Tuesday, January 26, 2010

formal complaints alleging Police misconduct



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. GUY M. NEIGHBORS Defendant, Notice of Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors Recues Themselves from Said Cases as To Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of Interest. Comes now Defendant Guy Neighbors pro-se, and asks the honorable court to change the venue of all the cases UNITED STATES V. GUY NEIGHBORS
& CARRIE NEIGHBORS 20124-01-01, 07-20073-01j02jwljdjw, 08-20105



Case No. 07-20124-01-0#DJW

jwljjpo, from the State of Kansas to the State of Nebraska, and that the Prosecutors Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead Recuse themselves from the cases on the grounds that the Defendants cannot receive a fair trial or be tried by an impartial prosecutor in the State of Kansas.


Wherefore the defendants pray that the courts will grant this request in the interest of Justice, and the defendants would respectfully ask the honorable court to court to consider the special circumstances surrounding this case in that the prosecutor is now acting District Attorney for the District of Kansas and the defendants have filed motions claiming prosecutorial misconduct, have exhibits from other defendants that will show a pattern of abuse and said defendants have filed a complaint against the prosecutors under
42 U.S.C. 1983 for Civil Rights Violations.

The prosecutor now has a vested interest in getting a conviction above and beyond the interest of Justice. The defendants pray the court will entertain this pro- se motion as to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest that could prejudice the defendants.


14th Amendment

guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens to due

process and such rights require the scrutiny of the Court. If the Court decides that it has the right to deny the defendants due process by refusing to consider their pre- trial pro-se motions, then the Court is failingto insure justice in this case. Alternatively if no change of venue is granted, then the defendants ask for a dismissal of all charges. Because a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, the decision to allow such representation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. This case merits such a need for pro-se motions because the Prosecutors control over the defendant's attorneys have caused prejudice upon the defendants in this case. Although many jurisdictions have refused to recognize a right of counseled defendants to exercise their 6th Amendment right to lend assistance of their


counsel in their own defense, it is ultimately left to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether such participation is permitted (see, e.g., United States v Einfeldt, 138 F3d 373,378 [8th Cir], cert denied 525 US 851; United States v Tutino, 883 F2d 1125, 1141 [ad Cir], cert denied 493 US 1081; United States v LaChance, 817 F2d 1491, 1498 [t ith Cir], cert denied 484 US 928; United States v Mosely, 810 F2d 93,97-98 [6th Cir], cert denied 484 US 841; United States v Halbert, 640 F2d 1000, 1009 [oth Cir]; State v Frye, 224 Conn 253, 256, 617 A2d 1382, 1384-1385; State v Long, 216 N.J Super 269 275-276, 523 A2d 672,675-676). While there may be circumstances where the unjustified refusal to entertain meritorious pro se motions would constitute an abuse of discretion, that circumstance does not apply when a defendants Constitutional rights are jeopardized.


The decision to allow hybrid representation implicates the trial court's function in ensuring the orderly administration of the proceedings and the special circumstances in this case. (see, People v Mirenda, supra, 57 NY2d, at 266). As such, it is a matter committed to the sound discretion and of the Trial Judge, The defendants respectfully ask this court to change venue or dismiss through this pro se complaint under oath alleging violations of civil and

Constitutional rights, conspiracy, direct conflict of interest, and
prosecutorial misconduct, and therefore the courts must read the complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. zd 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322,92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. zd 263 (1972). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." onner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir, 1974)).
There are fundamental rights of citizens to due process and such rights require strict scrutiny of the Court.

The courts have assumed that the sixth amendment rights to representation by counsel and to defense pro se are mutually exclusive. Under the hybrid defense the defendant has the active assistance of counsel but may also participate in his own defense as co-counsel. A necessary tool to ensure justice when the defendant has been prejudiced by the restrictions placed upon the defense by the Prosecutors in the case. The defendants are currently represented by competent counsel but are forced to me motions pro-se because the Prosecutor has created prejudicial limitations upon the defense attorneys, by violating the defendants right to assist their attorneys in their own defense, and controlling through limitations how the defense attorneys handle the defense of their clients through the "contract to withhold discovery from the defendants" This is a standard contract that the prosecutor has forced the defense attorneys

representing clients in cases she is prosecuting to sign. All defense attorneys in USA v. Neighbors have confirmed they were forced to sign this contract before accepting the case. (see exhibits 1 page 1 &2, a copy of Terra Moorhead's illegal contract to withhold discovery from defendant) in violation of Federal Rules of Criminal procedure, rule 16, which clearly states the defendant has rights to the discovery. At no time does Rule 16 say the prosecutor has a right to force the defendant's attorney to sign a contract to withhold discovery from defendant, nor does this Federal rule give the Prosecutor the right to only disclose the discovery to the defendants attorney) The Prosecutor has made it nearly impossible for the defendants to assist in their own defense, by forcing the defense attorneys to sign a contract that does not allow the defendants to view, copy, or obtain the evidence that is being used against them. A clear violation of the defendant's rights. Paid attorneys hired by the Neighbors have been threatened with "Money Laundering" charges by the Federal prosecutors in an attempt to control the defense. (see exhibits labeled money laundering #2) (Defense attorney Sarah Swain told the defendants the prosecutor had threatened her with "Money Laundering" and therefore would need all future payments to be made with credit cards. Defense Attorney Aaron McKee was threatened with "Money Laundering" and requested that the defendants set up a paypal account using someone else's name in order to pay him, then as shown in the exhibit even placed the request for paypal on the bill. After the defendants accused the Attorney of coercion with the prosecutor the payment option was removed. See Exhibit #2 pg.z )


This hybrid pro-se motion accommodates the fundamental values underlying the sixth amendment and should be recognized as the constitutionally compelled approach, for defendants implementing "the right to assistance of counsel."

It is a matter of fact that the Prosecutor Marietta Parker has a direct conflict

of interest in Prosecuting this case and do to the fact she is currently the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, overseeing the
DISTRICT OF KANSAS Department of Justices in Topeka, Wichita, and Kansas City, and is currently in direct control of overseeing over 100 attorneys.

The defendants cannot possibly be assured a fair, un-bias and impartial prosecution and trial in the State of Kansas. The disqualification of Government counsel is indeed a drastic measure" Bullock v. Carver, 910 F. Supp. 551, 559 (D. Utah 1995) "where it is shown that an Assistant United States Attorney is subject to a conflict of interest, the proper remedy generally is to remove that individual from the case. Crocker v. Durkin, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1284-85 (D. Kan. 2001).

During the course of the investigation starting in 2005 into the Yellow House Business, the Defendants and their defense attorney along with numerous witnesses turned in formal complaints alleging Police misconduct, color of law violations, racial profiling, rules of evidence handling violations, evidence storage violations, due process of law

violations, search violations, false arrest, forgery of legal documentation, harassment and coercion of witnesses, along with the allegation of an altered video being presented to the courts as evidence, and several months of covert surveillance from the Fire station across the street, absent of a court order. These complaints inadvertently were sent to the Prosecutor, yet the Prosecution has excluded all of this exculpatory evidence from the defendants discovery files handed over to the defense attorneys in the case. (In a direct conflict of interest) All these complaints were forwarded by Internal Affairs Sgt. Dan Ward under the direction of Chief Ronald Olin, to the Kansas City Department of Justice, and ended up in the prosecutor of the case; AUSA Marietta Parkers office for review and action. In support of this allegation: (see exhibit #3 letter from KU Police Director Ralph V. Oliver informing the Neighbors that the complaint was forwarded to the AUSA Marietta Parker and all further complaints should be forwarded to her.) Also see Chief Olins letter to attorney Sarah Swain advising that Marietta Parker was the one to address complaints to. (In exhibit #4 pg. 5) Instead of insuring justice on behalf of the defendants rights violations, the US Attorney's office has conspired with law enforcement, staged an FBI investigation (see FBI exhibits #4 pages I through IS) (Exhibit #4 page 1 &2, Signed affidavit by Laura Helm stating she was picked up by two officers posing as FBI agents.) (Exhibit #4 page 3 & 4, Interview-statement by Brad Perico to Private Investigator Cecilia Woods stating he was contacted by two officers


claiming the FBI was investigating the Yellow House and had him on tape going into the business with a drill.) (Exhibit #4 page 5, Letter to defense attorney Sarah Swain from Police Chief Ron Olin stating that he could not release the identity of the Federal Investigators, that Police posing as FBI would be a crime, and that Special Agent Bob Shaefer had spoken to her about the issue. He also states that further correspondence concerning the case should be directed to u.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.) (Exhibit #4 page 6 & 7, Letter to Sarah Swain from the FBI explaining that u.S. Attorney Marietta Parker sent FBI Special Agent Walter Schaefer to investigate the allegations of police posing as FBI agents, verifying 60 days had passed and made reference to repeated unanswered phone calls made by Swains office to the FBI in an attempt to set up further meetings with SA Schaefer. According to Special Agent Scott Gentine from the Topeka FBI, the letter was Signed by a retired special agent Kevin Stafford, sent by Timothy A Gallagher) (Exhibit #4 page 8, letter to Bob Schaefer FBI, from Defense attorney Sarah Swain) (Exhibit #4 page 9 &

article in LJworid newpaper that the FBI was

investigating the conduct of police in the Yellow House investigation. Jeff Lanza also confirmed the FBI was not involved in the Yellow House investigation.) (Exhibit #4 page 11, article in LJworid Newspaper stating that the FBI investigation was stalled and that the FBI had not received a formal

complaint. Even though the defense attorney had attempted multiple times to set up meetings, some days attempted to call SA Schaefer 6 times 'without a return call, left messages and faxes for SA Schaefer.) (Exhibit #4 page

Article in LJworld Newspaper confirming the FBI had

completed the investigation and cleared the police of misconduct.) (Exhibit #4 page 13, letter to Agent Schaefer from Defense attorney Sarah Swain letting him know she had forwarded a sworn affidavit of illegal conduct by the Lawrence Police, and had made numerous attempts to contact him about the matter but had gotten no response from him.) The Government in a controlled reaction, used the information contained in the complaints forwarded to her, to use her team of investigators to retaliate and conspire against the defendants and then in an abuse of her power, also controlled the defense attorneys handling the case. In order for a defendant to prove conspiracy the defendant need not allege personal involvement by all the parties. When a person is part of a conspiracy, one does not require a hub and spoke form. One need only be part of a chain of conspirators. Law enforcement officers Jay Bialek, Mickey Rantz, Michael Riner, Police Chief Ron Olin, Postal Inspector David Nitz, IRS Agent Robert Jackson and the Kansas City FBI Agent "BOB SHAEFER" Walter Robert Schaefer, were employed by the Prosecutor as her agents to do the dirty work on her behalf, outside of their agencies jurisdictions with her full knowledge and approval. In conspiracy to cover-up, conceal, obstruct justice, and limit liability in order to avoid accountability for the Governments unjust actions

against the defendants.

Conspiracy to violate civil ri9.!1.1§.
In order for this court to establish a cause of action to change of venue or dismissal for conspiracy, there must be sufficient facts to support the following elements: 1) two or more persons; 2) an object to be accomplished; 3) a meeting of minds on the object or course of action; 4) one or more unlawful acts; and, 5) "damages" directly linked to the violation of the defendants rights .. 1. Obviously there are two or more persons involved. 2. The object to be accomplished is to obstruct justice, cover up for color of law violations and prosecutorial misconduct, obtain a conviction through fraud, to cover up criminal conduct against citizens by officials, and to avoid liability. 3. The Government clearly had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding in their joint efforts to avoid liability and conceal Constitutional rights violations. The Prosecutors Terra Morehead and Marietta Parkers actions were clearly improper and directly connected to the conduct of the acting Government officials under her command. There is no other explanation as to why these Prosecutors would break the rules to cover up reports of criminal activity by Law


enforcement against a wrongly accused citizen other than that they had joined into a common purpose with the team. 4. The unlawful acts against the defendants have greatly prejudiced the defense and have been documented through photographs, video's and voice recordings, court documents, affidavits, and testimony

under oath during various hearings before Federal Judges overseeing this case.

These are very serious allegations and this court has a duty to the Constitution to protect the integrity of the courts. Therefore, this District of Kansas court, which has a prima facia conflict of interest, has a duty to construe this pro- se motion very liberally and grant the defendants request for change of venue or dismissal of charges, in order to protect the public perception of the integrity of this court.


AUSA prosecutor Terra Morehead has interfered with the Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors fair chance to defend themselves. Terra Morehead originally charged the defendants with being unlawful users with firearms. A statute that the case did not qualify under. Because the defendants had no criminal history, there was no evidence of habitual drug use, and the firearms were expensive collector "non-

qualifying" firearms unloaded and unlawfully seized without a warrant by law enforcement from a locked safe.
During several hearings before Federal Judges, law enforcement officers have read fabricated stories by witnesses and lied under oath, to the court .

The prosecutor has taken things out of the defendants discovery. Certain things that were seen in the discovery while in the possession of past attorneys Bruce Kipps, Philip Gibson, Alex McCauley and James George have been changed or switched out. ie. Police evidence reports, statements, search warrants, receipt for same list. The Courts have been made aware of the fact that the false testimony by convicted felon Patrick Nieder was presented before the Grand Jury in exchange for an 8 year reduction of his prison sentence.
On July 1, 1998, a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals delivered a decision, in the case U.S. v. Singleton, The 10th Circuit ruled that bartered-for, testimony in federal criminal court is not only illegal and inadmissible, but technically punishable by a substantial fine, and/or up to 2 years in prison. Prosecutors have offered both cash payment and leniency to some witnesses, and offered plea deals to louis Parsons and James P. ludwig in exchange for anticipated false testimony at trial claiming that the Defendant Carrie Neighbors conspired with them to conceal the conspiracy, absent of any existing evidence to substantiate these claims. It is the responsibility and duty of the prosecutor to always try to substantiate (what) any witness for the government is going to be saying. In a separate case in a 31-page ruling U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch threw out the testimony of three accused drug defendants on grounds that it was solicited

with a prosecutor's promise of a reduced sentence a violation of federal bribery laws, he ruled. In this case.

"U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 201©(2) (the 'bribery statute'
could not be more clear. It says: Whoever ... directly or indirectly, gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court United States to hear evidence or take testimony or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both." authorized by the laws of the shall be fined under this title

A sting video was altered, and there is documented missing evidence, from the police evidence locker, but the Federal Prosecutors have continued the prosecution of this case anyway.

The Prosecutors have used their influence and power of authority to control the Federal Agencies, witnesses and Defense attorneys involved with this case. And have exercised in a similar pattern of abuse of power in other cases as well. (See exhibit #5 pages 1-5, JOHNNIE WILLIAMS III, case 06-2004701-cm. letter to Chief Judge Lungstrum alleging misconduct by Prosecutor Terra Morehead) (Exhibit #6 pages 1-5, JASON McKINNEY dated June 30,2008 complaint sent to The Office of Disciplinary Administrator, alleging malicious prosecution by AUSA Terra Morehead.) (Exhibit #7 pages 1-4, James McKeighan letter to The Honorable Judge Lungstrum dated Jan. 22, 2007, alleging Prosecutorial Misconduct against Terra D Morehead)


The Prosecutors have interfered with the defense attorneys filing motions on behalf of their clients.

1. IE. The Neighbors requested that Attorney Phil Gibson file a motion to release an illegal lis pendens placed against their property by the Prosecutor. The motion was filed and Judge Murguia scheduled a hearing the following week. Mr. Gibson then canceled the court date. After 3 week delay, the motion was refilled and four days later the Prosecutor filed a Superseding indictment to moot the motion. With the sale of the house still in limbo and the buyers getting anxious the defendants asked Mr. Gibson to refile the motion, he agreed to refile that weekend but then, even after repeated requests from the defendants never did refile the motion. After several more weeks the sale of the house had to be terminated. 2. The Prosecutors in this case have violated the Neighbors Bill of RIGHTS! 3. Amendment V.- Deprived the Neighbors of life, liberty, and property.

A- Life- The Prosecutor has had the Neighbors arrested by agents
operating outside their Jurisdictions several times, searched, and held in custody, using statutes and laws that do not apply. Ruined their business, reputations within the community, the false allegations have cost the Neighbors their Foster care license and their affiliation with the Big Brothers program, In 2005,Prior to any charges being filed the Government contacted ebay and made false unsubstantiated allegations resulting in the immediate suspension of the defendants seller account and also resulted in the defendants money in the Paypal account being frozen., greatly affecting the defendants livelihood and ability to run their business and pay bills.

Public False allegations released to the press include stolen property fencing, money laundering and drug trafficking. And on the DOJ press release web site falsely claimed the Yellow House crimes had been investigated by the FBI. B-Property- The Government has been holding Property since December 2005, property unlawfully seized during the execution of a violated search warrant, and gained through an illegal warrantless search, denying the defendants constitutional right to due process of law. 4. Amendment VI. Right to Speedy Trial and effective council. 5. A- violation of right to speedy trial. The original charges of being an unlawful user with firearms was originally dropped with just 7 days left before the time limit of a speedy trial ran out. The same charges were re-filed as a brand new case, and the prosecutor had the Neighbors strong armed arrested from their home and illegally searched. B- The original search and seizure was executed in December of 2005. This is now November of 200B.The Neighbors have been denied the due process of Law, have not been allowed to view the discovery or see the evidence being held against them. Because of the Prosecutors threats against the defense attorneys, during the three years the case has been in the courts, the defendants have not had any motions filed by the defense attorneys directly related to defending the case ie. standard Motion Requests for evidentiary hearing, request to see the evidence, request for dismissal, request for suppression of evidence. The Neighbors have not been afforded an investigator to conduct interviews of witnesses nor has the

prosecution allowed the defendants to see the list of witnesses scheduled to testify at trial on behalf of the prosecution. C- The Prosecutor has forced the Neighbors to loose paid attorneys, and then forced them to use court appointed attorneys that are willing to sign her contract and allow her to maintain a strong influence over the handling of the defense.

This court has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of self-interests. Every lawyer and prosecutor is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves. The United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The judicial system's function is to serve the public by providing a means to serve justice and to resolve disputes. This can only be done in an environment where honesty, integrity, and high moral standards are strictly enforced. There is an obvious mix of Conflict of Interest and Special Circumstances in this case that together will prevent the Neighbors from entertaining their

Constitutional right to a fair and impartial prosecutor. Since the judicial system is self-governing and is therefore responsible for policing itself, it has become obvious that the Neighbors cannot possibly expect a fair trial under these circumstances. Therefore the Neighbors respectfully ask the courts to grant this Pro-se Motion to Change of Venue or Dismiss all charges.

o /5

Pm.s- f"YlcI



I ;/


1 jLb
o '

r..J Cj

y fJ"'e~tof


f'-v 'J-<:L ~~ '" ~ .
\.j D

,+{z (CJ~r"\W,'


•. ~

(\k S do "-C


*" *'


7 qJd-






.~ sd'" ~
~ L1--

,no, ~ ~ \A('<:



Ok' j

,,~ .

