wiberg] to withdraw.
2. Without revealing privileged communications, [Attorney Sven Wiberg]
submits that Mr. Riley does not wish to be represented by this attorney from
this time forward.
3. Assistant United States Attorney Arnold H. Huftalen has been contacted and
has indicated that he cannot take a position until he has reviewed this motion.
4. Although [Attorney Wiberg] has no desire to withdraw and believes that
continued representation could be necessary and advisable, it may be that the
attorney/client relationship has broken down. Consequently, the undersigned
has no alternative and must file this motion, as directed. See Rule 1.16 of the
New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct.
(Id. at 1.) Mr. Riley does not wish the Court to appoint him new counsel. Rather, Mr. Riley
requests that he be permitted to proceed pro se. Because of the disadvantages to a defendant that inure from pro se representation, a defendant must “knowingly and intelligently” waive his right to counsel before he may be permitted to proceed pro se. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464-65 (1938); United States v. Kneeland, 148 F.3d 6, 11 (1st Cir. 1998). To ensure that any waiver is knowing and intelligent, the Court has an obligation to instruct Mr. Riley about “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ ” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, (1975) (quoting Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942)).
The Court held a hearing on this matter and attempted to fulfill its obligation of ensuring
that Mr. Riley was knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to court appointed counsel and
Mr. Riley refused to cooperate. Because the Court cannot make the necessary determinations regarding the waiver of right to counsel, the motion will be denied.
During the course of the hearing, the Court listened to, and observed, Mr. Riley. Despite
being provided numerous opportunities to discuss the instant Motion to Withdraw, Mr. Riley refused and persisted in raising numerous irrelevant and unrelated matters with the Court. A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for August 1, 2008. “The sentencing process necessitates that the defendant possess both a ‘present ability to consult with [a] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding,’ and a ‘rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings.’” United States v. Pellerito, 878 F.2d 1535, 1544 (1st Cir. 1989) (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam) (defining competence to stand trial)). Based on the Court’s observance of Mr. Riley at the hearing and past observations wherein Mr. Riley continued to raise similar irrelevant material, the Court does not find that Mr. Riley has any competency issues but rather that he continues to raise the extraneous matters in an effort to obstruct and delay the proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant Riley’s Motion [to Permit Attorney
Wiberg] to Withdraw as counsel be, and it is hereby, DENIED. If at this time or any time in the future, either counsel has a concern with respect to Defendant Riley’s competency, they should file a Motion raising that issue and outlining the reasons therefor. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Mr. Riley is also free to file an additional motion to proceed pro se and, if Mr. Riley chooses to do so, the Court is hopeful that he will cooperate.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal__________________
Chief United States District Judge
Dated this 27th day of June, 2008.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Well, why not? When you're guilty as sin and looking at a very long time in the federal pokey, why not throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks? What's he got to lose at this point?Dezcad wrote:the Court does not find that Mr. Riley has any competency issues but rather that he continues to raise the extraneous matters in an effort to obstruct and delay the proceedings.
Even more time in prison?TheSaint wrote:Well, why not? When you're guilty as sin and looking at a very long time in the federal pokey, why not throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks? What's he got to lose at this point?
That's... that's one of the nicest things you, or anyone else, has ever said about me.notorial dissent wrote:Ah, but you are a rational, thinking, and functional individual....
True. But in Danny Riley's warped mind, the possibility of winning total freedom through some magic-word legal mumbo-jumbo might make it worth the risk.LPC wrote:If I were in DTW's position, the last thing I would want to be doing is annoying the judge who will soon be deciding my prison sentence.