UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MOTION FOR A RULING ON THE CONCLUSION v. OF LAW ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS DANIEL RILEY, ROBERT WOLFFE, OF FACT CIRINO GONZALES, JASON GERHARDT 1:07-c1-189-GZS COMES NOW, making a special appearance, Danie! Riley, acting ina 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. FIRST DISCUSSION 1, __ Fact, the UNITED*STATES DISCIRICT COURT FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE flies the United States flag with YELLOW FRINGE in the courtroom. 2. Fact, this flag was defined by Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, (in accordance to 4 USC § 10) which states, The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, in his capacity as ‘Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, making this a military flag. 3. Fact, placing of fringe on national flag, dimensions of flag, and arrangement of stars in union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within discretion of President as Commander-In-Chief of Army and Navy. (1925) 34 Op Atty Gen 483, therefore, the flag is changed in a military aspect by a military commander making ita military flag and not the flag of the American Civilian People. 4. Fact, the official flag of the United States is defined in 4 USC § 1 as The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white, and the union of the flag shall be forty-cight stars, white in a blue field, and no YELLOW FRINGE is mentioned? 5. Fact, the flag defined in 4 USC § 1 is flown above the Congress, over the White House, all around the Washington Monument, and flown at all State Capitals. 6. Fact, a sovereign country cannot have two official national flags.7. Fact, the flag, which is a symbol of power and authority, and puts people “on notice” of the rules and jurisdiction of the land or vessel they are standing on. 8. Fact, the United States did not have this military flag (denoted by its yellow fringe) in their courtrooms until 1960, 169 years after the ratification of the United States Constitution. 9. Fact, Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag”, a flag does result in jurisdictional implications when flown. “Under international law, the “law of the flag”, a ship owner who sends his vessel into a forcign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship’s captain, that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the ship's captain and that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all.” Also the ships have the right to draw an imaginary jurisdictional line around them and the flag denotes the type of admiralty/maratime jurisdiction that particular ship is under. Ruhstra _v, People, 185 Ill. 141, 49 L.R.A. 181, 76 Am. St. Rep. 30, 57 N. E. 41 10. Fact, Congress has not declared a declaration of war, so the United States is not at war in the Constitutional sense at this time. 11. Question of law, what is the difference in purpose between the “regular flag” and the flag with the yellow fringe, and is the defendant’s finding of fact correct that the purpose of the yellow fringe is to denote military significance and to assert a jurisdictional meaning? 12. Question of law, what law makes it lawful to fly a military flag (yellow ffinge) and not the United States official flag (“regular flag”) in a civilian courtroom during common law proceedings and during a time of peace? And if'it is legal, does it have jurisdictional implications? And why isn’t the Court flying the official flag of the United States? And which flag is the official flag of the United States? SECOND DISCUSSION 13. Fact, the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 requires “consent” from any particular state to obtain any type of criminal jurisdiction within that particular state and that jurisdiction is only over “places” designated for specific purposes. . 14, Fact, New Hampshire Law RSA 123:1 requires a mandatory filing of an affidavit from an officer of the United States with the N.IL Secretary of State before any criminal jurisdiction (exclusive or concurrent) is ceded over to the United States by consent to those particular places. 15. Fact, the N.H. Secretary of State and his Deputy have both provided affidavits to the fact that the United States has never filed the proper paper work requiredby U.S. Con 1-8-17 and N.H. law RSA 123:1, therefore no jurisdictional cession has occurred. 16. Fact, United States Senator Sununu has stated in a letter dated June 13, 2007 that the required RSA 123:1 paper is not on file with the New Hampshire Secretary of State, thus more evidence the United States is in non-compliance with U.S. Con 1-8-17 and N.H, law RSA 123:1. 17. Fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled “There can be no such thing as judioial authority, unless it is conferred by a government or sovereignty. “ Ableman v Booth (1859) 62 US 506, 21 How 506, 16 L Ed 169. 18. Fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled “according to U.S. Con.1-8-17, the Federal Government can exercise exclusive jurisdiction over land in a state only where and is acquired for one of the purposes mmentioned and the state has ceded to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over land so acquired; absent such cession, position of federal government is that of ordinary land proprietor.” Orme v. Atlas Gas & Oil Co. (1944) 217 Minn 27, 13 NW2d 757. 19. Fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled Courthouses fall under “other needful buildings” as stated in James v. Dravo Contraoting Co. (1941) 302 US 141,142 also State v De Berry (1945) 224 NC 834, 32 SE2d 617, so it must comply with U.S. Con.1-8-17 and RSA 123:1.* 20. Fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, “Transfer of exclusive jurisdiction by state to United States rests upon grant by state, which may be accepted or declined, and while acceptance may be presumed in absence of evidence of contrary intent, it cannot be compelled contrary to government's conception of its own interests.” Silas Mason Co. v Tax Com, of Washington (1937) 302 US 186, 82 L Ed 187, 58 $ Ct 233. 21. Fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, Existence of exclusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction over military installation for purposes of prosecuting servicemen pursuant to title 18 crimes requires consent of state where institution is located.” United States v Williams (1984, CMA) 17 MJ 207 22, Fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled “State had jurisdiction to try defendant for murder, which took place on loading dock of United States post office building, whore record did not disolose manner in which United States acquired property or whether it had exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on post office property.” People v Greer (1964) 30 Il 2d 415, 197 NE2d 22. 23. Fact, the Federal Government cannot use the “supremacy” clause of the constitution to make jurisdictional claims without consent, because the U.S, Supreme ‘Court has ruled, “Consent of states to purchase of lands within them, for special purposes named, is essential under the Constitution to transfer to gencral government, with title, of political jurisdiction and domain; when title is acquired by federal government bypurchase by consent of legislatures of states, federal jurisdiction is exclusive of all state authority; reservation, which has accompanied consent of states, that civil and criminal process of state courts may be served in places purchased by federal government, is not considered as interfering in any respect with supremacy of United States over them, but is admitted to prevent them from becoming asylum for fugitives from justice: cession of jurisdiction by state to United States is necessarily temporary, to be exercised only so Tong as places continue to be used for public purposes for which property was acquired. or reserved from sale, and when they cease to be thus used, jurisdiction reverts to state.” Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v Lowe (1885) 114 US 525, 29 L Ed 264, 5S Ct 995. 24. Fact, United States Judges swear an oath to the United States Constitution and are bound to uphold the laws of that Constitution. 25. Question of law, with no jurisdiction ceded to the United Sates from the State of New Hampshire, as evidenced by the affidavits of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, his Deputy, and a letter from the United States Senator from New Hampshire dated Juno 13, 2007; and as required by the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and New Hampshire Law RSA 123:1, and the alleged offense being within the N.H. State limits, how is the United States exercising jurisdiction in the above- entitled case without consent and claiming the Federal Courthouse in Concord N.H. to be 2 lawful venue for this penal action? 26. The attached exhibits are “relevant evidence” that is exculpatory in nature and would make the jury more probable to acquit the defendant therefore they are admissible evidence, 27. Defendant requests a hearing on this motion and requests all questions answered in writing, Altached hereto (offer of proof) exhibits; 1. US Attomey manual 664 territorial jurisdictions, 2. Copy ofa Gold Seal stamped alidavit from the New Hampshire Seretary of State 3. Copy of'a Gold Seal stamped affidavit from New Hampshire's Deputy Secretary of State ; 4. Letter ftom New Hampshire's U.S. Senator Sununu’s office, 5. Copy of New Hampshire Law RSA 123:1 DATED: December 17, 2007 WITE. Exhhits Seat witt Indigent inmate ScDC [107L0w TO AOMET EVEVENLE 266 County Farm Rd : Dover NH, 03820 Due #8 Jack of phete Copying Alll Rights Reserved Without Prejudice Ob Ves