UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MOTION TO DISMISS FOR PROSECUTOR'S % PRETRIAL PUBLICITY AGAINST DEFENDANT CAUSING PREJUDICE 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 be construed 10 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 motion for reconsideration in accordance with F.RCeP. rule 12(6)(2). 2. ‘The defendant filed the motion due to highly prejudicial statements made to the associated press by one of the Assistant United States Attorneys, which could pose a substantial threat to the defendant's Sixth Amendment Right to have a fair trial with an impartial jury and his Fifth Amendment Right to due process. 3. Judge Singal dismissed the motion (docket # 210) on the grounds that the statements were made in open court, 4, The news article was released on January 14, 2008 so it makes sense to presume the judge and the author of the article are referring to the January 8, 2008 pre- trial conference held just previously, which this defendant was present. 5. This defendant never heard Amold Huftalen discuss the statements quoted in the news article in open court, see attached affidavit. 6. The un-authored article does say “at a pre-trial hearing” but does not specifically state that the statements were made in open court as alleged by Judge Singal. The article also goes onto describe statements, where Riley told investigators... These are the statements that were cocreed from the defendant in violation of his Fifth Amendment Right to self-incrimination and yet still are being used by the Governmentagainst the defendant. If the judge finds enough evidence to suppress these statements how is the defendant suppose to reverse the prejudicial pre-trial publicity already created by the Government using them? 7. The defendant alleges that “at a pre-trial hearing” could also take on the meaning of outside the courthouse on the front steps or anywhere “at” the general area of the courthouse. 8 ‘The defendant as stated in his affidavit does not recall Arnold Huftalen divulging such information in open court, so it must have been done outside the presence of the defendant, therefore outside of the court 9, The defendant believes that Judge Singal erred in making his order to dismiss the motion and therefore would like it reconsidered. The fact that the Government is releasing evidence, such as statements the defendant made under duress, violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment Right to due process. See Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) 384 US 333, 16 L Ed 2d 600. 10. The defendant requests the court to check the court transcripts for the January 8, 2008 pre-trial conference to see if it is true that Arnold Huftalen made these severely prejudicial statements in open court or outside the court, for the furtherance to the ends of justice. 11. The defendant request a copy of the pre-trial transcripts to affirm his allegation, that Amold Huftalen made those statements outside the court and not in open, court. WHEREFORE the defendant requests the following relief, A. For the court to reconsider the motion after checking the court transcripts, B. Grant the motion if the court finds it true that the plaintiff made these statements outside the court, CQ Provide a copy of the transcripts, to defendant RILEY, for January 8, 2008 (audio or vizitten). D. For such any other relief as me be just DATED: January 29, 2008 Indigent inmate ScDC 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.