Notice: Received duplicate by David Staveley re 106 Reply to Response — USA v. Staveley (Dkt. 109, D.R.I. No. 1:20-mj-00034, docketed in No. 1:20-cr-00074)

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 109     Filed 11/15/22     Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
1041
[illegible]
page 1
United States District Court
District of Rhode Island

United States of America
v.
David Staveley
Case No. 20-CR-00[illegible]

RECEIVED
NOV 15 2022
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF R.I.

Defendant's Reply to Government's
Opposition to Defendants Motion
to Strike.

The following motion is presented to the honorable
court, by the defendant Pro Se. The Defendant was
denied counsel by the court and is not an attorney.
The Defendant is submitting this motion without advice
of counsel, while incarcerated, with limited resources
and during Covid-19 protocals creating limited ability
for the Defendant to communicate and garner information.

In this latest exchange of pleadings between
the parties, contrary to the Government's assertion
in its response to the Defendant's Motion to Strike,
The Defendant's motion is in no way frivolous.

The fact is that when the Defendant renewed
The Motion for Return of Property, the Government
was in contempt of the Court's order of Febuary
4, 2022, a period of (8) eight months.

The Government compounded its contempt by filing
an Opposition to the Defendants Motion which contained
demonstratable false statements in a manner which
would make Josef Goebbels proud.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 109     Filed 11/15/22     Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
1042
10/31/[illegible]
page 2
Case No. 20-CR-00[illegible]

These and other statements filed by the Government
in pleadings before the Court seek to portray the
Defendant in a false and negative light. The
Government apparently feels if it restates these
deceptions often enough they become accepted as
fact.

Again, the fact is that the Government failed to
comply with the Courts order to turn over the Defendant's
property, to wit, his drivers license and wallet which
are listed on the FBI's inventory of his property and
as reported by the media in FBI custody. And, the
Government has offered no valid justification for
this failure to comply with the Court's Order for over
8 months.

In fact, the Government's response to Defendant's
Motion for Return of Property, never needed to be filed?
All the Government needed to do is simply return the
Defendant's missing property and be done with it.
Instead the Government's Motions creates false
justification and outright untruths. Which has
been the path taken throughout this proceeding, by
the Government.

The Government asserts without proof that the FBI
did not have his property in its possession despite
the appearance on the FBI inventory and also confirmed
in media reports. The Government further asserts that
the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) had his property
in its possession and had tried to return it to the
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 109     Filed 11/15/22     Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
1043
10/31/[illegible]
page 3
Case No. 20-CR-00[illegible]

Defendant's mother on "multiple occasions" without proof
of any sort. The Government does not offer or
reveal; who made such alleged "multiple" attempts,
when those attempts were made, where they were made
or what forms such attempts took? The Government's
assertions fly in the face of the affidavit filed by
a person with personal knowledge of the matter under
oath, that these assertions as to alleged attempts
to return his property are false. Instead, the
Government now asserts in its motion of 10/20/22
it offered the Court hearsay ("The undersigned (AUSA
Lee Vilker) has no first-hand knowledge of these efforts
and was simply advising the Court ...") which it did
not bother to verify and simply offered it to the
Court in a signed Motion as the truth, hardly
a valid justification. And if the Defendant did not
point out this falsehood, the Government would
have simply continued the manipulation of the facts.

Does not the Government have a duty to verify
that pleadings it places before the Court are
factual? And time and time again the Court
has dismissed Motions based on the Government's
word (Motion 82). All the Goverment offered were
a few internal emails between himself and Defendant's
Attorney. The Government never provided and
excluded the key document, the Court Ordered
Psychological Report, from the documents sent to
Defense Counsel. In fact, the Government
acknowledge the Defendant received the same
BOP file which contained the Psychological Report.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 109     Filed 11/15/22     Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
1044
10/31/[illegible]
page 4
Case No. 20-CR-00074-MSM

This inconsistency is telling and demonstrates a key
document that likely would have had a bearing on
sentencing was excluded by the Government in
its e-mail transmission to Defense Counsel. Additionally,
Defense Counsel did nothing to obtain the report
and as the Court, simply took the Government's word.
And dismissed a viable motion.

Throughout this matter, which began with the
Defendant's trial in the media, AUSA Vilker has
asserted false or misleading statements to
portray the Defendant in a false and negative
light before this Court and the public. This
tactic has been employed throughout this matter.
It is certainly not frivolous for the Defendant
to request that pleadings containing these
falsehoods should be removed from the record
and that the Government be admonished for
its Contempt of the Court's order of 2/4/22
and filing motions as "truth" later to reveal
the government's pleading was based on hearsay,
in this matter

Respectfully Submitted
[signature]
David Staveley
Pro Se


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.109.0.pdf

Size

569,181 bytes

SHA-256

e4372098357d33272feb5d3969c4ac3e5bf2e9e637bbfb28f7d256f16a4b4405

Our copy

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.109.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)