Clerks Note: duplicate copy received by David Staveley re 118 Motion for Leave to Appeal — USA v. Staveley (Dkt. 119, 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 119     Filed 12/07/22     Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
1112
11/28/22
page 1
United States District Court
District of Rhode Island

RECEIVED
DEC 07 2022
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF R.I.

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

Defendant's Emergency Motion for
Leave to file Interlocutory Appeal

The following motion is presented to the honorable Court by the
Defendant Pro Se. The Defendant was denied counsel by the
Court in August 2022 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 71 days, with limited
resources and during Covid-19 protocals creating limited
ability for the Defendant to communicate, garner
information or to achieve any level of justice or success
in these proceedings.

Now comes Defendant, David Staveley, Pro Se and moves
the Court as follows:

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

2. Upon information and belief the Court denied the
Defendant's motion for recusal.

3. For the reasons stated in the Defendant's motion
Defendant believes that the Defendant's rights
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 119     Filed 12/07/22     Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
1113
11/28/22
page 2
Case No. [illegible]

3. (cont.) including Defendant's Constitutional Rights
to notice of these proceedings and an opportunity
to be heard have been prejudiced by the Court.

4. Despite notice to the Court, notice and an
opportunity to be heard for over (20+) twenty
plus notices, decisions and other filings in
this matter have been denied to Defendant
since September 15, 2022 and continue to the
date of this motion.

5. The Court has failed to admonish or otherwise
caution the government, Atty. Vilker, who has
consistently filed false statements and unverified
hearsay in violation of the rules of this proceeding
and professional ethics.

6. Defendant believes the Court issued an order
waiving the Defendant's attorney-client privilege
before the period alloted for Defendant's reply
and in advance of the Defendant's limited
objection.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant believes
the Court has agreed to accept a "Declaration"
from Defendant's prior attorney, Jason Knight,
despite Defendant's request for a hearing to
exercise his Constitutional right to cross
examine Knight.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 119     Filed 12/07/22     Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
1114
11/28/22
page 3
Case No. 20-CR-[illegible]

8. For the foregoing reasons and those stated in
Defendant's prior motion for recusal, Defendant
believes his rights have been prejudiced by
the Court.

Wherefore, Defendant requests that the Court allow
an emergency interlocutory appeal of the Defendant's
motion for recusal.

Respectfully submitted
[signature]
David Staveley
Pro Se


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.119.0.pdf

Size

408,787 bytes

SHA-256

5ed2df5f89344d9b39d93e5fb0f401f632e964256bdecb3dc0321acdf5bc96a3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.119.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)