You are on page 1of 3
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 trial 8. 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

You might also like