A copy of this form shall be appropriately filled out and attached when Proof of Service or statement of delivery or mailing is required.

Personal Deliverv:

I declare that on

jI- D3-oVI personally delivered the attached/%tiol!




,-f// (h41/ dJ(t~


(! /



(Description of Document)

~;? v

(Name of Recipient)




Part 3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the forJ'1!'0ing is true and Executedon6-tJ( at (Date)

and that this declaration was

J"s,f.-c< IkfL/i j}/S/r,2 !



U.S. Department of Justice
Eric F. Melgren United States Attorney District of Kansas
Kansas City Office
S",ilL! 160

£"'>"'/1.11,;- ..

Wichita OjJicl

500 Stak Awn""

Kansas City, Kw",66101·U33
TEL{YJ3) 55!~7]0 FAX (913) 551-65n' TOD (913) 551-M66

\. V Wichita, Kanras 67101-4811

llOOEpic Center 301 N. Mai. Topeka Office

U4 Qwinq S.lte ]!IIJ

Tape*". Kanuu 66~]-]591

. United States vs. James McKeighan

Case No. 06-20066.QI-IWL 1 hereby acknowledge counsel for theabove captioneddefendant, that I am in receipt, on loday's date, of discovery consisting of oneClxwhh pages which are bates-stamped from 0001 • Pll'3 . By signing below, 1further agree lhat I will not show the pages of discovery to myclienl or to provide copies to' anyone including illY client Finally, in the event that I withdraw from this case, I will return all discovery to the U.S. Attorney's Office So that it can be properly disseminated to substitute COWLSel. This agreement wiJI also applyto any further or future discovery provided by the Government in this case.


£?if CJ'c-r~~
S.A. Scimeca Attorney for James McKeighan Date




, U.S. Department of Justice

June 5, 2006

Eric F. Melgren United States Attorney District of Kansas
Kansas City Office SuireJ60 500 Stare Al'enue Kansas City, Kansas 66101-1433 TEL(9J3) 551·6730 FAX{9lJ} JJl·6H1 TDD(f)I3) 551·6666
Wichita OffICe 1200£.pic Center 301 N. Main Wichita. Kansas67l01-181 2




4# SEQuin')' Topeka,Kansas 66683-3592

Tim Scimeca 313 North Seneca Wichita, KS 67203
,~. .


Re: United States v. James McKeighan Dear Tim: .'. Enclosedare pages which are. bates-stampedfrom0120 - 0138 which are provided to you as discovery in this case: TFtEi~(! are provided to you y,.ith the understanding that you are riot tashCiw them toY()UrclleritortiJ'provide~plesto anyone including yourdient. If you have a prbblerrrWithihis,. plea's8 retuiri.theni to me;' Iii the event that you withdraw from this case, please return all disGOi'etytd thisofflce So that it can be properly . disseminated to substitute counsel. Ple~'se'&illn1'eif you have any Questions. . .. . .' . . .
; . '



Ass istanHfuited-Sfutes-AttOIII ey

TMijrns Enclosures



Law Office of Aaron C. McKee, Esq.


21604 West 98th Terrace Lenexa, KS 66220
Phone (913) 219-0652 Fax (913) 764-0652



To: Yellowhouse Carrie Neighbors 1904 Massachusetts Street Lawrence, KS 66046

internet at www.mckee-Iaw.com. Date 8/3112006

Amount Due

Amount Enclosed

Dale 08/28/2006

Rate 175.00

Hours 02


Balance 4,692.85

Teleprtone conference with Rob Jackson regardin9 proffer meeting on August 29, 2006.
Attended proffer meeting W'ith Lawrence PO, IRS and USPS.


, i







Traveled to/from Lawrence to attend proffer meeting, Telephone conference with Carrie Neighbors regarding Guy Neighbors firing Sarah Swain.
Telephone Conference with Rob Jackson regarding Guy Neighbors finng Sarah Swain.















Telephone conference with Jim George regarding status of case. Telephone conference with Carrie Neighbors regarding Jim George replacing Sarah Swain on case. Telephone conference with Carrie Neighbors regi:Jrdil1g case strategy and settlement

175.00 175.00















, ,

, ,



CURRENT 3,380.35

1-30 DAYS PAST DUE 2,677.50

31-60 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

61-90 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00


Amount Due



Page 3

13970 Santa Fe Trail Drive lenexa, KS 66215 -.,
Phone (913) 492-3970 Fax (913) 492-3971
Aaron C. McKee, Esq. Kimberly.l. Ireland, Esq.

kimberlyireland@mckee-Iaw.com www.mckee-Iaw.com

To: Yellowhouse Carne Neighbors 1904 Massacl1usetts Sireet Lawrence, KS 66046 Date


Amount Due $4,490.35 Date Transaction Traveled to/from Lawrence to meet with lawrence PD. Met with Lawrence PO and USPS. Item ACM - Travel Rate 175.00 Hours 1.6

Amount Enclosed

Amount 280.00

Balance 3,195.35

09/06/2006 09/0612006 09/0812006 19/08/2006

ACM - Meeti.

175.00 175.00

2 0.3

350.00 52,50

3.545.35 3,597.85

Telephone conference with Rob Jackson ACM· Telep ... regarding case. Telephone conference with Rob Jackson ACM - Telep ... regarding case. Telephone conference with Mickey Rantz regarding potential undercover operation. Telephone conference with Carrie Neighbors regarding status of case. ACM - Telep ...










0912112006 0912112006 10/1212006 10/1212006 10/20/2006 11/1512006

ACM· Telep ...





Telephone conference with Rob Jackson ACM· Telep ... regarding status of case.
Telephone conference with Mickey





ACM - Telep .. ACM - Telep...

175.00 175.00

0.2 0.2

35.00 35.00


Rantz regarding raid on LP. Telephone conference with Carne Neighbors regarding raid on lP. 3,825.35

Telephone conference with Rob Jackson ACM - Telep ... for status report. Telephone conference with Carrie Neighbors regarding Lawrence PO's request to meet with her. ACM - Telep ...











CURRENT 2,432.50

1-30 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

31·60 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

61-90 DAYS PAST DUE 2,051.85


Amount Due $4,490.35

Page 3

Office of Public Safety
October 8, 2008

Carrie and Guy Neighbors 1904 Massachusetts Street Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Neighbors, On September 16, 2008, you delivered a written complaint to the University of Kansas Public Safety Office. Captain Schuyler Bailey was the department representative who received your complaint. Your complaint alleges that on August 13, 2008, a member of the University of Kansas Public Safety Office, Detective Michael Riner, committed perjury during testimony in Federal court. By way of this letter, I am notifying you that your complaint has been provided to the U.S. Attorney's Office. That office is the appropriate investigative agency to receive a complaint of alleged perjury in Federal court. The following individual may be contacted should you wish to provide any further information regarding your complaint against Detective Michael Riner: AUSA Marietta Parker 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, Kansas 6610 I 913-551-6730 marietla.parker@usdoj.gov

RVO!sp cc: Marietta Parker

{L0013126 /lOmce of Public safety Public safety Building: 1501 Crestline Drive, Suite 120 I Lawrence, KS 66049 (785) 864-5900 I Fax (785) 864-5211 I www.ku.edu/ckucops


Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law
601 Missouri. Suite 3 Lawrence, KS 66044 (785) 842-2787

110 N. Cherry, Suite 240 Olathe, KS 66051 866-550-2787 swainlawoffice@gmail.com


DATE: 6-30-06 FAX TO: Bob Schaefer / FBI FAX l\1JMBER: (816) 512-8545 SENDER'S NAME & FAX NUMBER: Sarah G. Swain @ (785) 842-2787




I 'J

or zu


I. Laura Helm. oflawful itge. btin~ full)" :JW'Om upon oath, states:
Ibat. in carl ..· March



contacted tty two men while 1 was !it&ying al my

bmlher"s tRay Mayberry) residence located ar 2200 Harper. e44 lawrence, K5. I am unsureof the date. but J dll rc:l.:w! ~;15 several w eeks ago llr'Id it 'MIS duri~ !he week. ( belie..'e. but ( urn not certain, that the dale Yle3C' two men I;nntac[ed and uuervie)\\!'d me wat .\1arch 6. 2006 between Q:OO a.m.• J0:00 a.m.


