Hey, stupid question: What's the (jar) mean? Is that where he lives? If so, does he smell like strawberry preserves? Maybe that's why they keep the courtrooms so cold. To make sure the judge doesn't spoil.
Okay, okay...I know. It's probably the initials of the person keying it into the docket or something.
Dogwalker's Competency
-
webhick
- Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
- Posts: 3994
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
-
grixit
- Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
- Posts: 4287
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
Junta Alta de Rosicrucianes
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
-
ErsatzAnatchist
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
It is the initials of the clerk doing the data entry.webhick wrote:Hey, stupid question: What's the (jar) mean? Is that where he lives? If so, does he smell like strawberry preserves? Maybe that's why they keep the courtrooms so cold. To make sure the judge doesn't spoil.
Okay, okay...I know. It's probably the initials of the person keying it into the docket or something.
-
Demosthenes
- Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
- Posts: 5773
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
The gov's response:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL RILEY
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL SVEN WIBERG’S MOTION IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RILEY’S MOTION TO PERMIT ATTORNEY SVEN WIBERG TO WITHDRAW, Docket # 454
On Thursday, June 26, 2008 the Court held a hearing on defendant’s MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR FOR HEARING (Docket # 439). At the hearing the defendant refused to cooperate with the Court and instead raised irrelevant issues, as the defendant has done in the past. In particular the defendant raised the issue of his name being copyright protected.
After the hearing the Court issued an Order (Docket # 452) denying the relief sought and stated:
On July 3, 2008, defense Counsel, Sven Wiberg, filed a pleading entitled COUNSEL’S MOTION IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RILEY’S MOTION TO PERMIT ATTORNEY SVEN WIBERG TO WITHDRAW (Docket # 454). Notwithstanding a statement in that Motion that counsel does have concerns about Riley’s mental status (Docket # 454 at ¶ 2) the Motion does not state that there “is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” 18 United States Code, Section 4241(a).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.
Rather, and quite to the contrary, counsel points out in that Motion that prior to trial he was of the opinion that the defendant was competent and that some of the current behaviors of the defendant were present at that time. Specifically, in his recent Motion counsel states:
The defendant’s recent irrelevant statements are no more indicative of incompetence than were his prior irrelevant statements. Counsel for the defendant, who has spent many, many hours with the defendant, is obviously familiar with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). Yet he has never advised the Court that he was, or is, of the opinion that his client was not, or is not, competent.[t]he issue of competency was discussed prior to trial at the request of the Court. At that time, both the undersigned and Government agreed that it appeared that Mr. Riley was competent. However, even at that time, Mr. Riley exhibited some signs of beliefs radically different from those of the average citizen, such as those beliefs relating to the form and organization of the federal court system (e.g., fringe on the flag, Admiralty, sui juris, name as legal fiction, etc.). Motion (Docket # 454) at ¶ 3.
The recent statements of the defendant, concerning the copyrighting of his name and associated UCC filings, are not indicative of incompetence. They are, instead, reflective of a further course of conduct by the defendant, and others including Edward Brown, to inject extraneous issues into the proceeding in an apparent attempt to delay and obstruct.
Recently, the defendant wrote a letter to Edward Brown in which he, Riley, discussed the UCC filing process and advised Brown that if he came across any new information that helped the UCC process he would forward it to him through an intermediary.
He also noted in that letter that he was instructing that same intermediary to duplicate all of his information and provide it to co-defendants Gonzalez and Gerhard. Clear evidence, the government submits, of a rational and obstructive thought process by the defendant, not the rantings of an incompetent.
Furthermore, during a significant portion of the time between Indictment and trial Mr. Riley represented himself. During that time, the undersigned and AUSA Kinsella had multiple telephonic and in person communications with Mr. Riley concerning the then upcoming trial. At no time did it appear that Mr. Riley was anything but competent. He understood the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and was engaged in a meaningful way in his defense. Even after asking the Court to allow Mr. Wiberg to be trial counsel, Mr. Riley continued to be engaged in his defense. During the course of the trial it was apparent that he was communicative with his attorney and was apparently discussing the evidence.
