UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MOTION TO DISMISS PROSECUTION v, MISCONDUCT LIED TO GRAND DANIEL RILEY, ROBERT WOLFFE, JURY CIRINO GONZALES, JASON GERHARDT 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 this motion in accordance to F.R.CrP. rule 12(b\(2), 16(c) and 12(b)(3)(A). This is a follow up on the allegations made at the last pre-trial conference that the prosecutors lied to the grand jury about RILEY possessing a rifle in a picture with Ed Brown, Cirino Gonzales and another unnamed person. 2. The defendant filed a discovery motion on December 15, 2007 (docket #79) and was granted on December 26, 2007. In this motion the defendant asked for all discovery entitled by law or rule. 3. __ In the original indictment on page 7, § 10(p) the indictment asserts (not alleges) that defendant RILEY and co-conspirator A (Cirino Gonzales) and another person not named, posed with Ed Brown for a picture. In this picture, the indictment asserts “RILEY and co-conspirator A possess rifles.” This is important because the original indictment got the ball rolling for the prosecution. 4. The defendant was expecting to obtain this picturc through discovery according to rule 16(e). The defendant has gone through thousands of documents and Photographs without this picture ever being found. Why hasn’t this picture been turned over to the defense yet? Stuff like this is why the Government is at fault for the continuance, thus, depriving the defendant of his Sixth Amendment Right to a speedy trial. 5. The defendant RILEY contends that the United States Prosecutors Hufalen and Kinsella lied to the grand jury with regards to this photograph. The defendant knows he never posed for a picture while possessing a rifle at the Browns.6. According to rule 16(e) the defendant demands discovery of this picture again, as asserted in the original indictment on page 7, | 10(p). see attachment. 7. _ To prove the United States did not lie to the grand jury on September 12, 2007, the defendant demands to see the picture of RILEY possessing a rifle with Ed Brown. The defendant brings to the court's attention that if this picture is not produced it is undisputable proof the United States lied to the grand jury to mislead and deceive it The defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor lying to the grand jury. 8 The defendant contends his Fifth Amendment Rights were violated by the prosecutor lying to the grand jury about this picture. This picture, ifit does not exist, means the prosecutor perjured himself. This prosecutorial misconduct has undermined the grand jury's ability to make an informed and objective evaluation of evidence presented to it, since some of the evidence was fabricated. 9. If this picture does not exist, as the defendant contends, then this misconduct by the prosecutor had a substantial impact on the grand jury's impartiality. ‘The grand jury being told the defendant is pictured holding a rifle with Ed Brown could have a very significant impact on the grand jury's impartiality thus causing serious arm to the defendant’s Fifth Amendment Right. 10, If this picture does not exist, as the defendant contends, then fraud has been introduced into the equation by the prosecutor. Once fraud has been introduced, then the whole prosecution is tainted with frand. The prosecution purposely mislead the grand jury by lying that they had photographic proof that defendant RILEY possessed a rifle, while with Ed Brown. 11, _ Ef this picture does not exist, as the defendant contends, then harmless or plain error, but a purposeful criminal act by the United States against not only the defendant but the American People. 12. If this picture docs not exist, as the defendant contends, then the prosecutor overreached his presentation of facts to the grand jury by introducing fraud. ‘The defendant has a Fifth Amendment Right to be prosecuted on the basis of facts Wash) 689 F.2d 893. WHEREFORE the defendant requests the following relic A. Foran order to produce the picture asserted in the original indictment, B. For anonder to dismiss this case, if the picture is not produced by the United States,C. — Forsuch any other relief as me be just. Attached hereto is page 7 of the original indictment. DATED: January 25, 2008 ie] Riley (stir Indigent inmate SCDC 266 County Farm Ré Dover NH, 03820 All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice CC: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE AUSA Robert Kinsella David Bownes, Stanley Norkunas Note: Bownes and Norkunas served by Electronic filing as per their request.