Free Danny Riley - You know, I was thinking, once the other inmates find out what these four stood for, and were arrested for, they're going to be held in high regards by the other inmates. These four could, without trying, revolutionize these criminal minds in the pen to

Site Admin Joined: Apr 03, 2007 Posts: 578

Please send your love and encouragement to Danny at the following address:

Dan Riley, Inmate
Strafford County House of Correction
County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

shaun what have they charged danny with?

Site Admin Joined: Apr 03, 2007 Posts: 578

Last I heard it was:

Accessory after the fact
Conspiracy to impede or injure an officer of the United States
Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States
Possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence

Recruit Joined: Aug 08, 2007 Posts: 131

http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/jail/index.html

This looks like the main email link page.

**Member** Joined: Apr 25, 2007 Posts: 1094

You know, I was thinking, once the other inmates find out what these four stood for, and were arrested for, they're going to be held in high regards by the other inmates. These four could, without trying, revolutionize these criminal minds in the pen to stop misdirecting their anger on one another and focus on the stimulus for most all criminal behavior in the united states of America, the 'Money Masters'.

Maybe it wasn't so smart that they locked up these four. Maybe they made a big mistake. Cause those guys (inmates) on the inside, got friends on the outside.

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

AA what you're stating is that pretty much the status of these four men would ultimatly turn the inmate population against the government. there's one thing we haven't discussed in reference to the north american union and the downfall of the american economy: could you imagine what would happen to the prison population because i don't think correctional officers are going to work for currency that isn't worth a damn. these four could turn more guys onto the truth then we could imagine and then the truth will spread like wildwire not only on the inside but on the outside as well.

Recruit Joined: Aug 08, 2007 Posts: 131

Looks like emailing the jail is out of the question.

Your message to: StraffordJail@co.strafford.nh.us
was blocked by our Spam Firewall. The email you sent with the following subject has NOT BEEN DELIVERED:

Subject: In support of Danny Riley

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

hmmm there has to be a way to voice our support for dan the man

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 2960

The only way that I could think of was to send a certified letter RECEIPT REQUESTED, saying that I had heard about the case in Memphis, IRS Vs. Kuglin and is it true that there is no section in the US Tax Code that requires an individual citizen has to pay Federal Income Taxes? Make a copy of the letter and when you receive the receipt staple it to the letter.

I feel that one of the first thing it will do is put the IRS on notice that we are not going to put up with their bullshit and we are making a stand here.

Next all the people in and areound the courthouse that have the time can bring there letters with the receipt into the courtroom to put the judge and juries on notice that there was no law in the first place against Ed and Elaine and therefore they have to dismiss all these charges against our four supporters.

Also now I am suggesting that we send copies of the Kuglin Article, letter and receipt to U.S. Marshal Steve Monier, Sheriff Prozzo, Chief Gillens, Judge McAuliffe, and Gov. Lynch. If we swamp them with these letters they will know that we mean business. Do not let up on them.........Send the letters. You will spend approximately $5.00 and an hour or two of your time. Lets unite behind this.

There is so much divide and conquer going on..........black/white..........religion/nonreligion..........Democratic/Republican.................war/antiwar.........that is why they win. We can all unite behind getting rid of this tax because it is illegal. The rest of our differences do not make a damn.

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

i found the following information in reference to danny's charges.

in reference to "Possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence" i found the following:

2001 Federal Sentencing Guideline Manual

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§4B1.2. Definitions of Terms Used in Section 4B1.1

(a)The term "crime of violence" means any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that --

(1)has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or

(2)is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.

(b)The term "controlled substance offense" means an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.

(c)The term "two prior felony convictions" means (1) the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense ( i.e., two felony convictions of a crime of violence, two felony convictions of a controlled substance offense, or one felony conviction of a crime of violence and one felony conviction of a controlled substance offense), and (2) the sentences for at least two of the aforementioned felony convictions are counted separately under the provisions of §4A1.1(a), (b), or (c). The date that a defendant sustained a conviction shall be the date that the guilt of the defendant has been established, whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere.
__________________________________________

In reference to the charge of: "Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States" all i found find was anti terrorism law but the following law kept on popping up so if figured it might be useful in some way.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Background
In response to the terrorist attacks by al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (AUMF). This legislation authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." In October 2001, the United States led a coalition of nations in a military attack against Afghanistan's Taliban forces, which had harbored Osama Bin Laden and other top al Qaeda leaders. Hundreds of persons detained by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere were later transported to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a presidential order entitled "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism." The order found that it was "not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts." It provided that "any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission" and "may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death."

More detailed procedures governing these military commissions were set forth in a 2002 supplemental Department of Defense Order entitled, "Military Commission Order No. 1." One controversial section of this order provided that defendants could be barred from the courtroom and prevented from hearing certain evidence against them.

Habeas Corpus Petition of Salim Hamdan
Salim Hamdan, a former Yemeni driver for Bin Laden in Afghanistan, was captured by Afghan warlords and turned over to U.S. forces in late 2001. He was transported in June 2002 to Guantanamo Bay, then designated in 2003 as one of a small group of detainees to be tried before the military commission. In 2004, Hamdan was formally charged with conspiracy "to commit . . . offenses triable by military commission."

Hamdan filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, naming Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a defendant. In 2004, his case, and those of other Guantanamo Bay detainees, was transferred to the D.C. U.S. District Court. In his petition, Hamdan sought to establish that his impending trial before a military commission was illegal. He argued the following: 1) the commission's procedures deviated from those that Congress established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); 2) conspiracy had never been a war crime and could not be unless explicitly authorized by Congress; 3) the provision potentially excluding defendants from the courtroom during parts of the trial made the process fundamentally unfair and violated Hamdan's right under the Geneva Conventions only to be sentenced by a "regularly constituted tribunal."

The Government responded (1) that the AUMF had implicitly authorized the President to establish military commissions; (2) that it was within the President's discretion to designate "conspiracy" as a war crime under the circumstances; and (3) that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions were not judicially enforceable. The Government also argued that resolution of these issues should properly be deferred until after trial.

In 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor. That decision, however, was reversed in 2005 by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On November 7, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
A few weeks later, on December 30, 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). The legislation provides that "no court . . . shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for habeas corpus filed by . . . an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo Bay." It gave the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit exclusive jurisdiction to hear the appeal of any military commission conviction.

The Government argued that the DTA barred any federal court, including the Supreme Court, from hearing habeas corpus petitions from detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Hamdan and his lawyers responded that, because the DTA did not include a retroactivity clause, it did not apply to pending habeas corpus petitions, only those filed after the law took effect on December 30, 2005.

Decision of the United States Supreme Court
On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, ruled that the proposed military commissions were illegal. Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate, having been one of the three judges who issued the decision being appealed.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens held that the DTA did not prevent the Court from hearing Hamdan's appeal. Given the absence of specific language making the law retroactive, the Court held that the DTA only barred consideration of cases filed after December 30, 2005. Thus, Hamdan's appeal, which was already pending when the DTA was enacted, could proceed. The Court also rejected the military's claim that the court should defer entering any judgment until after trial.

Reaching the merits of the case, the majority ruled that the military tribunals were improper because they were not established in accordance with the procedures for military commissions established by the UCMJ and because there was no military necessity to create ad hoc commissions and ad hoc procedures. The Court also ruled that "conspiracy" to commit acts triable by a military commission is not a recognized war crime and cannot be tried as such absent Congressional authorization. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer all agreed with Justice Steven's majority opinion. Four of them — Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer — wrote in a separate opinion that they considered the provision potentially denying defendants access to their military commission trial so inherently unfair that it deprived enemy combatants of their right under the Geneva Conventions not to be tried and punished except by a competent tribunal. Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, stated that he did not believe the Court needed to address this last point because the tribunals already could be declared illegal for not complying with American domestic law, the UCMJ.

Justice Breyer, in a one-page concurrence, noted that, while Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the necessary authority.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented. Justice Scalia argued that, from a procedural standpoint, the DTA prevented the judiciary from hearing this case. He also stated that the Courts should defer to the military's judgment, at least until Hamdan was actually tried. He noted that the DTA allowed detainees to appeal their convictions by a military tribunal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, thus, providing some judicial review of their situation. Justice Thomas pointed to historical examples where individuals, including the Commandant of the infamous Andersonville Prison during the Civil War, were convicted of conspiracy to commit war crimes. Finally, Justice Alito noted that an argument could be made that the military commissions were regularly constituted tribunals under the Geneva Conventions because they were enacted by the President pursuant to the AUMF. He questioned whether it was wise to try to define "tribunal" solely along the model of U.S. civilian courts.

Developments Since the Hamdan Decision
Since the Hamdan decision was issued on June 28, 2006, the executive and legislative branches of government have been in negotiations over several possible legislative responses. Meanwhile, in the judicial branch, now that the Supreme Court has ruled on whether the DTA deprived courts of jurisdiction, the District of Columbia federal courts have resumed work on the dozens of Guantanamo detainee cases pending before them.

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

In reference to the charge of: "Conspiracy to impede or injure an officer of the United States" i found the following:

Chapter 2 PART A - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
2. ASSAULT
§2A2.4. Obstructing or Impeding Officers
(a) Base Offense Level: 6

(b) Specific Offense Characteristic

(1) If the conduct involved physical contact, or if a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed and its use was threatened, increase by 3 levels.

(c) Cross Reference

(1) If the conduct constituted aggravated assault, apply §2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault).

Commentary

Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 111, 1501, 1502, 3056(d). For additional statutory provision(s), see Appendix A (Statutory Index).

Application Notes:

1. The base offense level reflects the fact that the victim was a governmental officer performing official duties. Therefore, do not apply §3A1.2 (Official Victim) unless subsection (c) requires the offense level to be determined under §2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault). Conversely, the base offense level does not reflect the possibility that the defendant may create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement official (although an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 758 for fleeing or evading a law enforcement checkpoint at high speed will often, but not always, involve the creation of that risk). If the defendant creates that risk and no higher guideline adjustment is applicable for the conduct creating the risk, apply §3C1.2 (Reckless Endangerment During Flight).

2. Definitions of "firearm" and "dangerous weapon" are found in the Commentary to §1B1.1 (Application Instructions).

3. The base offense level does not assume any significant disruption of governmental functions. In situations involving such disruption, an upward departure may be warranted. See §5K2.7 (Disruption of Governmental Function).

Background: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501, 1502, and 3056(d) are misdemeanors; violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 is a felony. The guideline has been drafted to provide offense levels that are identical to those otherwise provided for assaults involving an official victim; when no assault is involved, the offense level is 6.
__________________________________________

In reference to: "accessory after the fact" i found the following:

3. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
§2X3.1. Accessory After the Fact
(a) Base Offense Level:

(1) 6 levels lower than the offense level for the underlying offense, except as provided in subdivisions (2) and (3).

(2) The base offense level under this guideline shall be not less than level 4.

(3) (A) The base offense level under this guideline shall be not more than level 30, except as provided in subdivision (B).

(B) In any case in which the conduct is limited to harboring a fugitive, other than a case described in subdivision (C), the base offense level under this guideline shall be not more than level 20.

(C) The limitation in subdivision (B) shall not apply in any case in which (i) the defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339 or § 2339A; or (ii) the conduct involved harboring a person who committed any offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2339 or § 2339A or who committed any offense involving or intending to promote a federal crime of terrorism, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5). In such a case, the base offense level under this guideline shall be not more than level 30, as provided in subdivision (A).

Commentary

Statutory Provisions: 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 757, 1071, 1072, 2339, 2339A , 2339C(c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B) (but only with respect to funds known or intended to have been provided or collected in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339C(a)(1)(A)).

Application Notes:

1. Definition.—For purposes of this guideline, "underlying offense" means the offense as to which the defendant is convicted of being an accessory, or in the case of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, "underlying offense" means the offense the defendant is convicted of having materially supported after its commission (i.e., in connection with the concealment of or an escape from that offense), or in the case of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339C(c)(2)(A), "underlying offense" means the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B with respect to which the material support or resources were concealed or disguised. Apply the base offense level plus any applicable specific offense characteristics that were known, or reasonably should have been known, by the defendant; see Application Note 10 of the Commentary to §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).

2. Application of Mitigating Role Adjustment.—The adjustment from §3B1.2 (Mitigating Role) normally would not apply because an adjustment for reduced culpability is incorporated in the base offense level.

__________________________________________

i hope this helps.

Newbie Joined: Aug 24, 2007 Posts: 29

I just listened to Danny Riley's videotape on this website, after reading about him for some time. I also read his court documents. He is very much in the position of an enlightened man of any field of endeavour during the Medieval period - attempting clarity, sense, and historically-referenced positioning, in the face of hopelessly-invested patriarchal interests and their murderous thug-sycophants. It may be that Marshal Monier and his court allies are used to dealing with the run-of-the-mill offenders - you know, citizens caught shamefully possessing drugs which the CIA brought into the country in the first place, or otherwise acting out the requisite frustrations and despair engendered by the monstrous imbroglios handed to each generation by - as some of you are saying - the international bankers and family dynasties. Here in Las Vegas where I live, a former Mafia defence attorney poses as Mayor (he shrugs off criticism - "hey, I got them off - that means they're innocent" of all those murders), police use 24/7 helicopters to augment their illegal surreptitious home-breakins (it doesn't take much to warrant the attention - just write a letter to the whore media about police crime. Now, if you win a $4 million lawsuit against them like a woman down the street did, you wind up dead on your living room floor a few days later). All of this all of the time will be passed off as "The Rule Of Law" (have you noticed that those who most profusely proclaim their affection for the rule of law are the prime beneficiaries of it - lately, George Bush and Queen Elizabeth?). Here's to Danny Riley.....I don't know whether Monier and his goons simply do not know what on earth you are talking about in mentioning British Admiralty courts, or that they just go home at night grinning - meaning they do know, but understand that, as regarding the knowledge base of the American people and their tangible empathy, you might just as well be babbling in an ancient Sumerian dialect. NOW you know why small groups of citizens have historically seized AND RETAINED power (Jacobins, Bolsheviks, Bushes, etc.).