UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIREUNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.Cr. No. 07-189-01-GZS DANIEL RILEY

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 90 to 120 DAYS

The United States of America (hereinafter “the government”) respectfully requests thatthe trial in the above captioned matter be continued ninety to one hundred twenty days. Insupport the government asserts the following:Although the Speedy Trial Act requires that a defendant be tried within seventy daysfrom his first appearance before a Judicial Officer, delay resulting from a Court’s continuancemay be excludable under 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8) if certain prerequisites are met. The continuancemay be granted by the Court on its own motion or that of either party. The Court must set forthon the record (orally or in writing) its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by thegranting of the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedytrial. United States v. Joost, 133 F.3d 125, 131 (1st Cir.1998); United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d439 (3d Cir. 1994). The Court may grant the continuance for any number of reasons, only threeof which are enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 3l6l(h)(8)(B). Among the permissible reasons are whether the case is so unusual or complex that additional time for preparation is justified, United States v.Reavis, 48 F.3d 763, 770 (4th Cir. 1995), and whether failure to allow delay in a case notunusual or complex would unreasonably deny continuity of counsel or effective and diligent preparation by counsel, United States v. Joost, 133 F.3d 125, 131 (1st Cir. 1998).Daniel Riley was indicted on September 12, 2007 and arrested at his home in New York,

on that same date, where he was brought before a Judicial Officer. Consequently, for SpeedyTrial purposes, the clock began to run on September 12, 2007.Counsel for the defendant has filed a Motion to Withdraw, and subsequently a Motionrequesting a ruling on that Motion, in which he asserts that the defendant has demanded thatcounsel not represent him in this case. Due to the state of that relationship, defense counselcould not respond to the government’s request for assent on this Motion to Continue. Becausethe defendant is represented by counsel, the government has not contacted him directly to seek his assent. Consequently the government does not know whether the defendant assents or objects to this Motion.Whether the defendant assents or objects, for the reasons that follow, the governmentrespectfully submits that a continuance of the trial for ninety to one hundred twenty days isnecessary and that the ends of justice served by granting such continuance outweigh the bestinterests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.In part, the facts that gave rise to the defendant’s Indictment are as follows. On or aboutJanuary 18, 2007, the last day of a trial that started on January 9, 2007, a jury in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of New Hampshire returned verdicts convicting EdwardBrown and Elaine Brown of conspiracy and a number of federal tax and other financial crimes.The jury returned its verdicts against Edward Brown in his absence. After the third dayof evidence, January 11, 2007, Edward Brown returned to his and Elaine Brown’s joint residenceat 401 Center of Town Road, in Plainfield, N.H., and never came back to court. On January 12,2007, a federal warrant was issued for Edward Brown’s arrest based upon his failure to appear for the completion of his trial.Elaine Brown also failed to appear for what was to be the fourth day of evidence but,

after a brief continuance of the proceedings, she returned for the remainder of the trial. Shortlyafter her conviction, however, she was charged with violating conditions of her release pendingsentencing by removing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet, returning to her residence andreuniting with Edward Brown. A federal warrant was issued for her arrest.On April 24, 2007, Edward Brown and Elaine Brown were each sentenced to sixty-threemonths in prison. Neither Edward Brown nor Elaine Brown appeared for the sentencing proceeding and the sentences against them were imposed in their absence.After becoming fugitives, the Browns publicly declared their intention to resist, usinglethal force if necessary, any effort to arrest them. The Browns made such declarations intelevision, newspaper, magazine and radio interviews as well as internet websites and postings.On internet websites and postings, the Browns (and their supporters) also urged others to join theBrowns at 401 Center of Town Road to assist them in preparing for and executing suchresistance.On or about June 6, 2007, to facilitate the Browns’ arrests, the USMS, pursuant to anOrder of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, directed that all public utilities and communication service providers stop providing service to 401 Center of Town Road. The United States Postal Service also ceased delivering mail to the Browns.After becoming fugitives, the Browns invited a rotating cast of supporters to enter andremain in their home or on the premises of 401 Center of Town Road for varying periods of time. Certain of those supporters have provided comfort to the Browns by bringing the Brownssustenance, firearms, ammunition, explosive devices, cellular telephones, radios and other communications equipment and other items that would allow the Browns to remain on the property and to discourage, detect and repel, by force if necessary, any attempted arrest.