Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Federal District Court, Defendant, Objection To Order Regarding IRS Evidence

    Uploaded by

    briley
    20 views4 pages

    Original Title

    Federal District Court, Defendant, Objection to Order Regarding IRS Evidence

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    20 views4 pages

    Federal District Court, Defendant, Objection To Order Regarding IRS Evidence

    Uploaded by

    briley

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OBJECTION v. 1:07-cr-189-GZS DANIEL RILEY, Et al, COMES NOW, making a special appearance, Daniel Riley, acting ina sovereign capacity, Sui Jutis, not Pro Se repeat not Pro Se representing the fiction DANIEL RILEY, and files this motion. In no way can this notice be construed to grant jurisdiction over the defendant, because the defendant’s counsel still contends no jurisdiction exist. In 1no way should this notice 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's counsel makes this motion in accordance to F.R.CrP. 12(B)2). 2. The defendant objects to the court's order dated February 14, 2008 granting the government's motion in limine to suppress any discussing at trial in regards to the Internal Revenues Service's (foreign corporation charted out of Puerto Rico) "IRS" authority to directly tax the American People's labor. 3. This defendant, if not allowed to discuss this matter cannot put on a defense. The whole basis of his defense is justification. Being justified and lawfully keeping an eye on the Browns from being hurt or murdered by the government is the basis for his defense. 3. Part of the justification is that the defendant along with millions of Americans know there is no law that makes them liable for an income tax. 4. The defendant has the right to produce his tax returns over the past 8 years as per 28 U.S.C. § 1732 and Federal Rules of Evidence 1005 and the written admissions by the government as per Federal Rules of Evidence 1007. 5. The court is going to allow the governemnt to talk about how its lawful for the IRS to direct tax your labor but not allow the defendant's to explain their proof that the government is lying about the collection of a direct (income) tax on American's labor and that the reasons (motives) for keeping an eye on the Browns directly relates to this belicf that the government is doing unconstitutional acts. 6. The courtis biased and prejudicial in this ruling and has prevented this dofendant from putting on his defense. 7. If this court was really concerned about getting to the truth it would first show the law that gives it jurisdiction, then second, show the law that make Americans liable for a direct (income) tax on their labor. Neither law exists! This is nothing more than a Kangaroo court, with team tyranny running the show by force of arms. 8, These proceedings have offered up proof that the American People have no more courts, no more justice, but instead heve a tyranical judiciary that is no longer ‘bound by the plain wording of the Constitution and the intent of those who wrote it. The Constitution is plain enough to be understood by all who read it, the meaning was set firmly like a jewel in the matrix of common sense and eries out for wise judicial decisions. No longer do we have judges loyal to the American People and who uphold their oaths, but judges loyal to the status quo and the corrupt empire, set up by the international bankers through the purchase of people's souls using scripts of money that have no substance or value but is merely a instrument of debt. 9. The judge ignored the value of the introduction of the defendants good faith belief that there is no law that make an American "liable" for a direct tax on their labor. This is the truth, but apparently this judge docsn't want to get to the truth. The probative value far exceeds the prejudicial affects the truth my have on the prosecution's case. "under Rule 403, the balance should be struck in favor of admissibility" ‘See, United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099 (11th Cir. 1990). "where both probative value and prejudicial effect are high, Rule 403 requires admission.” See, United States v. Krenzelok, 874 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1989) 10. The judge by suppressing the defendant's Right to defend himself has caused severe prejudice and has shown the judge is biased against the defense. By letting the prosecution assert there beliefs about taxes and then totally depriving the defense the right to assert their rebuttle to these false assertions is prejudicial to the maximum. The probative value of the defense telling the jury the truth about income taxes far outweighs any prejudice to the prosecution's case. "Rule 403 is ‘an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly’ and the danger of prejudice must not merely outweigh the probative value of the evidence, but must substantially outweigh it." United States v, Mende, 43 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 1995). 11. ‘The defendant has a Sixth Amendment Right to confront witnesses and offer up proof they are lying, but apparently not in this case, Marshal Jamie Berry will be lying when he testifies that the IRS has lawful authority to collect a direct tax on American's labor. The defendant is being denied this right if not allowed to discuss taxes

    You might also like