Dogwalker's Competency

[Demosthenes]

Filed by Danny's lawyer:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley454.pdf

[Prof]

Filed by Danny's lawyer:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley454.pdf

I think that Mr. Wiberg -- between a rock and a hard place -- has done an excellent job of walking a very fine line in his attempts to shield the convicted Dog Walker from the consequences of the pro se pleadings and other actions Danny has taken.

Mr. Wiberg, who will be vilified in some quarters, should be complimented by those of us who live in the real world.

[buck09]

Filed by Danny's lawyer:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley454.pdf

I think that Mr. Wiberg -- between a rock and a hard place -- has done an excellent job of walking a very fine line in his attempts to shield the convicted Dog Walker from the consequences of the pro se pleadings and other actions Danny has taken.

Mr. Wiberg, who will be vilified in some quarters, should be complimented by those of us who live in the real world.

Agreed - his patience, professionalism and succinct summary of Danny's beliefs is to be commended. Would this be time to bring Indiana v. Edwards to bear on the issue?

[The Operative]

I agree with Prof. I thought the motion was well thought-out and presented. It clearly outlined a reason for questioning the competency of Danny. Of course, that is strictly my non-lawyer opinion. However, are misconceptions about how the courts and the law works, even to the point of paranoia, less any other delusional beliefs, enough to consider someone incompetent?

[Judge Roy Bean]

I truly hope the court doesn't declare him incompetent.

Fundamentally, RIley believes he is a sovereign and not subject to any current legal authority. Anyone who impugns that concept is part of the problem and isn't to be trusted.

IMHO it's not a mental defect, it's a political issue. Having strong political beliefs shouldn't be a path to spending time in a mental institution instead of prison.

[grixit]

As i've mentioned before, there was this dude by the name of Charles Stuart on trial once. The court agreed that he was a sovereign, but it didn't help him a bit.

[Prof]

As i've mentioned before, there was this dude by the name of Charles Stuart on trial once. The court agreed that he was a sovereign, but it didn't help him a bit.

Louis Bourbon and Nicholas Romanov found themselves in similar situations.

[Nikki]

At least Danny's not losing his head over this.

[Prof]

At least Danny's not losing his head over this.

But he is in over his head.

[wserra]

IMHO it's not a mental defect, it's a political issue.

And that's the entire question.

Delusional as a result of a mental disease or defect = incompetent.
Delusional as a result of a political belief = incarcerated.

[LPC]

To me, the most interesting part of Wiberg's motion was the following:

Although the Court attempted, in the colloquy at the last hearing, to engage Mr. Riley in an attempt to ascertain his ability to represent himself, it may be that the Court did not realize that Mr. Riley was not seeking to represent himself. If counsel understands correctly, Mr. Riley wanted to dismiss the undersigned, but not to represent himself. That, in itself, was, in counsel’s opinion, not rational. Mr. Riley would have been, in effect, abandoning any attempt to represent himself or to be represented, in the irrational, perhaps delusional, belief that there was another, more appropriate process that the Court and the attorneys had intentionally and deceptively deprived him of. He continues to believe in this “Wizard of Oz,” “man behind the curtain,” scenario.

I suspect that Wiberg is seeing the illogical consequences of the "strawman" theory. DTDW probably believes that the court has jurisdiction only over his all-caps, BAR-represented "strawman," and that if he can rid himself of those impediments, the court will be forced to recognize his true sovereign nature and release him.

[LPC]

IMHO it's not a mental defect, it's a political issue.

And that's the entire question.

Delusional as a result of a mental disease or defect = incompetent.
Delusional as a result of a political belief = incarcerated.

My next question was going to be: What is the consequence of declaring someone to be incompetent *after* he has been convicted?

Some years ago, there was a question about the competence of someone who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. As I understood the debate at the time, the government couldn't executed him if he was incompetent, even though he was competent when he committed the crime and when he was tried.

So, if Riley is declared to be incompetent, he can't be imprisoned, but only involuntarily committed? And then, if he regains his competence, he can be transferred from the psychiatric hospital back to prison?

Seems like a waste of judicial resources to me.

[Demosthenes]

Danny's paranoia about the man behind the curtain is so strong that he put up a fight against the prison guards, causing himself significant physical pain. He fought because he didn't know he had a hearing date and thought that "they" were coming to take him away, perhaps to kill him.

When I read the "man behind the curtain" language in Wiberg's filing, I assumed he was referring to the secret society that Danny thinks rules the world.

Here's an excerpt from Danny's criminal case against the judge, prosecutors, and Marshal.

With the Courts being administrative tribunals for the corporate United States that is in bankruptcy to the Bank of England, which is owned by the Rothschild dynasty, and the Court using admiralty/maritime laws to administer the statutes against my corporate entity, where Common Law and the Constitution have to no place.

[Dezcad]

Danny's paranoia about the man behind the curtain is so strong that he put up a fight against the prison guards, causing himself significant physical pain. He fought because he didn't know he had a hearing date and thought that "they" were coming to take him away, perhaps to kill him.

When I read the "man behind the curtain" language in Wiberg's filing, I assumed he was referring to the secret society that Danny thinks rules the world.

Here's an excerpt from Danny's criminal case against the judge, prosecutors, and Marshal.

With the Courts being administrative tribunals for the corporate United States that is in bankruptcy to the Bank of England, which is owned by the Rothschild dynasty, and the Court using admiralty/maritime laws to administer the statutes against my corporate entity, where Common Law and the Constitution have to no place.

I think he's channelling Roger Elvick.....

[Judge Roy Bean]

The problem Danny has in parroting other very similar diatribes is just that - they are not the creative product of a delusional mind; they are simply worn out theories he's decided to offer in his 'defense' because he needed to further his (and the Browns') cause in the public realm and pays no penalty in doing so.

Little of what he posits in the filings should be construed as something from an incompetent defendant. He merely cuts and pastes from other nonsense as if it weren't frivolous in the rehashed form.

I see nothing unique that would offer a court the opportunity to analyze and rule on a novel legal theory. In fact, more Judges need to become aware of how detrimental it is to the entire system to let people like him play the game.

He's a political nutball who, regardless of his alleged beliefs, committed crimes. If he is allowed to escape into the confines of a mental institution there cannot be an eventual cure; you don't cure these kinds of political beliefs as long as there are others lingering on the outside who offer support for them.

The answer is to slap contempt fines and time on anyone who wanders off into the weeds with this nonsense.

'Round here, a colon in a name is good for five days. You are who you are - deal with it or help clean out the pig pens until you're ready to appear as who you are.

Doing the 'strawman' dance gets you a fine of twenty dollars per use of the word. Given that no nitwit who presents such a thing has ten, let alone twenty dollars to his name, it works out to a half a dressed hog per offense. Subject is responsible for raising same in the court's facilities until such time as it can be sold to offset the obligation.

A challenge on fringed-flag grounds is good for a month of scrubbing the courthouse floor with a toothbrush, seeings how all of the flags in these parts have one.

Go for the US corporate entity nonsense and you'll spend ten days with Bubba extending the rock fence on Elmer's north property line. He's been at it for a long time and doesn't cotton to slackers.

Until courts in yonder jurisdictions heed the call, things will only get worse.

[Nikki]

Danny, his family, friends, and supporters have all read thousands of pages of FACTS on sites all over the Internet.

Every single one of these sites supports and confirms each other by repeating the same citations, quotations, and references to someons's wife' brother's daughter's beautician's friend who beat a traffic ticket using this [or that] theory.

Now, who is he to believe? Should he listen to these thousands of Internet voices [knowing that if it's on the Internet, it HAS to be true because someone would have corrected or removed it otherwise] OR should he listen to representatives of the system which is not only out to get him, but is controlled by the vast international conspiracy of [insert your favorite]?

He's going to listen to people he trusts -- his family, friends, and supporters -- because they all have his best interests guiding them and none of them have any hidden agenda or axe to grind.

Danny is not going to change his mind. He is going to come out of prison more bitter and dangerous than he is today.

[wserra]

So, if Riley is declared to be incompetent, he can't be imprisoned, but only involuntarily committed? And then, if he regains his competence, he can be transferred from the psychiatric hospital back to prison?

He can be imprisoned for up to four months for observation to determine competency. If competent then, sentence proceeds. If still incompetent, he can continue to be held in a locked-ward facility, so long as there is a reasonable probability of regaining competency, up until his maximum release date. He has a right to periodic hearings on that issue. If it is ever determined that he is unlikely to regain competency, criminal proceedings must be ended, but he (like anyone else) can be involuntarily committed.

FWIW, my (irrelevant, uninformed) opinion is that he is competent, largely for JRB's reasons.

[Nikki]

Nikki, you forgot one small, but important fact in your musing and that is Danny's family and friends are, for the most part, blithering idiots.

That and the fact that I don't think Danny could "pour p*ss out of a boot even if the instructions were written on the heel."

I'm not going to award you a woooosh, yet.
Go back and read it again -- this time with tongue firmly in cheek

[Nikki]

Oh my tongue was firmly in my cheek the first time I read it (that's my defense - a cheek defense), I was merely observing that you forgot one critical aspect and a prime opportunity to use a classic LBJ quote.

Boo, hiss

All is forgiven for coming up with the best pun of the day (so far).

[Demosthenes]

07/08/2008 ENDORSED ORDER as to Daniel Riley 454 MOTION for Order to Determine Competency to Stand Trial in Response to Court's Order. Text of Order: The Government shall respond to this motion by 5:00 PM, July 9, 2008. So Ordered by Chief Judge George Z. Singal. (jar) (Entered: 07/08/2008)