UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OBJECTION OBJECTION v. OBJECTION DANIEL RILEY, Etal. 1:07-cr-189-GZS COMES NOW, making a special appearance, Daniel Riley, acting in a sovereign capacity, Sui Juris, not Pro Se repeat not Pro Se representing the fiction DANIEL RILEY, and makes this motion, prima facie. 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 should this motion be construed to be considered a contract ‘and all rights are reserved at the common law UCC 1-308 and 1-103.6 without prejudice. 1. The defendant makes an objection for the record in regards to this second unlawful judicial proceedings being held in Portland, Maine. This case is out of Plainfield ‘New Hampshire, therefore the district of New Hampshire. 2. The first proceeding was held on October 26, 2007. This proceeding was a “secret court date” as described to the defendant by the U.S. Marshals who came to pick him up at Strafford County Jail. The defendant wasn’t given any prior notice to this secret court date and resisted the U.S. Marshals, only to be forcibly beaten and taken to the “secret court date” by force. 3. The defendant has a 6" Amendment Right to be tried in the district and State where the crime was committed. The defendant will arguc that judicial proceedings are part of being prosecuted and cannot legally be held in Portland, Maine. The defendant's 5" Amendment Rights have been violated by the court not given any prior notice to the October 26, 2007 “Secret court date.” 4. Because the defendant wasn't given any notice he was not prepared for the secret court date” he lost another month of not being able to represent himself. Another court appointer attorney was issued contrary to the defendant's demands to represent himself. Both court appointed attorneys have done absolutely nothing to defend the defendant. They did not even file one motion of sustenance. ‘The trial is less than a month away and the court appointed attorneys have yet to tum over discovery material to the defendant. All these conditions have prejudiced the defendant’s chance of defending himself in a proper manner. 5, 18 U.S.C. 3232 states: “Proceedings to be in district and division in which offense committed.”6. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 18 (Place of Prosecution and Trial) states: “Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.” 7. The demands made against the defendant are alleged out of Plainfield, New Hampshire in the district of New Hampshire and yet, Judge Singal, in total disregard for the law and the rights of the defendant, committees judicial misconduct by allowing the government prosecution to happen unabated in Portland, Maine. 8, The defendant will argue that there is no statute, or anywhere in the rules that allow for the prosecution to be held outside the State and district where the alleged ‘offense occurred. Judge Singal is bordering on outright usurpation of the U.S. Constitution. If this unlawful process is allowed to continue, you will be seeing citizens charged with an offense, in lets say, New York and being tried in Ohio. That is exactly what is going on here, a total disregard for the rule of law. 9. The defendant will declare that his 5 and 6" Amendment rights are being violated because the process prescfibed by Congress is not being adhered to, no prior notice was given in the first court proceeding and the proceedings are being held out of the State and district were the crime was to have been committed. 10. The defendant will also state for the record that Judge Singal has no authority to even hold this proceeding due to the lack of jurisdiction (see motion for an order to show cause) because the alleged offense did not even occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. No jurisdiction means No authority, therefore the defendant’s rights to be tried by a court with jurisdiction under the common law. 11 I respectfully request Judge Singal or the United States Attorneys to declare where they are getting their jurisdiction and authority from! I respectfully request Judge Singal or the United States Attorneys to explain why they do not have to follow the law (18 US.C, 3232 and FRCP rule 18) as specified by the People through their Congress and courts! The defendant was never giver notice as to why and by what authority the court is using to circumvent (18 U.S.C. 3232 and FRCP rule 18). This case is derived from Plainfield New Hampshire and the court is holding judicial proceedings in Portland, Maine, contrary to law. 12. Justice denied anywhere is justice denied everywhere.13. The set of moving the court proceedings to another State and distriet are ‘unconstitutional. The defendant’s supporters, friends and family are deprived of witnessing the proceedings. The defendant is supposed to have a public prosecution and trial, The court is depriving the defendant’s part of the public from viewing the proceedings because they are too far away. DATED: January 8, 2008 266 County Farm Rd Dover NH, 03820 All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice CC; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE AUSA Robert Kinsella David Bownes Stanley Norkunas Paul Garrity