Tbat. these two men, appmacll.~d m~' re.sidence and asked to 51'tak with me, I can best describe the IirsL man as a "\.\11m. 5'05". a little ~I!y and short s.piky blonde- hair. Thi~ man did rnosr of the tatking during our contact. He ~id his naDl~. which I do nOI re-call. and ·i~.ud !he~ worked with the "Federal Bureau of invesligBi:ion." He cUd not ':!lUy '!11 flit: ~t -nivl 'IJ<-~ entire Surecu nc.ne. Ihe second man was a wzm, !hort d.a.rk. hair. 6·rj" and 3. biii!!~T build. than the firsr man. The second man did DOl say much. The';"~·l'~t; ""!'ut1 .!.oJ 1t.:'!1 m~' i ·,ra:'" om il'l trouble, but GUY andCarrie NclJlhbors were. Both men were -i-;m))an) dressed ill ~}u. and shirts, Th~y both wore a ~.dBe nn Ltu:ir belb and h;K1 guns in holsters made of light color leather that Wi1.'J abo worn on their waist.
ru.«. !hliO :\r-;( man told nit! : ··naJ [0 tall to them." 1 asked 11 m ifit "had to be rcdev," He ii11,J j( Lilli nm aave [0 be 1000,.. aUG mll:!:~ agreed aJ come tJIKk Uk t"oll'll\\lllltr Ja... These ,,\111\:l.;'~ retuned 11"1..:· 'll!'XI ,-1a~ .mc rkl-:o;:.i rue ';.J~ in ":!. ·h:~ blue ':;::'V !'I.r.;o Yt:i'uc.le. : J1J not want to W(I with the-n. blJtfeit lrum the way [hey WC.l:'e ming mat I did 1101 have ;] cboiee. TIl~ drove me.' 'v the- Lawrence Police Department at 11'· and \lassachl,;k"tT:t ~l~t:r. Lawrence. K'S. we went mstde the i:'Iuilding tnrough an lJutside door. I n~t.:.:J.l! fh~ min .murinM In !ho: police Jt'rarunenL
Th~y qtf<~t:.l~ me:- ~hey oM:lI~

.. .~ weru inn- un imerv re...... room where hor.h men r4lked to me. ,


-tcms I traW .sold 1(1 (h< 1 .tnVlJI

Trw.t. i!ft~:, t~~ quesucned me ror JD hour to an hour and a halJ. they dwn drove me truck co rn~· h.¢u....c. During tile drive: home: mit) gO\li: me a busiUt:53 card widl Bold lettering on il. I heve mispieced that -tard. Tht':' told me to c::aJ ( if [ d~ded to work for th.em on ~t-... Y.:lI~J\\, HOLL~~ case. TIley offcrtd me $50.00 for ea~b time 1 would be ~ willing to atttm1JJl to !5eil stolenitems to the YeUow House.





Page 20 of20

Tha~ j

did oor leellike I bad • choice in talking with tbest RlCII amll bad to go to

UIo JWiOll with lhem or I would have been in lrOUble, That. because I un on prcbericn, l comecred my E'rubation OffiCt-T. Harley Eddis. af\(:r lhi~ ";lmW:~ to advise him whlu had occurred. He- told me that I c:ould not be Involved in this type of work for ~ soliee if f wanted to ~ to my probarion on:ler. ( never had ally lnt-eruinns ofwooong 'WIth the police and lold them r wouJd net. That. t :am certain 1 have seen these men before and I belity~ they BI'e Lawrence Pettee Qffkm and federal 3.~nt i. Ibc first mati dearr~' identH'ied· himself ~ :hl,,!
·l·.=~ . .'r,lol iJur..:.I.U.d In\~$U¥UllrJn.''



Subscribed lllH! ".om 10 mebefore lhi~,- day of ~'._,,;, " •• 2006.

-.. .... \'.... .;.:.



." - latest http://docs.google.comNiew?doclD--dgpr72qd-497g2ppzmfp&revision--;


Dnd Perko ;.. ") 2-""(, 1008 Alma Lawreoee, KS. 66847 An attempt was made to contact Brad at this address. The man residing at this duplex reported therewas no Perieo at this locationand he did not know the name. Another possible address was located for Brad Perico: Possible address: 4500 OverlandDrive # 105 Lawrence, Ks.
Brad calledthe office from 785-841-0227. Arrangements were made for an interviewon 03mJ2006 at Culver's ~urant at 4:00 p.m, Brad reported he wanted to get this situation stmightened out He said he had been in to see Carrie Neighbors and she told him not to come back around. She told him to call me and talk about this situationbefore heretumed.
Brad reported he was recentlycontactedby Lawrence Police Detectives. He recalled one Detective as Jay Bialek. He did not know the other Detective but he describedhim as a w/m, 6'0", with short brown hair combed on the side, Brad said he wssat a friend's

apartmenton Redbud Street approximately three weeks ago. He said he was leaving the apartment and walking to the front locked entry way when he saw the Detectives at the front lockeddoor attempting to 'jimmy the lock." Brad said he is certain the cops had to have followed him over to this Redbud address, becausehe knows of no other way they knew he was there. Brad said Bialektold him the YellowHouse had been under federal investigation f0l'7-8 months. He told Brad, Carrie has been under federal investigation and "She is going down" and "She will take her husband with her." He further said the FBI hadhim (Brad) on surveillance tape at the Yellow House taking in a drill. He said they questioned him about the drill. He explainedto them that he has done auto body work for years and had a lot of tools. He said the detectives told him, "We knowyou are in trouble." Brad said Bialek also told him, "We know you know what's going down." Bialektold him he would get him help with the (6) municipal citations he had ifhe would help them with the Yellow House investigation. Brad said he told them he would think about it, but he knew he would not help them. Brad said he wouldn't do this becausehe was friends with Guy and Carrie. He said Detectives at the LKPD had also lied to him in the past and have not come through with their promises, so he did not wish to help them any longer. Brad said while the Detectiveswere talking to him outside ofthe apartment building on Redbud Streetthey started to hand him a business card. He said lllId he told them not be banding him their cards in public. He said he told Bialek to drop his business card on the ground and he would pick the card up later. He said did pick the card up. He said this was the card he accidentally handed Came one day at the Yellow House. Brad said he figures the Detectives were targeting him to work with them because he bad these prior tickets. He also said he was stopped about 1 liz months ago and ticketed fur a DWS.


Brad said Terik Katib is apparently the Detective's superviser, H~ seid Tcrik does not like him. Brad further explained that he did a lot ofinformant work for the Lawrence Police department in the past. He said, more specifically, he did a lot of work for Officer Scott Peck. Brad said he was the ConfidentialInformant who assisted Peck in his drug related investigationswhen be was with the police department. He said Peck came under fire by Judge Malone and he was accused offalsifying his affidavits. Brad saidhe was eventually exposed at the CI and the Judge said that he (Brad) was not a trustworthy witness or informant and that is why Peck was ultimately fired. Brad said it was approximatelythere weeks ago he went to see his friend Jesse DelCampo at his restaurant "The Slow Ride" in north Lawrence. He said he saw he saw a lot ofcops in there eating and drinking. Jesse told Brad later that after he left, the cops told him to stay away from him. Brad said the Slow Ride is a new hang out for the cops. Brad noted it was shortly after be went into the Slow Ride that the detectives contacted him on Redbud Street about the Neighbors. Brad said he was at Kohl's last week and he saw Bialek coming out of the back room of the store. He said they engaged in small talk and Bialek asked if he had given anymore thought to what they talked about earlier. He said Bialek admitted Katib "had it out for him." He said some cops apparentlydid not like the personal relationship he (Brad) had with Peck. /---Brad said his old girlfriend is Kim Filcher. Kim is a sister to Carrie Urbanek. Carrie Urbanek works for the Douglas County Sheriff's Department Drug Unit. She is married to LieutententRay Urbanek. Brad said he believes the two pawn shops in town are raising hell about the yellow House. He thinks this might have been one of the reasons they are being targeted again.


v7 ~~ A
W. Ronald Olin, Ph.D. Chief of Police
Mike Wildgen City Manager

April 20, 2006 Sarah Swain, Attorney at Law

601 Missouri, Suite 3 Lawrence, KS 66044
Dear Ms. Swain:

I am in receipt of email correspondence between you and Officer Bialek regarding the ongoing investigation involving your clients, Guy and Carrie Neighbors. It is my understanding that you wish to speak with the Federal investigators involved with the investigation of your clients. Officer Bialek assures me that he has contacted the agents involved and has informed them of your wish to be contacted. Additionally, I am aware you have been in contact with U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker who is handling this case at the federal level for prosecution. The Lawrence Police Department will not release the identity of any Federal investigator who is involved in the case.
Your most recent email isofsomeconcern.asit could be read as an attempt to report potential criminal activity. If this is your intention and the actlvmes in question took place in the City of Lawrence, please feel free to file a police report with our department. If these activities took place elsewhere, please contact the appropriate law enforcement agency from that jurisdiction. I believe Sergeant Mike Pattrick from this department as well as Special Agent Bob Shaefer with the FBI has spoken with you in person about these very issues. Any further correspondence concerning this case should be directed to U.S. Artomey Marietta Parker. if you need 10 correspond with anyone in the Lawrence Police Department, please do so in writing, instead of emailing a specific officer so that it may be routed and handled appropriately. You are welcome to address your correspondence to me. Very truly yours,

W. Ronaid Olin, Ph.D. Chief of Police

Investigation & Training Center- 4820 Bob Billings Pkwy. Lawrence, KS 66049· (785) 830-7400 Law Enforcement Center, Parrot & Records Division> III EaSI l lth Street> Lawrence, KS 66044· (785) 832-750 I
City Hall· 6 East 6th Street> Lawrence, KS 66044· (785) 832-3000 www.lawrencepolice.org





In Reply, Pfense Refer to

U.S. O~partltl~nl of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation



1300 Summit July 7, 2006

Sarah ,G. Swain 601 Missouri Suite 3 Lawrence, Kansas Dear Ms. Swain:



The Kansas City Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is in receipt of your letter to Special Agent Walter R. Schaefer, which was facsimiled to the Kansas City Division of the FBI on June 30, 2006. The Kansas City Division of the ;'SI is also in receipt of a facsimiled Affidavit which was allegedly prepared by Laura Helm on April 22, 2006. This Affidavit was received by the Kansas City Division of the FBI on June 15, 2006. As you are aware, Special Agent Schaefer visited your office on April 19, 2006, as a result of your public allegations and correspondence to Assistant United States Attorney, Marietta Parker, that members of the Lawrence Police Department were conducting an investigation and identifying themselves as FBI agents. On April 19, 2006, when SA Schaefer visited you in your office at 601 Missouri, Suite 3, Lawrence, Kansas 66044, you advised him,that you had ten to twelve witnesses Who claimed that members of the Lawrence Police Department identified themselves as FBI ,agents during an investigation. On April 19, 2006, SA Schaefer requested those names and you advised him that you,did not have the names and that your investigator, Cecilia Wood, had those lists of names.

