Saturday, August 04, 2007

Danny Riley "On The Record": What Does His Affidavit Accomplish?

Tuva Or Bust asked:

What does this document accomplish?

10:53 AM

The Freedom Fellowship said...


The affidavit was entered and filed as a legal document with the court. It now "qualifies" as evidence unless rebutted.

What does this signify?

A friend of the Brown's offered the following in response to the question "what does this signify?":

1) THEY fired first.

2) THEY fired on an UNARMED civilian, running AWAY from the officers on PRIVATE property after committing NO crime.

3) THEY tried to flip & intimidate, and threaten him. THIS IS WHY THEY ABANDONED THE SEIZURE OF THE BROWNs.

Danny Riley has now sworn to the FACTS under OATH.

It's time to force the newspapers and others to QUESTION the GOVERNMENT!

Did THEY use ASSUALT WEAPONS to fire on, and attempt to KILL an unarmed citizen, without threat or provocation?

Read more here and


Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

I agree with FF.

An Affidavit when filed is an important document.

A "Notice of Intent and Demand", if sworn to, notarized, and filed with a court also can be an important document.

Such documents cannot be casually ignored by the Establishment (including a court), unlike phone calls, letters, and web postings.

6:29 PM  
Blogger Tuva or bust said...

Posting it on the internet is meaningless, as is submitting it to a court clerk when there is no live case on the docket.

Yeesh. What a waste of time and energy. No wonder this movement has been spinning it's wheels for 40 years with zero progress.

8:17 PM  
Blogger George in Vermont said...

Tuva or bust
Tuva or bust is correct in the assessment of this “affidavit”. It is not drafted correctly, nor is it relevant since no question of law is on the table. The purpose of an affidavit is to “refute and rebut “ a legal presumption. Example: Ed and Elaine are liable to pay taxes. Solution: affidavit to “refute” (deny) and “rebut” (demand the Instrument). The browns must attack through the use of thee “law” at the Supreme Court level. Habeas Corpus… It is not to late.

Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus. [U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]

Sample heading for certified mail



STATE: Vermont



Troll Number One
Third Bridge
Underwater, Washington D. C.

Troll Number Two
Fourth Bridge
Underwater, Washington D. C.

Citizen Patriot
Your Street
My City, state

RE: Example: “Inspection” demand dated 06-06-06

KNOW ALL MEN AND WOMEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Affiant, Name of affiant, a natural living, breathing, man on the land being of sound mind and FIRST BEING DULY SWORN, willfully and voluntarily deposes and says, and as

a) I, Name of affiant, am competent to handle matters and for stating the matters set forth herein and all matters must be expressed to be resolved.

b) I, Name of affiant, have personal knowledge concerning the facts stated herein.

c) All the facts stated herein are true, correct, complete, and certain, not misleading, made in good faith, admissible as evidence, and if stating as I, Name of affiant, shall so state.

(a) Affiant is not in receipt of any valid instrument which verifies that I am “made liable” or obligated to pay by statute, agreement, contract, ordinance, trust, code or other claim made by agency name.
(b) Affiant is not in receipt of any attested Affidavit, sworn testimony, rebuttal or claim by principal, agent or other person who has presented the claim attached hereto and demanding payment or in support of the issuance of judgment.
(c) Affiant is not in receipt of reasonable identification of other person, principal, or agent who has made presentment.
(d) Affiant is not in receipt of any document which has evidence or authority of principal, agent or other person to make presentment if made for another.
(e) Affiant is not in receipt of the original signed instrument which demands acceptance or payment at a place stated therein.
(f) Affiant is not in receipt of any instrument that has terms specified for payment or any place reasonable under any circumstances.
(g) Affiant is not in possession of a signed receipt for partial or full payment of any instrument from agency name.
(h) Affiant is not in receipt of any instrument that proves I am willfully delaying commercial process or in dishonor of any attested presentment or demand.

