Quitting smoking and marijuana use

You were found guilty of perjury to a federal judge.


Indeed I was.  And it has worked out very well for me.  Statute of
limitations for a felony, in the state of Arizona is 7 years - which
expires in summer to 2014.  After that time I cannot be charged with
anything that occurred prior to summer of 2007.  Under the doctrine of res
judicata I cannot be convicted of an offense which would necessarily
conflict with that one.  Due to the factual basis of that conviction the
Canadian government has little choice but to accept me as the person the US
government claimed I am (the Canadian government is just a puppet to the US
government).  We'll see how things pan out once the statute of limitations
expires next summer:).  Did you think I'm dumb enough to use a court
appointed attorney, unless I had some alterior motive?  Come now.

I misunderstood nothing.  Your statement was, verbatim "The marajuana is
not by choice, it's by necessity." And we were talking about your USE - not
quitting.  That statement was made before any mention of quitting and was
in response to my allegation of your drug use, in my declaration.  You're
now trying to confuse the issue.  But, I think the only person confused is
you.

Everything is a choice.  Why do you insist on trying to convince people
that you're such a victim?

Fox
		

I would also like to point out that when I speak of your compulsive lying
and dishonesty I'm speaking of statements made between us, and in our
current legal proceedings - that is, statements which are relevant.  What
you say to other people is of no consequence to me and you can lie all you
want.  Likewise, what I say to a person here in Vancouver is entirely
irrelevant to you.

So, I'm basing my allegation against you on direct communication between
you and I and sworn statements you've been making in our legal proceedings,
as recently as last week.

And you're basing your allegation against me on statements I made 6 years
ago, in an administrative (not criminal) court proceeding, which have
absolutely no connection to you, Gabriel, or anything that has been going
on between us over the past 2 years.

Hmm.  The two don't really seem very comparable, do they?

I would also like to point out to you, that section 1326 of Title 8 of the
United States Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1326) makes it
a felony for a person who has been deported to re-enter the United States
without permission.  And section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001) makes it a felony to
knowingly make a false statement to a federal law enforcement agent.  So,
can you tell me how it is that I was supposedly, physically deported from
the US; twice re-entered illegally and arrested/detained by ICE; yet
released both times with no criminal prosecution?  During the respective
interrogations I plainly stated that I was a US citizen and that I was born
in the US.  Do you think that ICE and the US Attorney's office are in the
habit of letting convicted, illegal re-entrants go (repeatedly)?  I mean,
there's already a conviction for false claim of US citizenship - what more
could they possibly need for a conviction of illegal re-entry?  Nothing.
Geez, this whole situation just doesn't make any sense, does it?

Now, I believe you're going to say that I wasn't released, I was deported.
What's the difference?  I was made to be no longer in custody - that's
released.  Whether they drop me off at LAX and tell me that I "have to"
board the plane, but then walk away; or whether I board the plane and get a
free trip to Vancouver.  Either way, the end result is the same.  And in
the past few months I've made repeated trips to Washington without incident.

But, back to the original point: In the immigration proceedings and the
federal criminal proceedings I was very careful to only state the truth.
There is a legal doctrine called a "literal truth".  If something is
phrased in such a way a typical person will make an assumption and
interpret it incorrectly.  However, taken literally, it may have an
entirely different meaning.  For example, if one says "Where you going?",
and the other responds "I ain't goin' nowhere." Then the first person will
likely take that to mean the second person is not going anywhere.  But, the
response was a double negative so, taken literally, the second person
actually, and truthfully stated that he is, in fact, going somewhere.  This
can be a very handy understanding.  A jury is typically made up of 12
common folks.  Folks who would likely not catch such nuances.  And when you
have a court appointed attorney who doesn't do squat, the prosecutor
doesn't have to work very hard so he lets a lot of things slip.  So, if you
WANT to get convicted of a petty felony in order to preclude all other
courts in the country from being able to prosecute you on numerous much
larger felonies then it isn't very hard.  And again, under res judicata,
since I was convicted of a felony which necessarily depends entirely on me
being Richard Riess, a Canadian (non-US) citizen, I CANNOT be tried for ANY
offence which would necessarily require that I am some other person.  And
by going through the motions of fighting that case (knowing I could have it
vacated at any time based on actual innocence) I was able to get the
federal prosecutor to obtain the foreign passport from the Maricopa County
Attorney's Office (the passport was the most significant piece of evidence
in that State forgery case), knowing that once the US Attorney's office had
it it would likely never find it's way back to the MCAO.

So, you see, everything I do is planned and calculated and I'm very careful
and deliberate in everything I say and do.  Sometimes my plans take a while
to reach fruition, but eventually they do.  And in the end I usually
prevail.  I really am that good...or just incredibly lucky.

But all that aside, what I said in the immigration court falls under the
category of "literal truth".  So, do you have any other examples of me
lying?

Cheers,
Fox