Notwithstanding the pro se pleadings that have been filed by the defendant, and his recent statements, which are unorthodox, based upon the direct observations of the defendant by the government, the government does not have any “reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” 18 U.S.C. 4241(a).
July 9, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS P. COLANTUONO
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Arnold H. Huftalen
Arnold H. Huftalen
Demo.
-
Dezcad
- Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
It is a victory for the truly incompetent......not to have DW lumped in with them.....CaptainKickback wrote:It's a victory, I just don't know who for.........
-
LPC
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
I would say "delude and obstruct."The recent statements of the defendant, concerning the copyrighting of his name and associated UCC filings, are not indicative of incompetence. They are, instead, reflective of a further course of conduct by the defendant, and others including Edward Brown, to inject extraneous issues into the proceeding in an apparent attempt to delay and obstruct.
"Unorthodox"? The US Attorney gets points for amusing understatement.Notwithstanding the pro se pleadings that have been filed by the defendant, and his recent statements, which are unorthodox,
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.
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.
-
Gregg
- Conde de Quatloo
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
- Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
How long before some nutcase at LH or some such place uses that quote to state that Danny is actually a good lawyer?The recent statements of the defendant, concerning the copyrighting of his name and associated UCC filings, are not indicative of incompetence.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
-
Bud Dickman
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
Plainfield
Gunrunner's mental state questioned
Lawyer: Filings show tenuous grip on reality
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
July 11, 2008
The lawyer for a man who was recently convicted of bringing guns and bombs to convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown has asked the court to evaluate his client's competency. Recent conversations and filings, a court document says, have led the lawyer to question whether his client understands basic facts about how the legal system works.
Daniel Riley of Cohoes, N.Y., was a frequent visitor to the Browns' Plainfield home, where he brought weapons and helped build explosive devices during a nearly nine-month standoff with federal agents, a jury found in April.
It is unclear what a finding that Riley is not competent would mean since he has already been tried, and was convicted of five federal felonies, though such a finding could affect his sentencing, scheduled for later this summer.
Riley, like the Browns, has long believed that there is no valid law requiring the payment of federal income taxes. He has expressed a number of unconventional views about the law and legal system in video and audio recordings dating before his first visit to Plainfield.
Riley's lawyer, Sven Wiberg, told the judge in November 2007 that though his client had unusual political views, he did not believe he had any mental health issues that would prevent him from understanding the trial process or meaningfully assisting in his own defense. Last week, Wiberg told the court that he has changed his mind. After observing Riley through communications, court hearings and a number of recent pro se filings, made despite Wiberg's appointment as Riley's lawyer, Wiberg told the court that he thinks Riley is "perhaps delusional."
Wiberg's recent filing says that Riley believes that there is a secret, alternative legal process that is being hidden from him. He describes this view as Riley's "Wizard of Oz, 'man behind the curtain,' scenario."
"Mr. Riley continues to hold these beliefs and trust in these arcane, puzzling, ineffective and irrational legal maneuvers," the document says. "At this time, counsel must indicate that he has some legitimate doubt about his client's mental state and capacity."
Wiberg's motion came after a recent hearing to determine whether Riley would be allowed to fire Wiberg. Riley represented himself for several months before the trial, but ultimately accepted Wiberg's help, first as standby counsel and later as his attorney. During the trial, Wiberg and Riley appeared to cooperate, and they two spoke often during breaks in testimony. Riley's June motion to dismiss Wiberg suggests that the relationship has deteriorated.
"Mr. Wiberg knows that the Court is trying to steal my credit by making me, the living man Daniel-John: Riley stand in for the legal fiction DANIEL JOHN RILEY as a surety or accommodating party, so the Corrections Corporation of America can eventually issue investment securities in the form of Penal Bonds," Riley's pro se motion reads. The motion also indicates that Riley will direct future attorney-client correspondence to Wiberg's "boss," U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
To be found competent to stand trial, defendants must be able to understand the roles of various actors in the legal system and to meaningfully assist in their own defense. Wiberg's filing suggests that Riley is unable to do either: Because he believes in an alternative legal process, he is unable to see the players' real roles and has become unwilling to speak with his lawyer or cooperate with the judge.