FACT: Affiant is aware that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”, but Affiant is not in receipt of agency statute or procedure that caused a liability or lawful order to be imposed upon FIRST LAST NAME. [1]

FACT: Affiant is not in receipt of a “teste of process” or verification of a lawful order or judgment. [2]

[1] Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177.
[2] 28 USC 1691


This sworn, affirmed, subscribed, acknowledged, sealed, duly [certified post/filed] and recorded document is hereby deemed to be your “means of knowledge.” The means of knowledge, especially when knowledge consists of published public records, is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts.” Equality under the law is paramount and mandatory by law.

This Affidavit is freely and voluntarily made, affirmed, signed, sealed, duly filed, recorded and published in good faith, is not made under threat, duress or coercion and without deception for purposes of evasion. Notice to principal is notice to agents. Notice to agents is notice to principals. Published recorded notice is notice to all.

Affiant, expressly reserves all unalienable right to amend, alter or repeal in parts or its whole this Affidavit at times and places of My own choosing, accordingly as new facts and revelations are made available to Me at various future times and places as yet unknown, and as yet to be determined.

Pursuant to Title 28 USC §1746(1) and executed “without the United States”, I, [name], affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united states of America that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my belief and informed knowledge.

“Indeed, no more than [affidavit] is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658 f.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1981); certiorari denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 2169. S.Ct. March 22, 1982.

And Further Affiant sayeth not.


John-Joseph Doe 12-12-06
The living, breathing, sentient serene man known by the appellation which is so stated and spelled correctly above.
Citizen/Principal, by Special Visitation, unrepresented.

The question of jurisdiction in the court either over the person, the subject-matter or the place where the crime was committed can be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be proved; and it is never waived by a defendant. [U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)]

In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by collateral attack. [U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)]

ONLY AN INSPECTION OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE SHOWING THAT THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR VIOLATED A PERSON'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988). In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because they are already void.   

U.S. Purcell v. Miner 71 U.S. 513, 1866 WL 9482 (U.S.Dist.Col.), 18 L.Ed. 435, 4 Wall. 513, ‘We do not think it necessary to a vindication of our judgment to give a history either of the pleadings or evidence disclosed by the record. The case appears to have been carried on by the parties propriâ personâ, who are excusable for their ignorance of all the rules of pleading and practice in a court of chancery, or the proper mode of taking testimony.’

12:18 AM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

To Tuva, and George---

While I see your points, I respectfully disagree.

RE: "meaningless...when there is no live case on the docket."---
It is true that normally an Affidavit is to support or refute some actual action; however, it can be used as a precautionary anticipation of such a case, or action. Such "case" in this instance might be one against Riley, not the Browns.

RE: "nor is it relevant since no question of law is on the table."--- See above. Charges still may be pursued against Riley. His Affidavit may discourage the D.A. from pursuing such a course of action.

RE: "It is not drafted correctly"--- There is no REQUIRED format for an Affidavit. Some, however, are more effective than others.

Your examples, George, are excellent.


p.s. to Tuva--- Your criticisms are not in any way constructive, which would seem to indicate that your motives are questionable. While there certainly is nothing at all wrong with criticism, offering it without constructive suggestions for improvement accomplishes absolutely nothing. As you don't appear to think much of "this movement", perhaps you could suggest ways to improve.

8:35 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

It's not that Tuva and George fail to see the relevance of this Affidavit... It is simply that they are trying to destroy this Truth Movement.

The fact that it was posted online suggests to me that Mr. Riley simply wants it known that he did in fact file one.

The Format is irrelevant, because it is still a SWORN AFFIDAVIT, and thus, a Legal Document.

The Important thing to remember here is this:

1) THEY fired first.

2) THEY fired on an UNARMED civilian, running AWAY from the officers on PRIVATE property after committing NO crime. (Walking the Dog)

Any Person who would try to cast a shadow on these Facts, or otherwise bury them, is no Person at all.

Tuva Or Bust asked:

What does this document accomplish?

My Answer to ewe:
It establishes a direct line to the TRUTH of Events brought about by Government Provocateurs. It Establishes that a Crime was committed by Either the Local Law Enforcement, or the FED.

Are you blind? I think not. Are you Criminally Motivated to misinform the People? I would have to say so.

Who writes YOUR Paycheck anyway?

12:16 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

It can also serve to bring about a Case... But you should know that already.

12:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home