From April 19, 2006, until June 16, 2006, (sixty days later)the Kansas City Division of the FBI and SA Schaefer had not received any correspondence or information concerning your initial allegations. The two meetings you referenced as scheduled with SA Schaefer in your letter dated June 30, 2006, were set by you without verifying the availability of SA Schaefer. Any future meetings/interviews should be verbally verified with SA Schaefer. Simply leaving a voice mail message advising SA Schaefer that you have a meeting set up on a specific date at a specific time will not guarantee SA Schaefer's availability. SA Schaefer can be reached at 816/512-8640.

Sincerely Kevin L. Stafford Special Agent in Charge


Sarah G. Swain, Attorney at Law
Theno Office Complex 601 Missouri, Suite :> Lawrence, KS 6604<1< Park Cherry Building lION. Cherry, Sui te 24<0 Olathe, KS 66051

(785) 842-2787
June 14, 2006
Bob Schaefer, Special Agent Federal Bureau oflnvestigation 1300 Summit Kansas City, MO 64< I 06 Dear Mr. Schaefer:


Enclosed please find the affidavit that we executed with Ms. Helm. We are still working on getting other affidavit's executed, but as I'm sure you are aware, many people are too scared to come forward and go public with their accusations against the Lawrence Police Department. We appreciate your efforts in investigating what we believe to be police misconduct. If there is anything that I can do to assist you with your investigation, please don't hesitate to contact me at the numbers or addresses listed above

Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law


I inquiry underway in conduct orponce I Lr wortd.com

"Hj-'", ••


• • -.- • •

..J •• _ • • _

,", • • • • • E-mail stQ!Y Printer-friendly E-mail editor Comments (44) iPod friendly

FBI inquiry under way in conduct of police
Some allege that officers posed as federal agents

By Ron KnoK
Thursday, June 15, 2006 The Federal Bureau of Investigation is questioning whether Lawrence Police officers have improperly posed as federal agents when interrogating suspects, the Journal-World has learned. The FBI inquiry stems from allegations that Lawrence Police claimed to be agents from the FBI when questioning people during the police Investigation of an alleged fencing operation atthe Yellow House secondhand shop, 1904 Mass . .~ "We are attempting to resolve whether or not a person or persons falsely represented themselves as FBI agents," FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza confirmed Wednesday. Lanza would not comment further. But sources with knowledge of the investigation told the Journal-World the FBI inqUiry was prompted by complaints from Sarah Swain. attorney for the secondhand store, and others close to the fencing probe. The sources also said the FBI was never involved in the actual fencing investigation, but was only involved because of allegations against the police. The Lawrence Police Department would not comment for this article because it involved another agency's investigation, spokeswoman Kim Murphree said Wednesday. Agents from the FBI have already met with Swain and the police department, in part to establish that the FBI was not actually involved in investigating the Yellow House. The meeting between Lawrence Police Sgt. Mike Pattrick and FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer was at the request of Swain, who had heard from Yellow House owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors and others that FBI agents were using the Douglas County Law Enforcement Center to interview people who sold merchandise to the store.


That allegation culminated in a sworn affidavit from Lawrence

"r II


rDI 'nqUlt')'

uneer way 111 ""naUel ofpoJice j


http://www2.ljworld.tom/ncwol2006ljunll ~/fbUnqulry _under_....y..

Photo by Thad Allender

resident Laura Helm, who said two men identifying themselves as FBI agents had taken her from her brother's home to the pollee station to interview her. According to the affidavit, the men questioned Helm for 90 minutes before driving her back to her brother's home. "They questioned me about items I had sold to the Yellow House in the past: she said in the affidavit. 'They told me they obtained my name through checks that were written by the Yellow House." Helm said in the affidavit that the men had guns and badges on their belts, and that at least one of the men knew the door code needed to enter the Law EnforcementCenter. Helm is on probation for attempted forgery and reported the incident to Harley Eddis, her probation officer, the affidavit said.

Carrie Neighbors waits for customers inside her secondhand store. The Yellow House, 1904 Mass. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the Lawrence Police Department because of allegations that officers were posing as federal agents in a fencing probe involving Yellow House.

During the meeting of Swain, Pattrick and Shaefer, Swain said both men told her the FBI had no involvement in the Yellow House investigation. ·Shaefer told me that the FBI would not be involved," Swain said. "There is no interagency task force or anything like that." When Swain contacted the police department to confirm the FBI's involvement in the investigation of her clients, Lawrence Police Chief Ron Olin would only conlirm that the appropriate federal agents had been contacted, according to a letter from Olin to Swain, a copy of which was obtained by the Journal-World. "(LPD) Officer (Jay) Bialek assures me that he has contacted the agents involved and has informed them of your wish to be contacted," he wrote Swain. Bialek is involved in the investigation of the Yellow House. Olin said in the letter that he would not name any federal investigaton; involved, but did mention the meeting between Swain, Pattrick and Shaefer. and said that all further questions should be addressed to U.S. Atty. Marietta Par16/1 S!2OO6 10:08AM

FBI inquiry stalled by lack of formal complaint
By B&n.. K!l~
June 21, 2006

A federal probe into possible misconduct within the Lawrence Police Department has stalled as the FBI waits for a fonnal complaint to be filed. FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza said no one had come forward with a formal complaint alleging anyone posed as FBI agents when questioning people in relation to a police investigation of an alleged fencing ring at the Yellow House secondhand shop, 1904 Mass. "We cannot move forward without a formal complaint," Lanza said. Lanza previously said the FBI was looking into the matter. Sarah Swain, attorney for Yellow House, said she and a private investigator were working to set up a meeting between the FBI and people who allegedly have been interrogated by police officers claiming to be federal agents.
.r-- "'.

Swain also said a private investigator sent the FBI at least one sworn affidavit that should serve as a formal complaint. The Lawrence Police fencing investigation, which began last year, has focused on the alleged purchase and resale of stolen goods through the secondhand store and online sales, according to a police news release from December 2005. Police have served search warrants at the Yellow House and at the home of Guy and Carrie Neighbors, the store owners, in relation to the case. No charges have been filed as a result of the monthslong fencing investigation. The police department has declined comment about the FBI inquiry, saying it was against department policy to discuss another agency's probe.

More about the inquiry
[,!-'J!er frQJ.!lJ~gE"£ ...CJ.ller Rqrlt)JigJg Sm;:..;' 0""i!!g}lbtmUJ)e illve~ti&-ation bft!c)'ll';''1£L£)jJlt:JCrs Ll1!.!.tl ...


I'".J if_,,_ §'~l!!~cl.LY~llo\'!Ho!!'''£.!!2

slQkrU!99q~._ iIl.'!SSli g,!ljD!l.li)l_~![·t~O ...Q) I1)t;t" pr\,lyhk. M~~i!ll~'mmlioll. ilL2qlit'(c:11u...'yJll)l>~~ 1lf.\~1'!C m4~14.:-p...6j y cllow House store owners to have party hf thank supporters (03--02-06)

FBI clears Lawrence Police of impersonation allegation
YelJow House Store, owners' residence served with two more search warrants in ongoing fencing investigation

July 8,2006

The FBI oil) s if;; cleared Lawrence Police of an allegation ilial an officer impersonated WI FBI agt:lIl during the investigation of an alleged fencing operation at the Yellow House used appliance store.
"We looked into the situation and found no evidence to indicate that anyone impersonated an FBI agent," FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza said Friday.

The news came the same day the U.S. Postal Inspector's office, assisted by Lawrence Police and the Internal Revenue Service, served two more search warrants at the store at 1904 Mass., and at the home of owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors in the 1100 block of Andover Street. Authorities said they were looking for e-mail records, surveillance tapes, receipts, computers, sealed merchandise and sales records from the online auction service eBay.

~ ,


Photo by

lU'id ,;item!.u

Guy and Carrie Neighbors say that they don't buy or sell stolen property at the Yellow House Store, 1904 Mass. The U.S. Postallnspector's office served two search warrants on Friday and searched the Neighbors' home and business in an ongoing fencing investigation. It's the latest twist in an investigation that's been going on since December, when Lawrence Police said they'd uncovered what they describe as a large-scale, sophisticated fencing operation. So far, there have been at least five search warrants served, but no one has been arrested and no charges have been filed. "I think this whole thing is around our eBay sales," Guy Neighbors said on Friday as he stood outside his store, which was surrounded by yellow police tape. "It's been, what, eight months now? I don't know. Maybe they have more than I know." The Neighborses maintain their innocence and have been critical of police at every turn.

