UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MOTION TO SUPRESS EVIDENCE v. UNLAWFUL SEARCH WARRANT DANIEL RILEY, ROBERT WOLFFE, CIRINO GONZALES, JASON 1:07-cr-189-GZS GERHARDT COMES NOW, making a special appearance, Daniel Riley, acting ina 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 this motion in accordance with FRCP rule 12(b)(3)(C) to suppress evidence. + 2. Anissue of fact is raised when the defendant's Fourth Amendment Rights were violated, when United States employees (Marshals and A.T.F) acted beyond their authority when they executed a search warrant at 62 Younglove Avenue, Cohoes, New ‘York and in excess of their territorial jurisdiction. 2 In Inyo County v. Paiute-Shosone Indians, 155 L. Ed. 2d 933, 538 U.S. 701 (2003) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the sheriff acted beyond his authority when he executed a search warrant on sovereign tribal grounds because it was out of the sheriffs territorial jurisdiction even though it was in his county. 4. The warrant was issued by a United States Magistrate Judge named Treece in accordance with probable cause of ttle 18 offenses, therefore the magistrate only has authority within the territorial United States as defined by 18 U.S.C § 5 and the jurisdiction defined in 18 U.S.C § 7. 5. Amissue of fact is raised when 62 Younglove Avenue, Cohoes, New York is not in the territorial United States, therefore, the Judge acted beyond his authority and in excess of his jurisdiction. The place in question has not been ceded to the United States in accordance with the United States Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl 17, therefore itis not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and, therefore the warrant was ‘unconstitutional.6. The United States violated New York's sovereignty when it executed a search warrant within New York’s territorial jurisdiction against one of its citizens. 7. Any reasonable officer or employee of the United States would have ‘known that scizing property outside the United States violated the Fourth Amendment because the property and land are outside their jurisdiction. 8. “Any evidence seized from defendant in criminal case in violation of Fourth Amendment is inadmissible at trial, and fruits of such evidence are inadmissible as well.” See Alderman v United States (1969) 394 US 165, 22 L Ed 2d 176, 89 S Ct 961, reh den (1969) 394 US 939, 22 L Ed 2d 475, 89 $ Ct 1177. 9. The search warrant dated September12, 2007 and signed by Magistrate Judge Treece issued on the affidavit of Agent Mare Maurino was to seize firearms and ammunition, yet the United States seized a legal computer, digital cameras, digital video recorders and various mediums of recoding ic. tapes/¢ve/ed. They never left an inventory list of these seized items. The defendant, for the record, wants to make the court aware of these items taken but not documented. 10. The defendant motian the court to suppress any evidence seized by this unlawfal search and seizure and for an evidence suppression hearing regarding this issue. DATED: “Saausry % 200k ‘Indigent inmate SCDC 266 County Farm Rd Dover NH, 03820 3 All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice CC: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE AUSA Robert Kinsella David Bownes Stanley Norkunas Paul Garrity