The judge in the case, Chief Judge George Singal of Maine, reached a different conclusion after the hearing last month. He found that Riley was deliberately choosing not to cooperate in the proceedings.
"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," Singal wrote. He told Riley that Wiberg would continue to represent him unless he agreed to cooperate and answer questions about his understanding of what it would mean to proceed pro se.
In a filing this week, the government echoed the judge's conclusion. A response by Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen argues that Riley's recent inappropriate behavior in court is no different from similar conduct before the trial. Huftalen also argues that a recent letter from Riley to Ed Brown, recommending similar legal tactics, is a sign of rational mind. Riley's goal, the filing argues, is to "inject extraneous issues into the proceeding in an apparent attempt to delay and obstruct."
If Riley is found incompetent, it is unclear what that will mean for his case. Wiberg said in an interview that he may argue that Riley was never competent to be tried, potentially calling the jury verdict into question.
Such a finding may also help him in the more limited context of Riley's sentencing, scheduled for later this summer. Though one of Riley's convictions carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in prison, court documents suggest that prosecutors will seek enhancements on other sentences, arguing that Riley has been obstructing justice with his recent extraneous court filings. A finding that Riley's behavior stems from mental illness could take the wind out of such an argument, Wiberg said.
"It might not affect his sentencing," he said. "Then again it might."
Gunrunner's mental state questioned
Lawyer: Filings show tenuous grip on reality
By Margot Sanger-Katz
Monitor staff
July 11, 2008
The lawyer for a man who was recently convicted of bringing guns and bombs to convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown has asked the court to evaluate his client's competency. Recent conversations and filings, a court document says, have led the lawyer to question whether his client understands basic facts about how the legal system works.
Daniel Riley of Cohoes, N.Y., was a frequent visitor to the Browns' Plainfield home, where he brought weapons and helped build explosive devices during a nearly nine-month standoff with federal agents, a jury found in April.
It is unclear what a finding that Riley is not competent would mean since he has already been tried, and was convicted of five federal felonies, though such a finding could affect his sentencing, scheduled for later this summer.
Riley, like the Browns, has long believed that there is no valid law requiring the payment of federal income taxes. He has expressed a number of unconventional views about the law and legal system in video and audio recordings dating before his first visit to Plainfield.
Riley's lawyer, Sven Wiberg, told the judge in November 2007 that though his client had unusual political views, he did not believe he had any mental health issues that would prevent him from understanding the trial process or meaningfully assisting in his own defense. Last week, Wiberg told the court that he has changed his mind. After observing Riley through communications, court hearings and a number of recent pro se filings, made despite Wiberg's appointment as Riley's lawyer, Wiberg told the court that he thinks Riley is "perhaps delusional."
Wiberg's recent filing says that Riley believes that there is a secret, alternative legal process that is being hidden from him. He describes this view as Riley's "Wizard of Oz, 'man behind the curtain,' scenario."
"Mr. Riley continues to hold these beliefs and trust in these arcane, puzzling, ineffective and irrational legal maneuvers," the document says. "At this time, counsel must indicate that he has some legitimate doubt about his client's mental state and capacity."
Wiberg's motion came after a recent hearing to determine whether Riley would be allowed to fire Wiberg. Riley represented himself for several months before the trial, but ultimately accepted Wiberg's help, first as standby counsel and later as his attorney. During the trial, Wiberg and Riley appeared to cooperate, and they two spoke often during breaks in testimony. Riley's June motion to dismiss Wiberg suggests that the relationship has deteriorated.
"Mr. Wiberg knows that the Court is trying to steal my credit by making me, the living man Daniel-John: Riley stand in for the legal fiction DANIEL JOHN RILEY as a surety or accommodating party, so the Corrections Corporation of America can eventually issue investment securities in the form of Penal Bonds," Riley's pro se motion reads. The motion also indicates that Riley will direct future attorney-client correspondence to Wiberg's "boss," U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
To be found competent to stand trial, defendants must be able to understand the roles of various actors in the legal system and to meaningfully assist in their own defense. Wiberg's filing suggests that Riley is unable to do either: Because he believes in an alternative legal process, he is unable to see the players' real roles and has become unwilling to speak with his lawyer or cooperate with the judge.