Sarah G. Swain, Attorney at Law
Theno Office Complex 601 Missouri, Suite 3 Lawrence, KS 66044 (785) 842-2787 Park Cherry Building 110 N. Cherry, Suite 240 Olathe, KS 66051 866-550-2787

June 30. 2006 Bob Schaefer, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigations 1300 Summit Kansas City. MO 64106 Dear Agent Schaefer: On June 14, 2006, I forwarded you a copy of a sworn affidavit that alleged illegal police conduct on the part of the Lawrence Police Department. Since that date, I have tried contacting you on at least six occasions to set up a meeting with you, Ms. Helm, and myself. At this point, , have been unable to speak with you on the phone, and' have not received replies to the numerous voice messages that I have left for you. I contacted you twice regarding setting up a meeting with Ms. Helm. I told you that I would be available to meet with you and Ms Heim regarding your investigation on Thursday June 29, 2006. Obviousiy, that meeting didn't take place. At this point, I am unsure about your intentions regarding this investigation. While you seemed concerned about these issues during our first meeting that involved Sgt. Patrick from the LPD, I am certainly not convinced from your actions or lack of investigation during the last two weeks that this is something that you Intend to pursue in any sort of meaningful manner. I am currently pursuing possible other avenues for an investigation of the LPD, and I would appreciate some clarification from the FBI about the manner and/or extent of any investigation that your agency intends to pursue. Certainly, I will keep YOIJ apprised of any further developments on my end, and I Will be awaiting a call from you regarding a meeting with lV.s. Helm.


Sarah G Swain AttOiT,E;Y at Law


PROSECUTORAL MISCONDUCT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE LUNGSTRUM: The prosecutor (Tera D. Morehead) is not giving me a fair chance to defend myself. I have been saying since April 20, 2006, I want a copy of my discovery. I ne~d to see the evidence that the Government thinks it has against me so I can adequally prepare myself for trial. Instead of following the laws of the United States this overzealous prosecutor has taken the law into her own hands. She has been trying to take away every tool I have at my disposal to help me vindicate myself. This prosecutor has attacked and harassed everyone (including my paid attorneys) who have been trying to help me just so she can wrongfully convict me. In my opinion the prosecutor has broken the laws and not given me a fair chance to defend myself as follows: 1.) A. B. December 18, 2006, the prosecutor lied to the court and jUdge. . The judge asked the prosecutor if there was any Governmental restrictions concerning my discovery and the prosecutor
replied, uNo".

Leigh Bledsoe, Tim Schemica, Baltizar Salazar, Robin Fowler, and Bruce Kips have shown me a letter from the prosecutor and signed by Tera D. Morehead stating that in accepting the discovery from her they are agreeing not to: 1. I show me the discovery, 2.) discuss with me the discovery, and 3.) they are not to make any copies of the discovery. The prosecutor has taken things out of my discovery. Certain things that I have asked my current attorney to see that I have seen from other attorneys are no longer in the discovery. ie. Arrest warrents, application to search warrants, and parts of search warrants somehow have disappeared. On April 28, 2006, (my detention hearing) the lead detective Greg Lawson, was caught lying on the witness stand under oath, to the court. Instead of charging Greg Lawson with perjury, the prosecutor threatened and harassed my then attorney Tim Schemica. The prosecutor knows that law enforcement has falseified police documents and she has looked the other way. 1.) April 20, 2006, police said I had used my vehicle and hit them, 2.) police officers said I said things that I never said, and 3.) gun reports no longer have Michael Orr's
name on them ..

2.) A.

3.) A. B.

4.) A. B.

The prosecutor and police officers have used coercion on Leigh Bledsoe. They told Leigh there was a chopped up dead body with bullet holes in it in my storage shed. Police officers made Leigh get in their police car and drove


her ana fifty to sixty minute drive drilling her about charging her with murder if she did not let them search her house. They told Leigh that if she did not say what they wanted her to say they would throw her into jail for murder, perjury and money laundering. The prosecutor and police officers have harassed Leigh at work. The prosecutor and police called and harassed Leigh at work although they had her cell phone and her house number. May 9, 2006, Leigh called detective Lawson's supervisor about Lawson harassing her and that he was not to call her anymore. approximately three hours later Lawson called Leigh's cell phone again. The prosecutor sent Government agents to talk to Leigh and her boss at work. The prosecutor and Government agents called Leigh's boss and his boss in an attempt to put pressure on Leigh by making her life miserable at work so Leigh would cave into a vicious and over- zealous prosecutor who abuses the powers of the Federal Gpvernment. The prosecutor intentionally tried to ruin Leigh's life. After five months of the prosecutor and federal agents harassing Leigh, her boss and her bosses boss at work she was fired. Leigh had been employed at siemens for over five years before Tera D. Morehead interfered.

5.) A. B.

C. D.

6. )

The prosecutors strong influence over my attorneys.
A. Tim Schemica
1. Made Tim sign a contract with the prosecutor in order to get the discovery. 1.) Tim was not to show me the discovery,
2.)discuss with me, and
3.) he was not to give me any part or make copies of the discovery and give them to me. Baltazar Salazar B. 1. The prosecutor told Baltazar to fly from Houston to Kansas City and she would then give him the discovery. When he got to Kansas City she refused to give him the discovery. The prosecutor then called Baltazar a drug dealer and accused him of being in a drug syndica because he is from Houston. Morehead told Baltizer I will never see the discovery and supoenied Baltizar twice that I know of. 2. The prosecutor accused this attorney of being a hired bully from someone down south. 3. The prosecutor took Baltizar's retainer fee and his local council Melanie Morgans retainer fee. I was then told that if my family or anyone associated with me hired another attorney the prosecutor will take their payment as well.


C. Melanie S. Morgan 1. Told me the government does not give out the discovery anymOre and that I will never see it or get a copy of it. 2. The prosecutor supoenied Melanies bank records. 3. On August 23, 2006, Melanie came to CCA and asked me some questions about Tim and his form of payment. 4. On August 25, 2006 the prosecutor called Leigh at work and asked her the exact same questions. D. Robin D. Fqwler 1. Told me that certain things that I tell him he was going to report to the prosecutor. 2. Told me the Government does not give out the discovery. 3. I told him certain motions to file and he said he could not file them. 4. I told him to fight an ex parta and an in camera deal the prosecutor was trying to do against me. Fowler told me not to worry about this because it will never happen. My next attorney told me in the discovery was an in camera that had been done on me with Fowler and the prosecutor. E. R. Bruce Kips 1. Told me the prosecutor said I am not allowed to have any part of the d~scovery and showed me the letter containing the contract about giving the dicovery to him. 2. I told Kips the same motions I told Fowler to file and fully expect him to file them along with giving me a copy of the transcripts from all of my court dates.
7. ) Prosecutor has violated my Bill of Rights. Amendment V. - Deprived me of my life, liberty and property. A. 1. Life - The prosecutor so far has robbed me of nine months of my life. 2. Property - The Government is holding personal property of mine that I want back. ie. DeYry student Id cards, credit cards, expired drivers license cards and electronic equipment. B. Amendment VI. Right to a speedy trial and effective assistance of council. 1. 210 days after I was incarcerated I was given my indictment after I told the judge I didn't have it. 2. 278 days after I was incarcerated I still have not been able to adequately view the evidence against me. 3. The prosecutor has taken three paid attorneys from me and forced me to use two court-appointed attorneys that she has a strong influence over.


.B.!!.l- O()./o7 JJOt·"/ ~~'1

~ -J" P l,

hI . fo.ot-~ 5~J..bi>' ....


her-on-a fifty to sixty minute drive drilling her about charging her with murder if she did not let them search her house. They told Leigh that if she did not say what they wanted her to say they would throw her into jail for murder, perjury and money laundering. The prosecutor and police officers have harassed Leigh at work. The prosecutor and police called and harassed Leigh at work although they had her cell phone and her house number. May 9, 2006, Leigh ·called detective Lawson's supervisor about Lawson harassing her and that he was not to call her anymore. approximately three hours later Lawson called Leigh's cell phone again. The prosecutor sent Government agents to talk to Leigh and her boss at work. The prosecutor and Government agents called Leigh's boss and his boss in an attempt to put pressure on. Leigh by making her life miserable at work so Leigh would cave into a vicious and over-zealous prosecutor who abuses the powers of the Federal Gpvernment. The prosecutor intentionally tried to ruin Leigh~s life. After five months of the prosecutor and federal agents harassing Leigh, her boss and her bosses boss at work she was fired. Leigh had been employed at Siemens for over five years before Tera D. Morehead interfered.

5.) A. B.

C. D.

6.) The prosecutors strong influence over my attorneys. A. Tim Schemica 1. Made Tim sign a contract with the prosecutor in order to get the discovery. 1.) Tim was not to show me the discovery, 2.)discuss with me, and 3.) he was not to give me any part or make copies of the discovery and give them to me. Baltazar Salazar B. 1. The prosecutor told Baltazar to fly from Houston to Kansas City and she would then give him the discovery. When he got to Kansas City she refused to give him the discovery. The prosecutor then called Baltazar a drug dealer and accused him of being in a drug syndica because he is from Houston. Morehead told Baltizer I will never see the discovery and supoenied Baltizar twice that I know of. 2. The prosecutor accused this attorney of being a hired bully from someone down south. 3. The prosecutor took Baltizar's retainer fee and his local council Melanie Morgans retainer fee. I was then told that if my family or anyone associated with me hired another attorney the prosecutor will take their payment as well.



I am not aware of any situation in the world in which there is a system of Jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where an individual can be tried without and convicted without seeing or knowing the evidence against him. Some of the motions that I have told my attorneys to file and expect them to file are: 1.) A. 2.) B. 3.) C. Motion for Discovery citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), Motion for Exculpatory and Impeaching Evidence citing Giglio v. united Stated, 405 u.s. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104, and Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Act Material citing the Jencks Act: 18 U.S.C 3500, 18 U.S.C. 3500 (e) (1), 18 U.S.C. 3500 (e) (2), 18 U.S.C. 3500 (e) (3).


