UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OBJECTION TO ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO v. WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL. DANIEL RILEY, Et. Al. 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 he 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 files this objection in accordance with F.R.CrP. rule 12(6)(2). 2. The defendant did file a notice for a continuance (docket # 145) that the court wrongly construed asa motion. 3. The defendant was notifying the court that he was re-indicted again just three weeks before the trial was supposed to start. (and indicted again a week later) 4. The defendant was notifying the court that the Government continues to tum over large volumes of discovery just weeks before trial, while the government had most of this evidence in their possession since carly October °07. 5. The defendant was giving notice to the court that he was being prejudiced by the governments actions of turning over discovery so late in the process. 6. The defendant gave notice to the court that the government keeps re- indicting the defendant just a week before trial with more severe charges, when the government should of indicted the defendant months ago because the new charges are dcrived from the same spree of activity. 7. The defendant filed his notice, on January 9, 2008 believing he was entitled up to 30 days from the last arraignment, via the speedy trial act, which would put the trial starting in the second week of February at the latest.8. The defendant filed this notice to give notice to the court of the government’s prejudicial actions concerning their late indictments and their late release of discoverable material to the defendant. 9. On January 22, 2008 in open court the Government admitted that “they could of done a better job” in regards to the late disclosures and late indictments. 10. By no fault of the defendant was a continuance needed. It was the fault of the Government's prosecution or should I say, lack there of. 11, ‘The defendant has been imprisoned since September 12, 2007 and anxiously awaits his chance to prove his innocence. The defendant wants the trial to start as soon zs possible, so he can be released. The defendant never wanted, or asked for a two month delay. 12. The defendant never wanted or intends to wave his Sixth Amendment Right to a speedy trial and will not do so under any circumstances. 13, The defendant is at no fault for the continuance the court ordered, the government is at fault for its late disclosures and indictments causing severe prejudice against all the defendants. 14, The court gives 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8\(B)(iv) as its reason for granting the continuance. The judge must take into account due diligence. The Government admitted in open court that they lacked due diligence exclaiming they could have done a better job. 15. This defendant exercised due diligence and was ready for trial until he was re-indicted again a week before trial, with more large volumes of discovery being tumed over at that time. 16. Another example the defendant would like to provide to the court, is the taking of the defendant's DNA two weeks from the trial, when it could have been done moths ago. DNA being one of the reasons given by the Government for their continuance request. WHEREFORE the defendant requests the following relief: A. To repeal the order to make the defendant waive his rights, B. Fora correction in the docket (#145) that the notice was not a motion, but just that, a notice. The defendant will not sign a waiver to his rights no matter what! E. Any other relief deemed proper and just by the courtDATED: January 29, 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 Note: Bownes and Norkunas served by Electronic filing as per their request.