Reply to Response by David Staveley re 111 Response to Motion — USA v. Staveley (Dkt. 114, 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 114     Filed 11/29/22     Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
1067
11/22/[illegible]
page 1
United States District Court
District of Rhode Island

United States of America
v.
David Staveley
Case No. 20-CR-00074-[illegible]

RECEIVED
NOV 29 2022
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF R.I.

Defendant's Reply to Government's
Opposition to Defendant's Motion
for Recusal.

The following motion is presented to the honorable Court by the
Defendant Pro Se. The Defendant was denied counsel by the
court and he is not an attorney nor does he have any legal
experience. The Defendant is submitting this motion without
advice of counsel, while incarcerated, without any Court
notifications; Court Docket, notices, filings or Court
decisions in the last 65 days, with limited resources
and during Covid-19 protocols creating limited ability
for the Defendant to communicate, garner information
or to achieve any level of justice or success in these
proceedings.

1. On 11/5/22 Defendant filed a motion for the
recusal of Judge McElroy.

2. The Government filed an opposition to the
Defendant's motion for recusal which states
that the Defendant does not and cannot provide
any facts to support the motion.

3. In fact, the motion states a number of facts,
which are verified and veritiable, which taken
together reflect in the Defendant's mind an
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 114     Filed 11/29/22     Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
1068
11/22/[illegible]
page 2
3. (cont.) appearance of a lack of impartiality.

4. The motion states a course of conduct by the
Court which envinces a prejudice of the
Defendant's rights.

5. As to specific facts, Defendant cites inter alia,
without restating the entire motion for purposes
of this reply the following:

A. The Court ruled to grant the Government's
motion to waive Defendant's attorney-client
privilege, PRIOR to receiving Defendant's
objection and PRIOR to the period of
time within which Defendant was allowed
to file an objection under the procedural
rules of the Court.

B. Additionally, despite notice that Defendant
is incarcerated and after denying the
Defendant the assistance of counsel, the
Court has compounded the Defendant's limited
ability to pursue his 2255 by failing to
provide Defendant with copies of the Docket
and all notices, filings and decisions which
have occured in this case since September 15,
2022, a period of over 65 days. The Defendant
notes the last filing provided to the Defendant
was item #87 on the Docket. The Government's
opposition received on 11/22/22 is noted
as item #111.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 114     Filed 11/29/22     Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
1069
11/22/22
page 3
Case No. 20-CR-00074-MSM

6. The collateral hearing in this matter has, to
Defendant's knowledge, yet to be scheduled.

7. As has been his practice throughout this
proceeding, AUSA Vilker makes a sweeping
general statement in opposition to the facts
stated by Defendant without directly addressing
those facts, similar to his submission of
unverified hearsay he submitted to the Court
in opposition to the Defendant's prior motion
for contempt and which failed to address
the reasons the Government was in contempt
of the Court's order for over 8 months.

8. This is not the first time AUSA Vilker has
submitted "facts" to the Court which he either
knows are false or has failed to verify prior
to submission to the Court and yet the Court
has failed to sanction such conduct.

9. Taken in totality the Defendant's statement
of the facts and circumstances in this case,
along with the Court's statements at Defendant's
sentencing that she accepted everything AUSA
Vilker stated as true, Defendant believes he
has more than adequately stated a valid
case for recusal based upon, at the very least,
an appearance of impartiality based on facts.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 114     Filed 11/29/22     Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
1070
11/22/[illegible]
page 4
Respectfully Submitted
[signature]
David Staveley
Pro Se


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.114.0.pdf

Size

440,272 bytes

SHA-256

197092a228a060bcfb34a4f7725ec29d0e2474d889edc68b548f4ae6ccde30fb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.114.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)