Sir, I am an American citizen. Born and raised in America and having thus done so the constitution of the united Stated Government guarant~es me certain unalienable rights that this prosecutor cannot ,take away from me. Judge Lungstrum, could you please protect and make sure this prosecutor does not make any more evidence in my favor disappear.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

James McKeighan

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Police Lies Backfired

Here is yet another story of misconduct in Missouri

Kemper, a suspect in an alleged arson that took the life of her son,
denied nine times that she had anything to do with the fire. Then the
St. Louis County police detective resorted to one of the oldest tricks
in the book -- he told Kemper that she had failed a lie detector test.
Later that day, Kemper admitted that she set the fire to get out from
under the burden of being the sole provider to her family and to
collect insurance proceeds. But the confession did not fit the facts of
the crime, the motive evidence was weak, and Sandra had passed the lie
detector test with flying colors.  The trial judge declared a
mistrial on issues related to the polygraph,
and Missouri's high court has now ruled that Sandra cannot be
retried.  Police
Lies Backfired

A woman accused of setting a house fire that killed her teenage son cannot be tried for murder, arson or assault because a judge originally declared a mistrial, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

To make Sandra Kemper, 50, face trial would violate the U.S. Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy, the court said in its unanimous ruling.

Kemper had faced a first-degree murder charge for the death of 15-year-old Zachariah Kemper in a Nov. 16, 2001, fire at their home in the St. Louis suburb of Black Jack. Sandra Kemper and several others escaped the fire.

Police said Kemper twice confessed to setting the fire and planned to collect on insurance. But those statements came after she was first given a polygraph test, in which she denied any involvement in the fire, and was told by a detective that she was lying.

During her trial, St. Louis County Circuit Judge David Lee Vincent III allowed Kemper’s attorneys to introduce evidence about the polygraph test after prosecutors played her two taped confessions. A defense polygraph expert testified the results actually showed an 88 percent probability that Kemper was telling the truth when she denied involvement in the fire.

A day after that testimony, Vincent said he had originally allowed the polygraph testimony because he thought it was relevant to whether the Kemper was coerced into giving a confession. But upon further examination, he said, the polygraph testimony was inadmissible as evidence. The judge then declared a mistrial.

The Supreme Court said that not all mistrials bar future trials. But in this case, the high court said Kemper had strongly objected to the mistrial and the judge had not shown a mistrial was necessary, but rather appeared to have simply changed his mind about the polygraph evidence.

The ruling written by Chief Justice Michael Wolff said Vincent could have used a less drastic remedy to the problem, such as instructing jurors that the polygraph results were not to be considered as proof of Kemper’s guilt or innocence, but rather were to be used to evaluate the circumstances surrounding her confession statements.

The judge had no comment about yesterday’s ruling, court personnel said.

An attorney for Kemper said her client was ecstatic about the Supreme Court decision. Kemper has remained jailed without bond for more than four years, said attorney Susan Roach. But she cannot be released until the Supreme Court allows time for an appeal and sends Vincent the paperwork making the ruling official.

"There’s no doubt in my mind that she’s actually innocent, based upon the polygraph results and the arson evidence," Roach said.

When Kemper told police she started the fire, "she was simply reciting something that she thought they wanted to hear," Roach added.

The family’s insurance company paid a life insurance policy on Kemper’s son, because it could not rule out the possibility that the fire was started by a cigarette, Roach said. But Kemper had to return her share of the money after she was charged with the crimes, she said.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ Cries Spreading Like Wildfire in SoCal

Prosecutorial Misconduct’ Cries Spreading Like Wildfire in SoCal

karatzIn the Southland, it’s become as trendy as a lunch at The Ivy*: Backdating defendants crying foul over alleged prosecuctorial misdeeds.

Recently, the foil worked for the Broadcom Henrys — Samueli and Nicholas. Federal judge Cormac Carney tossed their cases after allegations arose that prosecutors had tried to prevent defense witnesses from testifying. (For more on that, scroll down for an earlier post today on Nicholas.)

Now comes word, courtesy of the LA Times, that former KB Home head honcho Bruce Karatz (pictured) is making a similar argument, accusing federal prosecutors of manipulating witnesses in his upcoming option-backdating trial.

In a motion filed this week in federal court in Los Angeles, Karatz’s attorney, John Keker, said two former KB Home employees who once supported Karatz later changed their accounts after meeting with federal prosecutors and FBI agents. Keker cited the change as an indication of prosecutorial misconduct.

Karatz singled out two witnesses in the case who have both told prosecutors that they believe the company inappropriately backdated stock options, the motion said.

“Both firmly believed that the stock option grant practice was lawful and they were willing to say so,” Keker said in the motion filed Monday. “Once the prosecutors got ahold of them, that changed.”

Was Keker’s filing a coincidence — or possibly prompted, at least in part, by the recent string of government mess-ups? Keker cited the Broadcom case in his motion, asking federal judge Otis D. Wright to hold a hearing to determine whether “that same right has been deprived here.”

Wayne Gross, former chief of the U.S. attorney’s office in Santa Ana now with Greenberg Traurig in Irvine, Calif., told the LAT that defense lawyers have taken notice of the prevailing winds:

“What happened in Broadcom will cause defense lawyers to pursue these misconduct allegations because for the first time there’s a possibility such arguments will be heard and acted upon by judges,” he said. “Defense lawyers often assumed that coercive tactics by prosecutors and agents, though repugnant, would be overlooked by judges if ever brought to their attention. So defense lawyers let it go.”

Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which is prosecuting the case, declined to comment. He said his office would file a response to the allegations in court.

The judge is scheduled to consider the defense request at a Feb. 8 hearing in Los Angeles.

Karatz, 64, is slated to stand trial Feb. 23 on 20 counts of fraud and making false statements related to an investigation of the company’s option grants. He has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.

* LA-based LBers, let us know. Is The Ivy even remotely trendy anymore?

government has failed to bring to trial promptly in violation of the Speedy Trial act

Speedy Trial Violation in Yellow house case Order by Judge Speedy Trial Violation in Yellow house case Order by Judge Jw This is the order by a judge to dismiss all charges against guy and carrie neighbors due to speedy trial violations that were commited by the Gov't prosecutors Terra D morehead and Marietta Parker.

