UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTION REQUESTING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE COURT OR THE GOVERNMENT v TO PROVE JURISDICTION DANIEL RILEY, Et. Al. 1:07-er-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.Cr.P. rule 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3)(A) and 12(6)(3)(B). 2. “Jurisdiction means the power of a court to hear and determine a cause, which power is conferred by a constitution or a statue, or both.” See Penn v. Com, 528 $.F. 24 179, 32 VA.App 422 (2000).The defendant has challenged the plaintiff's and the court's jurisdiction over and over in this case to never obtain the law or statute that grants jurisdiction over the defendant. 3. The indictment does not assert jurisdiction by law, anywhere in it. 4. The court has refused to give a law or statute that gives the court jurisdiction. 5. The court and the plaintiff are asserting jurisdiction in this case, The United States Supreme Court has stated in lian Life Ins. Co. of Am. S11 US 375, 377 (1994); “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of federal courts; the burden of establishing the contrary rests on the party asserting jurisdiction.” The defendant has tried and tried and tried to get the party asserting jurisdiction to prove it to the defendant, who has a Fifth Amendment and Common Law Right to be tried by aplaintiff and a court of jurisdiction. Apparently, United States Supreme Court decisions hold no weight in this case. 6. The United States Supreme Court went on to state in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am, 511 US 375, 377 (1994); “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized hy the Federal Constitution and federal statute.” “The jurisdiction of federal courts is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” The defendant maintains there is no jurisdiction over him in this case and demands the ones asserting it, to prove it. The defendant is charged with title 18 offenses, which are only applicable inside the territorial United States jurisdiction as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7. Judge Singal is using judicial decree to expand jurisdiction in this ease. 7. The indictment alleges the title 18 offenses occurred outside the territorial United States, therefore outside their lavful jurisdiction. Therefore, this case is unlawful and the acts of the court and Government are unlawful 8. “Ina legal prosecution, all legal requisites must be compiled with to coniér jurisdiction on the court in criminal matters, as district attorneys cannot confer jurisdiction by will alone.” ‘See People v. Page, 667 N.Y.S. 2d 689, 177 Misc. 2d 448 (1998). The AUSA refuses to prove jurisdiction. The indictment says “occurred in the distriet of New Hampshire” this does not prove jurisdiction, because the district of New Hampshire encompasses the whole State, and the United States does not have criminal jurisdiction over the whole State of New Hampshire. This is not a law or statute but a mere statement, to mislead the reader of the indictment that the United States Attomey has jurisdiction. 9. Since the court and the plaintiff refuse to prove jurisdiction by law or statute, any reasonable person must believe no jurisdiction exists. Anyone reading the pleadings in this case will sce that the defendant has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by any law or statute. “Jurisdiction cannot be conferred to court by agreement of parties.” See Akins v. State, 691 So. 2d. 587 (1997). The defendant has not voluntarily conferred any jurisdiction upon the court through agreement or anything to the defendant’s knowledge. 10. There is no jurisdiction in this case. The court refises to prove it. The AUSA refuses to prove it, therefore, none exists. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Fontenot v. State, 932 .W. 2d. 185;“Where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than dismiss the case.” “Judicial action without jurisdiction is void.” The defendant could not have said it better. PROVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT/OFFENSES OR DISMISS THIS CASE! WHEREFORE the defendant requests the following relief; A The court (o name a law or statute that grants the court jurisdiction over this title 18 case, For an order to make the Government prove jur a law or statute, For the court not to deem this motion “frivolous” but to act on this motion in the furtherance of justice, so help you God, Dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, Any other relief the court deems just. DATED: January 29, 2008 js £ Zz & TRiley (sui juris) Indigent inmate scp 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 Note: Bownes and Norkunas served by Electronic filing as per their request.