Dogwalker's defense strategy

[Bud Dickman]

Dogboy was honorably discharged from the Marines and has a BS Degree, I'm shocked.

http://www.scribd.com/full/2155443?acce ... 2oygxxlcjo

[.]

Dogboy was honorably discharged from the Marines and has a BS Degree

Fat lot of good it did or will ever do his sorry, soon to be incarcerated for an incredible length of time butt.

Or, as they say, there's no accounting for who hands out degrees to total morons. Witness Banister, Jackson, Cryer and many others.

[TheSaint]

The fact that he believes the nonsense he is spouting despite actual mountains of evidence to the contrary does not speak to his competence but to the fact that he is just plain bone headedly stupid.

I think you hit on the key word here -- "believe," as in True Believer Syndrome. Dogwalker continues to believe in Ed Brown's political theories, even after he and Brown and everyone else involved have been carted off to the pokey.

It's easy to call Danny's actions stupid, and they are, but that doesn't really speak to what's wrong with Danny. He has allowed his belief to override his logic to the point where he is now guaranteeing himself lifelong imprisonment.

In another reality, it's easy to picture Danny Riley becoming a suicide bomber, a corpse at Jonestown, a sign-holder for Westboro Baptist, or any other situation where people get sucked into cult-like organizations and lose contact with the real world.

He has found, at least in his mind, a way to give meaning and significance to an otherwise wasted and meaningless life by becoming the great defender of the persecuted(the Browns).

Danny Riley is a weak person who needed a strong outside force to give him direction. He found his guru in Ed Brown. Ed wasn't really running a cult, but Danny bought into tax protesting like it was one. It's amazing what people can do to themselves.

[LPC]

Dogwalker continues to believe in Ed Brown's political theories, even after he and Brown and everyone else involved have been carted off to the pokey.

Now might be a good time to remind the occasional readers of this forum that Ed Brown et al. were not convicted and imprisoned for what they believed, but because they *acted* on their beliefs.

You can believe that the government has no jurisdiction over you if you want, and you can even believe that you are justified in taking up arms against the government, but if you actually take up arms against the government you are in for a world of hurt.

[The Observer]

You can believe that the government has no jurisdiction over you if you want, and you can even believe that you are justified in taking up arms against the government, but if you actually take up arms against the government you are in for a world of hurt.

You do realize that you are taunting Stevesy with statements like that.

[Gregg]

You can believe that the government has no jurisdiction over you if you want, and you can even believe that you are justified in taking up arms against the government, but if you actually take up arms against the government you are in for a world of hurt.

Just ask the folks who died for the CSA.......

And a fine damn cause they forever tainted by using it to justify slavery....and I hate that even that very qualified position in a lot of circles wil brand me as an ignorant racist which I'm not. I do happen to think, though, that the Civil War in effect repealed the 10th Amendment. Oh, and direct election of Senators, my other "process of government" pet peeve...

[wserra]

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
- Friedrich von Schiller

That quote is so often apt here that I have a suggestion: Let's add the one-word phrase "Schiller!" to the Quatloosian lexicon.

Which can be used as a verb as well as a noun, I presume.

Actually, I originally saw it an an interjection: when faced with the intransigent stupidity people like Danny and his brother display, a rational reaction may be to exclaim "Schiller!" and move on. I can certainly see how it could be either a noun ("Man, did he pull a schiller") or verb (your examples) as well. What we have here, folks, is an all-purpose word.

But is the verb transitive or intransitive? Which is more proper:

"Danny the Dogwalker really schillered himself with that last pleading."

Or:

"Danny the Dogwalker really schillered in that last pleading."

I vote for the transitive form, so that (for example) Eddie Kahn can schiller Wesley Snipes.

Transitive. Absolutely.

[LPC]

I do happen to think, though, that the Civil War in effect repealed the 10th Amendment.

Yeah, right. And the rest of the Constitution was effectively repealed when the US declared bankruptcy in the 1930s.

Oh, and direct election of Senators, my other "process of government" pet peeve...

If you're going to be peeved, why stop at the 17th Amendment? Why not go all the way and be peeved at the 14th Amendment?

[Gregg]

I do happen to think, though, that the Civil War in effect repealed the 10th Amendment.

Yeah, right. And the rest of the Constitution was effectively repealed when the US declared bankruptcy in the 1930s.

Oh, and direct election of Senators, my other "process of government" pet peeve...

If you're going to be peeved, why stop at the 17th Amendment? Why not go all the way and be peeved at the 14th Amendment?

That's not at all what I mean, and I am in no way advocating slavery or what a bunch of rednecks have made of the COnfederate Flag since the 50s, this is what I mean about ruining a perfectly good argument. I happen to believe that the federel government is superior to the states, but it is also a creation of the states and some powers were reserved to the states. The civil war took that very reasonable (on it's own merits) statement and made it in a lot of circles some kind of codeword for "dumb inbred militia supporting fool" which I'm not. I am in fact an Ivy League educated professional with a PhD (and not some mail order degree, University of Michigan, International Business) who if you met in person you'd think quite differently of me.
The comparason of the 14th and 17th amendments was a cheap shot, too Dan. It's a long stretch to imply some white supremecist position because I happen to think that the states themselves are better represented by appointing senators through their legistaltures than by making the upper house just another house of represenatives with longer terms and higher fees to bribe, um, contrubute to their campaigns. The states are no longer represented in the federal government and that has led to a lot of fiscally irresponsible policies and to some other problems that could have been avoided had we only for a minute considered that maybe James Madison was a little smarter than us when he did it the way he did. (Actually, it may have been James Mason's idea, I'd have to look that up)
I expected better of you. I'm not some redneck in Columbia threatening to defend the rebel flag on the statehouse, I do think the civil war, or more precisely, reconstruction, shifted some powers to the federal government that may have been better "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I'm not talking about gathering up the constitutional rangers I just think the idea, however intended, led us to the current situation where politics is a very dirty business and a great deal of what goes on in Washington involves making special deals for people who have the means, which excludes most of the people. I know, it would be that way anyhow, and it would, but maybe it would be a little harder to corrupt, it would certainly be harder to pass unfunded mandates which is at least some kind of victory. I'm a lot closer to PJ O'Rourke in Parliment of Whores than to some yahoo on a tax protestor site.

[grixit]

It is a simple fact of history, that over time, the federational character of the US has diminished, while the republican character has strengthened and the democratic character has increased beyond all the aprehensions of the founding finaglers.

(There's also an imperial character, unfortunately. This was recently exploited by the naked time travelling killer robot currently serving as action figure in chief out here in California)

But the thing is, it's not just the US. That's the trend worldwide. Even countries that are still partly despotic or oligarchic are moving that way. The only countries where conversion to a federation is advocated are thse with historyies of factional warfare where there is not enough trust for full unity.

So while i agree on the Civil war and other things helping bring about this change in the US, i think it would have happened regardless, albeit maybe more slowly.

[LPC]

I do happen to think, though, that the Civil War in effect repealed the 10th Amendment.

Yeah, right. And the rest of the Constitution was effectively repealed when the US declared bankruptcy in the 1930s.

Oh, and direct election of Senators, my other "process of government" pet peeve...

If you're going to be peeved, why stop at the 17th Amendment? Why not go all the way and be peeved at the 14th Amendment?

That's not at all what I mean, and I am in no way advocating slavery or what a bunch of rednecks have made of the COnfederate Flag since the 50s, this is what I mean about ruining a perfectly good argument. I happen to believe that the federel government is superior to the states, but it is also a creation of the states and some powers were reserved to the states. The civil war took that very reasonable (on it's own merits) statement and made it in a lot of circles some kind of codeword for "dumb inbred militia supporting fool" which I'm not. I am in fact an Ivy League educated professional with a PhD (and not some mail order degree, University of Michigan, International Business) who if you met in person you'd think quite differently of me.
The comparason of the 14th and 17th amendments was a cheap shot, too Dan. It's a long stretch to imply some white supremecist position because I happen to think that the states themselves are better represented by appointing senators through their legistaltures than by making the upper house just another house of represenatives with longer terms and higher fees to bribe, um, contrubute to their campaigns. The states are no longer represented in the federal government and that has led to a lot of fiscally irresponsible policies and to some other problems that could have been avoided had we only for a minute considered that maybe James Madison was a little smarter than us when he did it the way he did. (Actually, it may have been James Mason's idea, I'd have to look that up)
I expected better of you. I'm not some redneck in Columbia threatening to defend the rebel flag on the statehouse, I do think the civil war, or more precisely, reconstruction, shifted some powers to the federal government that may have been better "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I'm not talking about gathering up the constitutional rangers I just think the idea, however intended, led us to the current situation where politics is a very dirty business and a great deal of what goes on in Washington involves making special deals for people who have the means, which excludes most of the people. I know, it would be that way anyhow, and it would, but maybe it would be a little harder to corrupt, it would certainly be harder to pass unfunded mandates which is at least some kind of victory. I'm a lot closer to PJ O'Rourke in Parliment of Whores than to some yahoo on a tax protestor site.

I made the comment about the 14th Amendment because I believe that the 14th Amendment made a bigger difference in federal-state relations than the 17th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment is often scorned by those who believe in a less federal form of federalism.

That you chose to read into it something more sinister probably means something, but I will refrain from publishing my speculations.

[LPC]

It is a simple fact of history, that over time, the federational character of the US has diminished, while the republican character has strengthened and the democratic character has increased beyond all the aprehensions of the founding finaglers.

[snip]

So while i agree on the Civil war and other things helping bring about this change in the US, i think it would have happened regardless, albeit maybe more slowly.

Sorry, but the real driving force towards a more central government was industrialization, which was still in its infancy when the Constitution was adopted, but began to be a real force by the mid-1800s.

The Constitution set up a system in which states could not control their own borders, and were effectively prohibited from regulating interstate commerce, which meant that states could not effectively regulate any industry or any large-scale commercial enterprises. Any state that attempted to regulate a particular industry would simply find itself industry-less, because industries that did not like the regulation in a state could simply move to the next state and then import the same goods back into the state, and there was nothing any state could do about it.

The Civil War might have been symbolic or representational, because it was a conflict between the industrialized North and the agrarian South, with the North therefore favoring a more centralized government and the South opposing it, but a more centralized government was inevitable, given the pressures and problems of industrialization.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

But, back on point, how does this affect Danny TDW's defense. Being a gibbering idiot is not a defense, so what is going to fall back on?

[crickets]

[grixit]

Don't you get it? Gibbering idiots are not mentioned in the 14th or 16th amendments!

[Bud Dickman]

Bad kool-aid in jail..

http://www.scribd.com/full/2176911?acce ... xnmgdp0pym

[Bud Dickman]

more

http://www.scribd.com/full/2176889?acce ... jxzx80z7oh

kicked out of the law library

http://www.scribd.com/full/2176881?acce ... az7b01g8gr

will not obey judges order

http://www.scribd.com/full/2177116?acce ... rvjs1yl6pv

http://www.scribd.com/full/2177168?acce ... 8hix4590xt

[The Operative]

Dogboy was honorably discharged from the Marines and has a BS Degree, I'm shocked.

http://www.scribd.com/full/2155443?acce ... 2oygxxlcjo

No, he didn't. I guess he didn't notice that his honorable discharge certificate, DD-214, and practically all other military documents probably have his name spelled in all caps. That means the corporate fiction DANIEL RILEY was in the Marines and not Daniel Riley.

There is a high probability that his college transcript is also in all caps and even possibly his degree. I am curious to know which school he attended to get a BSEE. While I have never met him in person, his ramblings, videos, and poor spelling and grammar make me believe he is not intelligent enough to pass the required mathematics courses for that degree. I readily admit that I might be wrong, but that is the impression that I get.

[Dr. Caligari]

Bad kool-aid in jail..

http://www.scribd.com/full/2176911?acce ... xnmgdp0pym

Oh. My. God.

Sounds more like bad acid.

[webhick]

Bolding added:

11. The defendant does NOT want Mr. Wiberg as stand by counsel. The defendant will no longer communicate with Mr. Wiberg or have anything to do with him. I have been deprived of the right to represent myself for five months now and both counsels forced on the defendant by the government have prejudiced the defendant's case. Stop sending counselors to the defendant.

Danny's slipping. If he wants to insist on maintaining this strawman crap, the least he can do is shove some hay down his shorts and stop referring to himself interchangeably as third- and first- person.

2. The jail has cut the defendant's counsel's time in the law library to two(2) hours a day about three weeks ago, and some days the counsel gets no time at all.

3. The law library is a computer in a 8' x 8' room. The jail said since so many people have signed up for the law library the defendant's counsel can only have 2hrs a day. Now it is about 50 people sharing one computer with more people being added every week.

4. The defendant's counsel can no longer mount a proper defense on 14hrs a week to do research of case law, view discover, write motions and petitions. The defendant was getting 5 hours a day or 35 hours a week. This time has been cut by more than half, when the defendant's counsel needs it most.

5. The defendant's counsel wanted to give the court notice of how the jail is causing prejudice against the defendant.

So, Danny was hogging the law library for five hours a day. Possibly because he was hogging the library, the waiting list grew to 50 people long. So the jail forces Danny to cut back (how much does anyone want to bet that Danny's fellow inmates complained to the guards?) Now Danny is demanding his 5 hours a day back because he has determined that he needs it more than the other 50 people who have a right to use it. Screw the other 50 people there. And if he doesn't get it back, the jail is prejudicing him. Arguably, the jail was prejudicing the other prisoners when they let Danny park his ass at the computer for five hours a day, seven days a week. In some circles, he's been on that computer like a full-time job. What the hell makes him think he's so special that his desires override everyone else's? Oh, that's right. He thinks he part of the revolution or something. If he keeps it up, he may very well start a revolution. Where the prisoners and guards team up to make his time there a living hell by putting glue on his toilet seat, giving him hickeys while he sleeps, and coordinating a first-come first-serve law library use policy where they set up a never-ending parade that prevents Danny from ever getting near the computer.

Danny, dude, you are not the only one who needs that computer. If you didn't abuse the privilege and learned to share sooner, you may have still been able to get a good amount of time in the room.

The jail is highly biased and prejudicial against the defendant's counsel because the defendant's counsel is suing the superintendent. This is also eveidenced by a guard spraying half of can of mace on the defendant's counsel while breaking up a fist fight. The other fighter hardly had any mace at all on him while counsel was covered from the waist up, and allowed to burn in severe excruciating pain for five hours, all the counsel could do was scream at the top of his lungs to try and relieve the pain. The counsel was blind for a day and a half and 10 days later is still trying to get the mace out of his eyes, which still burns.

Normally, I'd be totally in an outrage over this kind of treatment. But the simple fact is, I don't believe him. I think he exaggerates things to the point of absurdity hoping to make himself look like some kind of martyr.

First of all, according to his own story, he was sprayed while the guard was trying to break up a fist fight between him and another prisoner. Just speculating...maybe the other guy didn't get it as bad because he backed off quickly. Second, can an entire can of mace evn cover a grown man from the waist up, much less half a can? Third, I thought mace lasted up to a couple of hours not five (while I acknowledge that some may have a sensitivity to it that may make it last a bit longer...but probably not three hours longer). Fourth, his eyes still burn after 10 days? Is that even possible?

At least Danny decided to give a bullet list of some of his delusions:

WHEREFORE Daniel Riley request the following relief form this court;

A. For an order to stop the UNITED STATES from contacting Mr. Wiber with any regards to DANIEL RILEY,
B. For the court to acknowledge Daniel Riley in a Sui Juris capacity,
C. To dismiss the case because Daniel Riley is not responsible for the sub corporation DANIEL RILEY, the defendant,
D. To dismiss the case for the violations of the defendant's Sixth Amendment Rights,
E. To dismiss this case because the court and the plaintiff have no jurisdiction over Daniel Riley, living soul,
F. Let the defendant exercise his Sixth Amendment Right to self representation and tell Mr. Wiberg not to stand by.
G. Any other relief the court deems proper and justified.

And there you have it folks. Danny is determined to misinterpret the laws, demand that everyone bow down and do exactly what he wants, and consequently spend the rest of his life (if not a good portion of it) in prison. Assuming the fighting doesn't escalate.

He wants his cookie and his nookie. End of story.

[webhick]

There is a high probability that his college transcript is also in all caps and even possibly his degree. I am curious to know which school he attended to get a BSEE. While I have never met him in person, his ramblings, videos, and poor spelling and grammar make me believe he is not intelligent enough to pass the required mathematics courses for that degree. I readily admit that I might be wrong, but that is the impression that I get.

Up here, there's also a English requirement.