UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT CASE NO. 08-1077 IN RE: DANIEL RILEY PETITION TO RECONSIDER, Petitioner. EN BANC 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 petition. In no way can this notice be construed to grant jurisdiction over the defendant, because the defendant’s counsel still comtends 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 petitioner files this motion in aceordance with F.R.A.P rule 35(b), for the reconsideration of the court En Bane, to issue a writ of mandamus on the issue of territorial jurisdiction 2. ‘The Pane!'s decision rendered without a briefing schedule or hearing, on January 31, 2008 (see attached judgment) conflicts with its own previous decisions and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (see attachments) so consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions. 3 The main question at issue is whether the United States Code, title 18 is applicable outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 4, 18US.C. § 5 defines the United States in a territorial sense and 18 U.S.C. § 7 defines the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to where title 18 offenses are applicable. Congress put these definitions in title 18 to specifically clarify that title 18 is only applicable according to the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.5. The three judge panel denied the writ of mandamus saying federal district courts haye jurisdiction per 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and quoted only part of the law as follows: "all offenses against the laws of the United States," Why did the court only quote part of the law? The panel erred by doing this. What about the territorial jurisdiction restrictions placed on title 18 offenses by 18 U.S.C. § 5 and 18 U.S.C. § 7? The court just ignored them, Why? 6. 18 U.S.C. § 3231 reads in full the following way: "The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdietion, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. ‘Nothing in this ttle shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.” The second clause is what the petitioner is basing his argument on. This law does not contér jurisdiction into the sovereign territory of the States. Notice it says “nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair" Congress put this clause in to keep the law in line with the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, because Congress knew the United States would be taken away the jurisdiction of the States if allowed to prosecute title 18 offenses within the territorial jurisdiction of any particular State. Every State is bound by its territorial jurisdiction when it comes to prosecuting criminal offenses. The United States is no different. Except for the very limited subject matter jurisdictions outlined in 28 U.S.C. chapter 85, everything else is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless specifically authorized by law.7. The panel, by claiming the United States has unlimited territorial jurisdiction, goes against its own rulings, for example; the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals reasserted in United States v. De Leon, 270 F.3d 90 (1* cir. 2001); “t is true that ‘legislation of Congress, unless 2 contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”” 8. This very court set the precedent rule 190 years ago in the case Us States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on boaud the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The United States could not prove the ship was in their territorial jurisdiction therefore, this court ruled the case had to be prosecuted by the State of Massachusetts. 9. The long held precedent rule that has been established in criminal proceedings to prove territorial jurisdiction exists to prosccute, when the government, is the party sccking to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction, must prove United States ownership of the property in question and a State cession of jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in state cases, 10. The First Circuit has used this precedent rule for about two hundred years, another example is the ease in Poth Rodman, 291 F. 311 (1st Cir, 1923), the question involved whether a murder committed at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the State of Washington was a federal crime, Here, the murder was committed more than «year before the United States acquired a deed for the property which was the scene of the crime. Pothier was arrested and incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed a habeas n seeking his release on the grounds that the federal courts had no corpus petit