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 onAmerican's labor. The defendant is being denied this right if not allowed to discuss taxes