UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Docket No. 07-cr-189-1-GZS

Daniel Riley

O R D E R

Defendant Riley has filed an “Ex Parte Motion to Authorize

Subpoenas For Witnesses Out of State” (Document no. 261). In

fact the motion lists fifteen out of state individuals, fourteen

in-state witnesses, twenty-seven U.S. Marshals, six ATF agents,

and four FBI agents.

BACKGROUND

I have previously found Riley to be entitled to IFP status. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b), he is entitled to be issued

subpoenas when he has demonstrated an inability to pay the

witnesses’ fees and shown the necessity of each witnesses’

presence for an adequate defense.

Riley is charged with one count of conspiracy to prevent

officers of the United States from discharging their duties

during the period of January 2007 through September 2007; one

count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 268 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 4
2

during the same period; one count of accessory after the fact;

and one count of carrying, using and possessing a firearm in

connection with a crime of violence.

Subpoenas may only be issued to persons whose presence is

necessary to provide a defense to those charges. In an attempt

to demonstrate that necessity, defendant states that he...

5. ... needs all the these (sic) witnesses to

prove his innocence and to bolster his

defense which entails but no (sic) limited to

the following:

a) Prove the Browns did not get a fair

trial and were denied there (sic) right to

due process,

b) Prove the Browns tried everything

to get the Federal Government to obey the

law,

c) Prove the Browns were peaceful in

their civil disobedience, even willing to

surrender, if the law that makes them liable

for income tax would just be shown to them by

the Government,

d) Prove the Federal Government was

breaking the law, therefore justifying the

actions by the Browns and their supporters,

e) Prove the Federal Government were

the outlaws not the Browns,

f) Prove the State did nothing to

protect the Browns, even though by law they

were required to,

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 268 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 4
3

g) Prove the Federals were out to

destroy the Browns for exposing their corrupt

ways,

h) Prove the Federals used excessive

force, even coming close to killing innocent

people,

g) (sic) Prove any measures taken by

the Browns and their supporters were in selfdefense of person, property and Country as

well as being lawful, 

h) (sic) Prove the Browns as well as

their supporters, were just exercising their

Rights,

I) (sic) Prove the motives and frame of

mind of the Browns and their supporters,

j) (sic) Prove that income tax is not

mandatory on the average American,

k) (sic) Prove the Government lied and

fabricated evidence.

l) (sic) Prove the Browns were

continuously willing to pay the tax as long

as they were shown the law making them liable

for such tax.

(Document no. 261)

The Browns have been convicted, sentenced and had their

appeals denied. A continuation of their misguided efforts to

attack the tax laws is not a defense to any of the allegations

against Riley. He has wholly failed to demonstrate that any of

the requested subpoenas will produce a single witness necessary

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 268 Filed 02/20/08 Page 3 of 4
4

to an allowable defense.

The motion is denied without prejudice to a new motion under

Rule 17(b) that demonstrates the necessity of witnesses to any

permissible defense.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 20, 2008

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 268 Filed 02/20/08 Page 4 of 4