United States of America,
v. Case No. 07-20073-01/01-JWL
Guy Neighbors
Carrie Neighbors,
Mr. Guy S. Neighbors and Ms. Carrie Neighbors (“defendants”) have moved to dismiss
with prejudice one of the criminal charges in a four-count indictment against them on the ground
that the government has failed to bring them to trial promptly in violation of the Speedy Trial
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The government objects.
I. Background
On December 7, 2006, the Neighbors were indicted for being unlawful users of a
controlled substance who knowingly and unlawfully possessed firearms under chapter 18,
sections 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2), United States Code. The defendants made their first
appearance on December 12, 2006 in case No. 06-20171-CM, which is referred to by this court
as the “first indictment” or “first case.” On January 3, 2007, and February 5, 2007, defendant
Carrie Neighbors filed Motions for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions, which the judge
granted. The excluded time from these motions was also applied to co-defendant Guy
Neighbors. On March 26, 2007, the court made a text entry noting that no motions had been
filed, and the jury trial was scheduled to begin on May 7, 2007. On May 4, 2007, the
government filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment as to both defendants based on additional
evidence discovered during the ongoing investigation. The judge sustained the motion on May
10, 2007, dismissing the indictment without prejudice.
On June 20, 2007, the defendants were indicted on four counts, including conspiring to
manufacture marijuana, being unlawful users of a controlled substance who knowingly and
unlawfully possessed firearms under chapter 18, sections 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2) (“Count 2”),
and two counts for knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana. The court will refer
to this indictment as the “second indictment.” (Doc. # 1) Defendants appeared before a
magistrate judge on June 25, 2007. On July 17, 2007, defendant Guy Neighbors filed a Motion
for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions (Doc. # 16). At a hearing on August 13, 2007,
the court took the Motion for Extension of Time under advisement and granted Guy Neighbors’s
Motion to Withdraw his attorney (Doc. # 18). The Motion for Extension of Time was later
granted on September 10, 2007.
On September 11, 2007, counsel for Carrie Neighbors filed the Motion to Dismiss Count
2 (Doc. # 24) (“Motion”), currently at issue before the court. Guy Neighbors also filed a Motion
to Disclose Expert Testimony (Doc. # 27) on October 15, 2007, which is still pending. At the
evidentiary hearing on November 5, 2007, Guy Neighbors was permitted to join Carrie
Neighbor’s Motion to Dismiss via his Motion to Join Co-defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Indictment (Doc. # 28), thereby mooting his Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. # 25) that had
been filed on September 12, 2007. The Court also took the Motion to Dismiss Count 2 under
advisement, and after thoroughly considering the parties’ arguments, the court grants the Motion
but reserves the determination of whether to grant it with or without prejudice until after an
evidentiary hearing on the issue.
II. Analysis
The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et. seq., is designed to protect a criminal
defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162,
1177 (10th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Tsosie, 966 F.2d 1357, 1361 (10th Cir. 1992)
(“[T]he intent of the Act [is] to balance protection of the accused against society’s interest in
efficient criminal process.”). It “requires that a criminal defendant’s trial commence within
seventy days after his indictment or initial appearance, whichever is later. Certain periods of
delay, outlined in detail in the STA, are excluded and do not count toward the seventy-day
limit.” See id. at 1178, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), (h)(1)-(9); United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d
996, 1000-01 (10th Cir. 1999). If a defendant is not brought to trial within the seventy day
deadline, which is subject to statutory exclusions, “dismissal of the indictment is mandatory.”
United States v. Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d 458, 462 (10th Cir. 2006), quoting United States v.
Doran, 882 F.2d 1511, 1517 (10th Cir. 1989). “The ‘indictment shall be dismissed on motion
of the defendant.” Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d at 462, quoting United States v. Vaughn, 370 F.3d
1049, 1055 (10th Cir. 2004); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) (“If a defendant is not brought to
trial within the time limit required by section 3161(c) [18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)] as extended by
1There apparently was some confusion as to what the defendants were requesting of
the court–to dismiss the entire second indictment or only the one charge found in both the
first and second indictment. Upon inquiry by the court at the hearing, defense counsel
clarified that they were moving only to dismiss Count 2 of the second indictment, which was
the only count in the first indictment.
2“In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged
in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within
seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or
from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such
charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
section 3161(h) [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)], the information or indictment shall be dismissed on
motion of the defendant.”).
A. Whether the time accrued under the first indictment for Speedy Trial Act purposes is
added to the time under the second indictment when the government moved to dismiss the
first indictment
The Neighbors brought a Motion to Dismiss Indictment as to Count 2 of the second
indictment1 under chapter 18, section 3161(c)(1), United States Code, which relates to the
seventy day deadline.2 The Neighbors also cited section 3161(d)(1), but misinterpreted the
language, as did the government.
If any indictment or information is dismissed upon motion of the defendant, or any
charge contained in a complaint filed against an individual is dismissed or
otherwise dropped, and thereafter a complaint is filed against such defendant or
individual charging him with the same offense or an offense based on the same
conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, or an information or indictment
is filed charging such defendant with the same offense or an offense based on the
same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, the provisions of
subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall be applicable with respect to such
subsequent complaint, indictment, or information, as the case may be.
18 U.S.C. § 3161(d)(1). Both sides apparently interpreted the language “the provisions of
subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall be applicable with respect to such subsequent
complaint, indictment, or information” to mean that the seventy day time period from section
3161(c)(1) would not start anew with the second indictment. This language, however, is
interpreted to mean that when those sections do apply, a new seventy day time period does begin
for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
The question, then, is whether the provisions of section 3161(d)(1), and therefore a new
time period under section 3161(c)(1), apply when the government files the motion to dismiss the
first indictment. In a recent case, the Tenth Circuit provided a clear and concise description of
the relationship between sections 3161(c) and 3161(d)(1):
Under § 3161(d)(1), if an indictment is dismissed upon motion of the defendant
and he is subsequently re-indicted with the same offense, the new indictment
begins a new seventy-day period. See § 3161(c); see also United States v.
Andrews, 790 F.2d 803, 809, n.4 (10th Cir. 1986); United States v. Brown, 183
F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[Section] 3161(d)(1) resets the periods in
which a defendant must be indicted and tried.”); United States v. Duque, 62 F.3d
1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding the “Speedy Trial Act clock starts fresh”
when the defendant moves to dismiss and is reindicted); United States v.
Giambrone, 920 F.2d 176, 179 (2d Cir. 1990) (“[W]hen the indictment is
dismissed on motion of the defendant and there is reprosecution, the 70-day period
provided by § 3161(c) begins anew.”). . . .
However, where the government moves to dismiss the indictment . . . and then
refiles a second indictment alleging the same charges, the government does not
get a new seventy-day clock. See United States v. Gonzales, 137 F.3d 1431,
1433-34 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Broadwater, 151 F.3d 1359, 1360 (11th
Cir. 1998) (“If the government moves to dismiss a count following a mistrial, it
does not get a ‘fresh clock’ on reindictment; rather, the time is tolled from the
dismissal of the original count until the reindictment.”) (emphasis added); United
States v. Menzer, 29 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hoslett,
998 F.2d 648, 658 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Leone, 823 F.2d 246, 248 (8th
3The government also made the argument at the hearing that because no challenge was
made at the time the first indictment was dismissed without prejudice, the defendants should
not now be able to bring this motion to dismiss. This, however, is not the same argument the
defendants now make. There is nothing in a dismissal without prejudice that also means the
government can disregard the time limits of the Speedy Trial Act. While the government
was free to indict the defendants with the same charge based upon the “without prejudice”
order, it still had an obligation to do so under the applicable time limits of section 3161(c)(1)
because the government, not the defendant, moved to dismiss the first indictment. The
argument, therefore, has no influence on the fact that the Speedy Trial Act deadline does not
start over when the government is the party that filed the motion to dismiss the first
Cir. 1987) (same). “The reason for this rule is obvious. If the clock began anew,
the government could circumvent the limitations of the Speedy Trial Act by
repeatedly dismissing and refiling charges against a defendant.” Hoslett, 998 F.2d
at 658, n.12; see also United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231, 239 (1985)
(Blackmun, J., concurring) (same).
United States v. Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d 458, 463, n.4 (10th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see
also 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6) (stating that when the original indictment is dismissed upon motion
of the government “and thereafter a charge is filed against the defendant for the same offense”
the time is tolled between the dismissal of the first indictment and when the time commences for
the subsequent charge, i.e., upon indictment or appearance); United States v. Magana-Olvera,
917 F.2d 401, 405 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[I]f the first indictment is dismissed on the government’s
motion, the statutory time limit is merely suspended until a new indictment is returned; the
70-day clock is not reset.”). It is clear that when the government moves to dismiss the first
indictment, as was the case here, the Speedy Trial Act clock does not begin anew for the same
charge filed in the second indictment; the time accrued towards the seventy days under the first
indictment is added to the time under the second indictment.3
B. Calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act
The court concludes that the time accrued under the first indictment must be combined
with the time under the second indictment, so it is necessary to calculate the time included within
the Speedy Trial Act provisions. For a Speedy Trial Act violation to have occurred, seventy
non-excludable days must have passed since defendants appeared before the judicial officer on
December 12, 2006. “The defendant shall have the burden of proof of supporting such motion
[to dismiss indictment pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act] but the Government shall have the
burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with any exclusion of time under [18
U.S.C. §] 3161(h)(3).” 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2).
In the Motion to Dismiss and at the hearing, the defendants claim that after reviewing the
docket sheet, they determined there were sixty-three days that should be included within the
Speedy Trial Act calculation under the first indictment. The sixty-three day total was determined
based on time between December 7, 2006, the day that the indictment was filed, and May 10,
2007, the day the indictment was dismissed. The first appearance as to the second indictment
was made on June 25, 2007 and Guy Neighbors filed a Motion to Extend Pretrial Motion
Deadlines on July 17, 2007. Between these dates, the defendant calculated that twenty-two days
should be included in the Speedy Trial Act calculations. Under both indictments, the
defendants’ totals show the number of days as eighty-five. Upon independent review by this
court, according to ECF, fifty-eight days had accrued under the first indictment and twenty-one
days under the second indictment, totaling seventy-nine.
The government has the burden of proving any applicable exclusion of time under the
Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). The government stated in its motion that twenty-two days had
elapsed under the second indictment, but made no other challenges to the calculations either in
its response to the motion or at the hearing. Whether the defendants’ calculation or the
calculation by ECF is accepted, the seventy day deadline has passed, and the government has
not proven that any other exclusions should apply to extend that time. The court, therefore,
grants the Motion to Dismiss Count 2 of the second indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2);
Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d at 462 (“Subject to statutory exclusions, if a defendant is not brought
to trial within the seventy-day deadline, dismissal of the indictment is mandatory.”).
C. Whether the dismissal of the case due to a Speedy Trial Act violation should be with or
without prejudice
Because the seventy day deadline has passed and the court dismisses the indictment on
Count 2, the court must determine whether the charge should be dismissed with or without
prejudice. Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d at 462 (“[T]he district court retains broad discretion
whether to dismiss the indictment with or without prejudice.”). “In determining whether to
dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the
following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which
led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter [18
U.S.C. §§ 3161 et seq.] and on the administration of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). Prejudice
to the defendant is among the other factors relevant to the district court’s consideration. Abdush-
Shakur, 465 F.3d at 462, citing United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 334 (1988).
At the hearing because the court had not yet resolved whether there was a Speedy Trial
Act violation, little evidence or argument relating to these “with or without prejudice” factors
was presented. Now that the court has determined there has been such a violation and that Count
2 will be dismissed, the court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the limited issue of whether
the count should be dismissed with or without prejudice. The court will take into consideration
evidence and arguments regarding the seriousness of the offense, facts and circumstances that
led to the dismissal, and the impact reprosecution would have on the administration of the
Speedy Trial Act and on the administration of justice, as well as other factors, including the
prejudice suffered by the defendants.
III. Conclusion
In sum the court finds that where the government filed the motion to dismiss the first
indictment, the seventy day Speedy Trial Act time period does not start anew. Instead, the time
accrued under the first indictment is added to the accumulated time of the second indictment.
Based on this and the corresponding calculation of time exceeding seventy days, the court grants
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 2. The court reserves the ruling of whether to grant the
Motion with or without prejudice until an evidentiary hearing is conducted on the matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Motion to Dismiss Count 2 (Doc.
# 24) is GRANTED, but RESERVES the determination of whether to grant the motion with
or without prejudice until after the evidentiary hearing.
Dated this 16th day of November, 2007.
s/ John W. Lungstrum
John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge