NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT No. 2007-0745 DANIEL RILEY MOTION IN OPPOSITION v. TO US. PETITION TO INTERVENE SUPERINTENDENT WARREN DOWALIBY OBJECTION HEAR YE! HEAR YE! The appellant/petitioner Daniel Riley, acting sui juris, motions this Honorable Court, NOT to allow the United States to intervene in the briefing schectule and to further delay a ruling for Riley's writ a habeas corpus. 1, Daniel Riley, a honorably discharged U.S. Marine, holds a Bachelors of Science Degree in Electrical Engincering, licensed Master Electrician, successful business man, and farmer has been unlawfully incarcerated since September 12, 2007 of which, on September 19, 2007, Riley was moved to Strafford County House of Corrections 2. Riley filed for a writ of habeas corpus on October 16, 2007 and was denied any type of due process at the county level. 3. Riley sought redress with the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which in tum accepted the case and set a briefing schedule. Riley obeyed the briefing schedule and had his opening brief filied in a timely manner by December 26, 2007. 4. The opposition brief had to be filed no later than January 25, 2008. The Attorney General of New Hampshire on or about January 11, 2008 recused the State from the case. On January 18, 2008 the Court filed and order telling either the Strafford County Attorney or the U.S. Attorney to file an opposition brief no later than February 19, 2008. Giving both pasties notice and gave them 32 more days to file a brief5. On February 13, 2008 the U.S. Attomey filed a petition for the United States to intervene. This petition is asking this Honorable Court to relinquish its jurisdiction over this case. 6. Inthat petition at $3 the AUSA, I believe, is trying to explain Riley's position on the federal courthouse being an unlawful venue for tiltle 18 offenses. Riley's position is that the land the federal courthouse sits on has never been ceded to the United States as required by the New Hampshire law RSA 123:1 and the United States Constitution Art. I, Sec.8, Cl. 17. Further the United States Supreme Court has held that United States! Courthouses fall under “other needful buildings” (U.S. Constituiton Art. , See, 8, Cl. 17) therefore, the land must (mandatory) be ceded over to the United States before any jurisdiction is transferred to the United States from New Hampshire, then and only then, does it become a lawfill venue, See James v. Dravo Contracting Co, (1941) 302 US 141,142. Since the land the federal courthouse in Concord sits on has never becn ceded to the United States, therefore, no federal jurisdiction exists at the federal courthouse. Therfore, The United States is holding court outside its territorial boundries, that would be the same as New Hampshire holding court in Maine, its unlawful period, the law is the law. Riley's argument is eoherent with the law and is the truth. This all explained it great detail in Riley's opening brief.and the amicus curiae brief filed on Riley's behall. 7. Inthat petition at 4 4 The U.S, Attorney asserts that the Federal Government grants jurisdiction to the State (not vice versa) and that the petitioner is making a claim that this grant does not limit or interfer with federal jurisdiction. Riley is claiming that the federal government does not have a federal enclave in Plainfield, NewHampshire, where the allegsed title 18 offenses occurred, therefore no territorial |jutisdiction exists for the United Stetes in Plainfield, New Hampshire. Riley makes this, claim because no land in the whole State of New Hampshire has been ceded to the United States in accordance with U.S. Constituiton Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 and New Hampshire's RSA 123:1. This is evidenced by the affidavits of the New Hampshire's Secretary of State and his Deputy, and furhter cooperated by United States Senator Sununu’s lisison's letter, which this Honorable Court has in their possession, 8. The United States said In Re: Daniel Riley that the United States has Jurisdiction over title 18 offenses no matter where they occurr, which has no basis in law or history. The First Circuit used 18 U.S.C. § 3231 as their authority and quoted only part of the law as follows: “all offenses against the laws of the United States," See petitioner's exhibit 2 Why did the court only quote part of the law? The Court erred by doing this. What about the territorial jurisdiction restrictions placed on title 18 offenses by Congress per 18 US.C. § 5 and 18 U.S.C. § 7, especially 7(3)? See Riley's opening brief appendix pages, 6,7. The court just ignored them, Why? 9. 18 U.S.C. § 3231 reads in full the following way: "The disirict courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the coutts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. Nothing in this title shail be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof."