Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
I don't think he is particularly bright and I think was easily lead. I think of all of them he got a much harsher end of the stick than he deserved.grixit wrote:Maybe. But i've felt sorry for him from the beginning.
Despite the USMS's warnings, all three defendants [Riley, Gerhard, and Gonzalez] went to New Hampshire to support the Browns after the couple's convictions.
Each of the three defendants came to the New Hampshire property anticipating violence and brought at least one weapon with him to the Browns' home. After assessing the situation firsthand, the defendants each helped prepare the Plainfield property to withstand attempts by the USMS to arrest the Browns. The three worked together to help the couple acquire additional firearms, ammunition, and explosive devices, some of which they placed strategically around the property. Their efforts diminished prospects for a peaceful resolution to the standoff and delayed apprehension of the Browns.
When acquiring and stockpiling weapons for the Browns, the defendants often cooperated closely with each other. For instance, on May 17, 2007, Riley e-mailed Gonzalez to coordinate the purchase of two .50 caliber rifles, capable of firing armor-piercing rounds and equipped with specialized scopes for long-distance shooting. Riley said that Gonzalez would "only need one for the house." The next day, Riley arranged to meet Gonzalez at a gun shop in Newport, New Hampshire, to fill out necessary paperwork to acquire the guns. On May 23, Gonzalez and Riley met at a Newport gun dealer, where each purchased a .50 caliber rifle. Riley later e-mailed Gonzalez to ask if Edward Brown was "happy with our progress," if Brown wanted additional "rounds" of ammunition, and if the supporters in Plainfield had rifles.
The defendants invested considerable effort in publicizing their efforts to arm the Browns' stronghold against the USMS. They communicated their support of the Browns through e-mails, online videos, and radio interviews, in which each asserted his willingness to use deadly force to protect the couple from apprehension. The USMS's knowledge that armed supporters of the Browns were on the property was a factor the USMS considered when delaying entering the Browns' property to apprehend the couple during the first four months of the standoff.
The USMS's efforts went through several stages as events played out. In the early morning of June 7, 2007, the USMS deployed two teams of about fifty officers, including New Hampshire state troopers, in an effort to arrest Edward Brown... The raid was called off, however, after Riley chanced upon the deputy marshals while walking a dog. Riley was briefly detained; he returned to the Browns' property soon after his release.
In the days after the USMS's June 7 operation, defendants redoubled their efforts to fortify the Browns' property against any entry by law enforcement and to arm themselves and others for a bloody confrontation in the event the USMS attempted to take the couple into custody.
Pipe bombs were not the only explosives the defendants helped manufacture. Riley assisted in the construction of deadly "one pound hand grenade[s]" consisting of nails taped to cans of gunpowder with fuses inserted; the nails were intended as shrapnel to increase the destructive force of the explosion. Working with Edward Brown, Riley also built several spring-loaded "zip guns," which were designed to fire 12-gauge shells with great accuracy at anyone who broke a trip wire. Finally, Riley obtained "highly explosive" chemicals, which he and Edward Brown used to make a series of one-pound bombs. Riley then positioned these bombs "around the perimeter of the Browns' property."
In addition to the explosives described above, federal officers found seventeen firearms and about 40,000 rounds of ammunition on the Browns' property after the couple's arrest.
While we poke fun here at Riley for the "dogwalking" incident, I think it has also tended to cover over the real and dangerous crimes that Riley was committing. Furthermore, as Dezcad pointed out in that thread, Riley got convicted for a count that carries a 360 month penalty, of which the appeal court said he was properly convicted.C. Daniel Riley
Daniel Riley learned of Edward and Elaine Brown's "problems" with federal law enforcement in February 2007. Between March and September of that year, he traveled repeatedly from his home in Cohoes, New York, to the Browns' Plainfield property and was described as the Browns'"very good friend."
Riley posted an Internet video on March 2, 2007, expressing support for the Browns'"revolution" against the "thieving international bankers" who "control [the U.S.] government and are out to destroy [the] country." Riley pledged to give the couple a "few things" to aid in their resistance. As he had pledged, Riley brought a 12-gauge shotgun and other weapons with him to the Plainfield property.
As the standoff continued, Riley helped get firearms and explosives for the Browns in anticipation of a violent struggle with law enforcement. Riley coordinated his and Gonzalez's May purchase of two rifles and instructed Gonzalez that only one of the weapons would be needed "for the house." Riley asked Gonzalez if Edward Brown wanted more ammunition. Riley also manufactured a series of explosive booby traps, some of which he personally deployed around the Browns' property.
Riley attempted to persuade Gonzalez to return to the Browns' property. On July 20, about a month after Gonzalez had returned to Texas, Riley e-mailed him, urging, "We have a war to win and we need everybody."
Riley repeatedly expressed his willingness to use lethal force to protect the Browns. On July 28, Riley e-mailed several individuals, including Gonzalez, to report that everyone on the property was "at battle stations" after hearing noises in the woods. The next day, again believing that the marshals were preparing to arrest the Browns, Riley called into a radio show from inside the Browns' home and informed listeners that supporters were on "high alert," had their guns "unchambered," and were prepared to go "toe to toe" with the USMS to resist "tyranny" and protect the Browns. Riley sent another e-mail in August 2007 in which he stated that "the number one most important thing" the Browns needed was "people to come and stand to their death, if necessary, to save our country . . ., but no homos, lol."
U.S. Marshals arrested Riley in Cohoes on September 12, 2007. A search of his residence revealed a rifle signed by Edward Brown and Randy Weaver.
Kind of hard for me to feel sorry for Danny about his sentencing when it is obvious he wasn't feeling sorry for all the people he had put in harm's way.18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii).
(B) If the firearm possessed by a person convicted of a violation of this subsection—
.
.
.
(ii) is a machine-gun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years.
That qualification applies to a majority of inmates. But I am not sure stupidity and lack of foresight is a bargaining chip in parole hearings. Even if it is, the problem still remains: Danny was convicted on a mandatory 30 year sentence that was upheld that cannot be done away with except with a pardon or a reversal by the Supreme Court.notorial dissent wrote:All quite true, however, my impression is still that he was not particularly bright, as in really not, and was easily lead, I'm not sure he could think far enough ahead to see where he was going.
So apparently he is keeping his nose clean and has a chance to get out in 8 years. Maybe he has finally started to learn that there are consequences to actions.Famspear wrote:I just checked, and Daniel Riley is inmate # 14528-052 at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut. He is currently scheduled for release on November 13, 2025.
Parole was abolished in federal courts years ago, although there is a possible reduction, of up to 15%, for "good time". A federal convict serves between 85% and 100% of his original sentence, depending on whether or not he violates prison rules.grixit wrote:Anyway, i decided to look him up and see if he'd had a parole hearing, but couldn't find anything. Would someone more savvy with legal searches please check it out for me?
Where is my math wrong?Dr. Caligari wrote:Parole was abolished in federal courts years ago, although there is a possible reduction, of up to 15%, for "good time". A federal convict serves between 85% and 100% of his original sentence, depending on whether or not he violates prison rules.grixit wrote:Anyway, i decided to look him up and see if he'd had a parole hearing, but couldn't find anything. Would someone more savvy with legal searches please check it out for me?
Yeah, I just re-checked my check. My entry was a typo. It should have read November 13, 2035, not "2025".The Observer wrote:Where is my math wrong?Dr. Caligari wrote:Parole was abolished in federal courts years ago, although there is a possible reduction, of up to 15%, for "good time". A federal convict serves between 85% and 100% of his original sentence, depending on whether or not he violates prison rules.grixit wrote:Anyway, i decided to look him up and see if he'd had a parole hearing, but couldn't find anything. Would someone more savvy with legal searches please check it out for me?
85% of 30 years is 25.5 years
Danny has served 9 years or so and Famspear is reporting a possible release date of 2025 which is only 8 years from now. I am missing 8 years somewhere.
Originally this was the projected release date when Danny went in.
Daniel Riley
inmate # 14528-052
Current age 46.
Currently at the Terre Haute Federal Correctional Institution at Terre Haute, Indiana.
Projected release date is Nov. 13, 2035.
I assume that the U.S. Supreme Court decision to which you refer is United States v. Davis, no. 18-431 (June 24, 2019). The Court ruled that 18 USC section 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. I haven't studied the decision, and at this point I don't know how (or whether) the decision would affect Riley's situation.tmtoulouse wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:07 am Riley seems convinced the Davis supreme court case decision will "free him in 90 days." Did the court explicitly sentence him using the now stricken statue? He should easily fall within the A category I would think?