The judge in the case, Chief Judge George Singal of Maine, reached a different conclusion after the hearing last month. He found that Riley was deliberately choosing not to cooperate in the proceedings.
"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," Singal wrote. He told Riley that Wiberg would continue to represent him unless he agreed to cooperate and answer questions about his understanding of what it would mean to proceed pro se.
In a filing this week, the government echoed the judge's conclusion. A response by Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen argues that Riley's recent inappropriate behavior in court is no different from similar conduct before the trial. Huftalen also argues that a recent letter from Riley to Ed Brown, recommending similar legal tactics, is a sign of rational mind. Riley's goal, the filing argues, is to "inject extraneous issues into the proceeding in an apparent attempt to delay and obstruct."
If Riley is found incompetent, it is unclear what that will mean for his case. Wiberg said in an interview that he may argue that Riley was never competent to be tried, potentially calling the jury verdict into question.
Such a finding may also help him in the more limited context of Riley's sentencing, scheduled for later this summer. Though one of Riley's convictions carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in prison, court documents suggest that prosecutors will seek enhancements on other sentences, arguing that Riley has been obstructing justice with his recent extraneous court filings. A finding that Riley's behavior stems from mental illness could take the wind out of such an argument, Wiberg said.
"It might not affect his sentencing," he said. "Then again it might."
-
Demosthenes
- Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
- Posts: 5773
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm
-
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.
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
Words fail me. oh my.Demosthenes wrote:I really feel sorry for Danny's lawyer:
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/riley460.pdf
"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
-
Demosthenes
- Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
- Posts: 5773
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
55 PLEASANT STREET, ROOM 110
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-3941
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
James R. Starr Clerk of Court
July 11, 2008
Strafford County House of Corrections
266 County Farm Rd.
Dover, NH 08320
Attn: Daniel Riley (Inmate)
Re: United States v. Riley, 07-cr-189-GZS
Dear Mr. Riley:
I am writing in regard to your submission entitled "Notice of Written Communication/Security Agreement Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principle Notice to the Principle is Notice to the Agent," which was received on July 3, 2008 and addressed to Clerk James R. Starr.
No substantive response to the content of your submission is necessary or warranted. I do emphatically emphasize, however, that you have no authority to assert a security interest or lien on the property interests of Clerk Starr or any judicial officer or court employee.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Lynch
Chief Deputy Clerk
Demo.
-
Judge Roy Bean
- Judge for the District of Quatloosia
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
- Location: West of the Pecos
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley© Daniel Riley©
OK you little weasel, sue me.
OK you little weasel, sue me.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
-
Red Cedar PM
- Burnished Vanquisher of the Kooloohs
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:10 pm
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
What a nutjob. Where is his brother who was here earlier? He needs to get his brother to shut his mouth and let his lawyer try to get him some leniency. I don't see how he could read that transcript and tell us with a straight face that his brother does not need help.
Additionally, I am surprised the judge let that nonsense go on for even that long (I believe the transcript showed 16 minutes). I think right about the time he started talking about trial balances and objecting his own lawyer I would have chucked my gavel at him (maybe this is why I am not an attorney).
Additionally, I am surprised the judge let that nonsense go on for even that long (I believe the transcript showed 16 minutes). I think right about the time he started talking about trial balances and objecting his own lawyer I would have chucked my gavel at him (maybe this is why I am not an attorney).
"Pride cometh before thy fall."
--Dantonio 11:03:07
--Dantonio 11:03:07
Grixit wrote:Hey Diller: forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.
-
Demosthenes
- Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
- Posts: 5773
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
Dogwalker wrote:
Someone should tell the moron that he's been convicted of aiding and abetting fugitives, weapons charges, and explosives charges. It isn't a tax case and has nothing to do with money.The indictment is nothing more than a true bill, which it says it right on it, Your Honor. And a true bill has to have the corresponding debt owed attached to it. There is no corresponding debt owed attached to the true bill, and we went to trial to figure out the trial balance, which we've determined that I owed on the -- not me but the -- my debtor owed on the balance on the true bill, which was given no debt owed. And according to Black's Law Dictionary and the law, you've got to have a corresponding debt owed to a true bill. So is it a true bill or a false bill? What is the debt owed? How can somebody -- you would have a commercial lien right now on my debtor and are holding me as collateral for my debtor, which I am a secured party to and who we are willing to straighten this out and pay the claim, but you can't pay a claim when there is no amount given, which I've asked in a public record.
Demo.
-
grixit
- Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
- Posts: 4287
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
At least he's stopped calling the judge `Captain'.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
-
Famspear
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
Not to mention the fact that all the years of "study" that brought him to believe in his Extraterrestrial Theories about the legal system, the UCC, etc., were for naught. As the Bluto (John Belushi) character said: "seven years of college, down the drain".CaptainKickback wrote:Danny really and truly has to believe all the cr*p he is presenting top the court, because his mind is too damned small and weak and he would probably completely go to pieces if he admitted the reality of the situation - he f*cked up big time and he did it all himself, by listening to other idiots.
"Let's face it Flounder, you f*cked up. You trusted us."
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
ErsatzAnatchist
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
I am convinced that Dogwalker has gone off the deep end. This is not him screwing with the system or anything like that. He no longer lives in our world. I wonder if he really understands why he is in prison? Perhaps his conviction put him over the edge.CaptainKickback wrote:Danny really and truly has to believe all the cr*p he is presenting top the court, because his mind is too damned small and weak and he would probably completely go to pieces if he admitted the reality of the situation - he f*cked up big time and he did it all himself, by listening to other idiots.
"Let's face it Flounder, you f*cked up. You trusted us."
-
LPC
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
I think Riley is conflating the word "bill" meaning "a statement from a creditor" (as in, "I got a bill from the telephone company today") and the word "bill" as used in indictments (as in a certification that the indictment is a "true bill"). So:Demosthenes wrote:Dogwalker wrote:Someone should tell the moron that he's been convicted of aiding and abetting fugitives, weapons charges, and explosives charges. It isn't a tax case and has nothing to do with money.The indictment is nothing more than a true bill, which it says it right on it, Your Honor. And a true bill has to have the corresponding debt owed attached to it. There is no corresponding debt owed attached to the true bill, and we went to trial to figure out the trial balance, which we've determined that I owed on the -- not me but the -- my debtor owed on the balance on the true bill, which was given no debt owed. And according to Black's Law Dictionary and the law, you've got to have a corresponding debt owed to a true bill. So is it a true bill or a false bill? What is the debt owed? How can somebody -- you would have a commercial lien right now on my debtor and are holding me as collateral for my debtor, which I am a secured party to and who we are willing to straighten this out and pay the claim, but you can't pay a claim when there is no amount given, which I've asked in a public record.
1. The indictment is a bill from the government;
2. The government hasn't shown that DR owes the government any money;
3. Therefore, the indictment is not a "true bill"; and
4. Therefore, DR has not been charged with any crime.
This is a common form of tax denier "logic" that I describe in my FAQ as "chaining."
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.
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.
-
Demosthenes
- Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
- Posts: 5773
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm
-
Judge Roy Bean
- Judge for the District of Quatloosia
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
- Location: West of the Pecos
Re: Dogwalker's Competency
He's had lots of time to rehearse this little act.
IMHO the real key is he hasn't invented any of this. People with an organic mental defect usually concoct their own unique oddities that make sense only to them. In a room full of them you won't find the same delusion. About the only thing they can agree on is they don't really belong there.
IMHO the real key is he hasn't invented any of this. People with an organic mental defect usually concoct their own unique oddities that make sense only to them. In a room full of them you won't find the same delusion. About the only thing they can agree on is they don't really belong there.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three