UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MOTION TO CORRECT ERROR v. DANIEL RILEY, Et. Al, 1:07-cr-189-G2S, 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 to correct an error on the docket. 2. On January 2, 2008 the defendant served a writ of mandamus on the trial court judge as required by F.R.A.P. rule 21(a) 3. The trial court judge is not a patty io this case as noted in F.R.A.P. rule 21(b)(4). 4. This is not a motion served on the court for the purpose of moving the court, but a writ being served on the court as required by rule. 5. This writ is a motion to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, to move that higher court for an order to move the lower court. 6. Judge Singal ruled the writ was frivolous and denied it, like he has done with about 90% of the defendant's motions. 7. The judge erred in this ruling because the writ was not his to rule on but a mere service of a document to the trial judge. 8. This American Citizen, of one of the United States, that was unlawfully kidnapped by the United States, and imprisoned without any authority except through the barrel of a gun, has requested, time and time again, for the United States to prove their authority, they claim to have, to no avail.9, Since the Court, which has no authority either in this case, and also refiases to prove their authority, the defendant was forced to go to a higher court to try and make the lower court obey the laws of the contract know as the United States Constitution. 10. For any entity to have authority, they must first have jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction is the most important and first applicable jurisdiction in any case, with subject matter jurisdiction being second in importance. 11. Title 18 crimes are alleged in this case so 18 U.S.C. § 7 is applicable, which defines the territorial jurisdiction of the United States where these crimes can be prosecuted and where the legislative laws of these crimes are applicable to. 12. These alleged demands (charges) are alleged to have been committed ‘outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States therefore, no jurisdiction, therefore no authority, therefore the United States and the courts are working without authority therefore are criminals by definition. The United States and the court are in violation of the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, New Hampshire’s Law RSA 123:1 and 18 U.S.C. § 7(0). 13, The court denied all the defendant’s motions for proof of jurisdiction as “frivolous” when really the court is frivolous in their understanding of the basic simple concepis of jurisdiction in our Republic. 14, Why doesn’t the court just show the law that gives them jurisdiction over this citizen of one of the United States? The court does not show the law, because there is no law, that gives them jurisdiction over title 18 crimes outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, so the court relies on catch phrase words such as “frivolous” to try and prove their authority. 15. The defendant has asked the ILR.S. for ten years for the law that makes this citizen of New Yorke liable for a direct tax on his labor, which the 1.R.S. refers to as an income tax. Ten years later this American stills waits for the law that makes him liable for this income tax, to no avail 16. The LR.S. would tell this American his requests for the law that proves liability for an income tax was, you guessed it, was “frivolous.” This American told the LR.S. he would gladly pay their tax if they would show the law that made him liable. ‘You would think they would just show the law to end the argument and collect their federal reserve notes, but no. 17. You would think the court would just show the law that gives them jurisdiction over this American in a title 18 criminal case, but no. The court, the supposed body of the law, refuses to produce the law, how ironic and un-American, 18. Here is the United States making demands against this American for not obeying the law, when the United States is not obeying the laws in the first place, whichcaused this American to stand-up for his country, to stand-up for the rule of law, to stand- up for the truth, and to do the right thing, to come to the aid of a fellow American who was being persecuted by criminals who claim they have authority, which is so far from the truth, the rule of law and what this country stands for. 19. The defendant sought out the higher court via a writ of mandamus to hopefully bring some sense of justice to these unlawful proceedings. 20. The writ of mandamus was docketed and ruled on as a motion, which wes an error by the court and should be corrected. WHEREFORE the defendant requests the following reliefs A. Docket # 137 to be corrected from a motion, to a service of a document on the trial judge. DATED: January 29,2008 iol Riley ¢ Indigent inmate scpc 266 County Farm Rd Dover NH, 03820 All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice itis) 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.