You are at the Legal Reform Website and the Pro Se Way Website






Vs. C.A. No. 00-474ML


AHSBEL T. WALL, Director *


General State of Rhode Island Respondent *



The Attorney General in asking this court to continue this blatantly illegal incarceration, is relying on the fact not one specific allegation was addressed by judge Thunberg, despite a specific request to comply with due process and issue a finding of facts and conclusion of law to each issue raised. The A.G. states correctly, "petitionerís motion for bail is premised upon his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct." (Stateís memo.)

Mr. Weisman goes on to support Petitionerís allegations by claiming: "Those allegations [of misconduct] have been rejected by Rhode Island Superior Court Justice Thunberg,"Ö when Randal White from the A.G.ís office admitted that the specifically requested photos were not turned over at any time. The petitioner must note, inter alia, Superior Court Justice William Dimitri, (petitionerís trial counsel) testified a specifically requested audio tape was suppressed until after the State closed its case and erased the tape before turning the tape over making counsel very angry. That earsing also caused him to remember the incident.

These two irrefutable facts alone are proof positive of this continued illegal incarceration, and the grossly erroneous unsupported finding of the State court. Thunbergís wanting decision is a wanton violation of the Constitutional mandates set forth in the United States Constitution Article VI. Furthermore, the prosecution refuses to correct what it knows is false and admit to this court, what Mr. White had to admit during the remand hearing, to wit; " Sergeant Withers said that he did not bring photos of vandalism to defendantís home to the trial." (Stateís memo. in Superior court at p. 5.)

Petitioner would refer this Honorable court to the enclosed memorandum in support of this original habeas petition and note the argument especially made on pages 1-2, for bail to the State court.

The State court in denying bail, as unbelievable as it may seem claimed that there is no law that would allow her to grant bail after that argument contained it the aforementioned memorandum was made orally.

Based upon that argument, and the fact that this petitioner cannot get the transcripts as of yet, has not had his direct appeal in over (10) ten years, and already has parole on a (20) twenty year sentence, justice demands that bail be granted so as to protect and enforce manifold violations of the Petitionerís Constitutional rights.

Wherefore for the above stated reasons, and those set forth in the original memorandum, which is still UN-refuted, your Petitioner prays that this Honorable court will grant bail while a full and fair disposition is make on this instant matter on each and every issue raised.

Respectfully submitted,


Ronald LíHeureux

P.O. Box 8212

Cranston, RI 02920


I, the undersigned do hereby certify that I have caused a true copy of the within motion to the Attorney Generalís office, 150 South Main Street Providence RI, 02903, on this _______ day of November, 00.






You are at the Legal Reform Website and the Pro Se Way Website