UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MOTION TO DISMISS
PROSECUTION LIED
v. ‘TO GRAND JURY
JUDICIAL NOTICE
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 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
no 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) 16(€) and 12(b(3)(A).
2. The defendant has stil never received the picture ftom 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.”
3. The court ordered the prosecutor to comply with the defendant's discovery
motion for this picture, several times. The picture has still not been produced.
4. Therefore PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the defendant declares the picture
does not exist.
5. Therefore the prosecution outright lied to the grand jury to get their
original indictment. This lie was deliberate and done with forethought to bias the grand
jury and to cause prejudice to the defendant. The lie that this picture existed helped bias
the grand jury into believing the prosecutors allegations against the defendant.
6. This situtation is now exculpatory in nature, Part of the defendant's
defense is the prosecution is using a pattem of lies and deciet to try and convict the
defendants. This lie to the grand jury is now exculpatory that it fits into the pattern of lies.
7. This defendant at trial will introduce the original indictment and ask the
prosecution to produce this picture on last time in front of the jury. This fact goes directly
to the character of the prosecution and their creditabilty and is admissable under Federal
Rulles of Evidence 401, 402. The defendant gives JUDICIAL NOTICE to the Court that
the prosecution lied to the grand jury and intends to use this exculpatory evidence at trial8. The prosecution told the grand jury this nonexistant picture existed to
extremely prejudice the grand jury against the defendant and to gain unfair advantage
over the defendant. The prosecution perjuried themselves when they lied about his
picture
"Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment is violated when defendant has
to stand trial on indictment which government knows is based partially on
perjured testimony, where perjured testimony is material, and where
jeopardy has not attached; whenever prosecutor learns of any perjury
‘committed before grand jury, he is under duty to immediately inform court
and opposing counsel-and, if perjury may be material, also grand jury."
See United States v Basurto (1974, CA9 Ariz) 497 F.2d 781.
"Fact that false statements were made to grand jury does not require
automatic dismissal of indictment but due process clause of Fifth Amendment is
violated when defendant must stand trial on indictment which government knows
is partially based upon perjured testimony that is material in nature.
Sce United States v Traylor (1981, CA9 Wash) 656 F.2d 1326.
9. The defendant was indicted by the same grand jury with the same jury
foreperson, so this perjury, saying this picture existed carried over into subsequent grand
jury proceedings. The prejudice was already put into the grand jurys' minds, therefore
nullifies any subsequent grand jury proceeding unless an all new grand jury is impaneled.
10. Perjury is a criminal offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant asks
the Court to look into the factual allegations raised by the defendant that the prosecution
lied to the grand jury. Why doesn't the prosecutor just produce this picture to quash the
defendant's claims? Because the picture doesn't exist. By the way, the grand jury was not
seated in the United States, therefore a crime did not occurr with in the jurisdiction of the
United States, therefore the prosecutors cannot be held liable. If the courthouse had been
properly ceded over to the U.S. then the courthouse would be in the U.S and then the ttle
18 offense would be applicable, but we all know this is an unlawful venue for ttle 18
offenses.
WHEREFORE the defendant's counsel asks the Court for the following relief;
A. Totake notice that the defendant's counsel will be using this lie to the
grand jury as part of the defense,
B. Dismiss the ease for prosecutorial misconduct for lying to a grand jury,C. Dismiss case for lack of territorial jurisdiction or give a hearing so the
defendan’s counsel can prove the plaintiff and the court has no
jurisdiction.
DATED: February 22, 2008
WA Riley J is
Indigent inmate
CDC
266 County Farm Rd
Dover NH, 03820
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice