Please See the Document below:
195-1
Restraining Order
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 13
.,
37!~jC-r ~:Cl
" ."
~'.'
."
,-Â
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
i
l'
U:'- ;'\.~ t;~',~ /~~, '
~
l'
.
Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [lJ 'S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DR. ROBERT G. LUCKING PARTICIPATING IN THIS MATTER
[Pursuant to FRCP Rule 65]
COMES NOW on this 28 th day of June 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting
as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Judge Mary H. Murguia specifically related to testimony by Dr. Robert G. Lucking, and also U.S Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir,. Case no: 08-3700 Us. v. Hessam
Ghane, Decision by MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges Filed: January 29, 2010, to
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 1
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 13
refrain from a pattern of practice to administer this type of medication, evaluation, testimony based on guess work, as well as, his appearance of prior perjury before a court of law. The Injunction and Restraining Order is as follows: 1). The U.S. Attorney had written in her Motion filed Under Seal on 06/23/2010 that there was ill-gotten privileged communications (both telephone and written) intercepted and included in a competency evaluation report by Dr. Robert G. Lucking on Carrie and Guy Neighbors, in which was violations of ethics, violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged communications, violations of confidential information.
2). The Defendant [I] was evaluated in a report filed with this court by Dr. Robert G. Lucking, as well as, the interrogation of Defendant [2] about his wife's case was beyond the jurisdiction of a Doctor for the competency evaluation. It also violates The World Medical Association, and APA rules stating that a ''physician shall not use nor allow to be used, as far as
he or she can, medical knowledge or skills, or health information specific to individuals, to facilitate or otherwise aid any interrogation, legal or illegal, ofthose individuals. " As well as,
the Doctor had violated Principle E of the code of conduct, in which violated the right to privacy, and illegally intercepting the private letters and phone conversations, or communications between a married couple. Whereby Dr. Lucking's report violates Defendant [1]'s Constitutional right to be evaluated for this court by a qualified physician bound by the rules of ethics, including the procedural intake process and complete medicine evaluation, which establishes a qualified doctor- patient relationship prior to the competency evaluation and submission of report, which is ruled and protected by laws and ethics relating to the practice of psychiatry, which Dr. Lucking did not have with Defendant [1]. Since the government has opened this "Pandora's box", the Defendant [1] now has the right to challenge Doctor Lucking's credibility.
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 2
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 13
3). Now the Defendant [1] through research has found out a pattern of practice of Dr. Robert G. Lucking to mislead and/or contradict as to perjure himself, as well as, inappropriately secure a Sell Order, without the Harper Hearing, before initiating a Sell Litigation, in which Dr. Robert G. Lucking has now violated C.F.R. § 549.43, as law mandates.
4). Dr. Robert G. Lucking has failed to prove that Defendant [2] is dangerous to himself or others, nor has he proven that he is gravely disabled, nor offered less intrusive alternatives as law mandates, whereby Dr. Robert G. Lucking has failed to meet the elements as mandated by the Supreme court for this type of court ordered action or medication.
5). The Defendant [1] request that the USDC order an immediate removal of Dr. Robert G. Lucking from this cause of action, due to his failure to comply with proper procedures, as well as, the prior practice to mislead or perjure and or contradict himself, violations of ethics, violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged communications, violations of confidential information, conflict of interest, and an established pattern of practice by Dr. Robert G. Lucking, Staff Psychiatrist, Federal Medical Center, Butner NC" violating fundamental due process rights to a fair trial, to inappropriately secure a Sell Order, without an Harper Hearing, before initiating a Sell Litigation. [See refUSDC ofArizona case no: CR-05-0099-02-PHXÂ
MHM order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Mary H Murguia]
6). Whereby the Defendant [11 has no other choice but to file an Injunction and Restraining Order against Dr. Robert G. Lucking to cease and desist any further participation within this matter before this court, as well as, due to the new information, in which has come to light, in which will show a pattern of practice, the Defendant [I] can only request that the court
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 3
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 13
strike any and all reports Dr. Robert G. Lucking had submitted on both of the Defendants, in this action, due to unreliable testimony, as well as, evaluations of Dr. Robert G. Lucking. 7). The Defendant [1] would like the court to also request that the Plaintiff seal, destroy and disregard any reports, in which they may have in their possession from Dr. Robert G. Lucking, due to the new evidence, in which has come to light.
8). The Defendant [1] would like the court to also request an independent evaluation for Defendant [2] from another Doctor, with a standard of ethics as to not prej udice Defendant [1]' s previously completed competency reports by two qualified physicians, due to the new evidence, in which has come to light.
A.) As in "This is also a pattern ofpractice of inconsistencies in Dr. Lucking's testimony
that remains unexplained. " As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09] by
the Honorable Judge Mary H. Murguia.
B.) The apparent lack of rationale by Dr. Lucking's testimony see: See Ghane II, 490 F.3d
at 1040. "Nonetheless, in crediting an expert's opinion, it is not the opinion itselfthat is important, but the rationale underlying it". Circuit Judge Hanson asserts that Dr. Lucking's
Rationale of "incompetence" in his report that simply "because Ghane continued to distrust his
attorneys and was therefore unable to assist in his defense. " differed from the Supreme Court
definition which states "The Supreme Court has defined a defendant's ability to assist properly in
his defense as possessing a... "'sufjicient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree ofrational understanding.'" Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 Us. 348,354 (1996) (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 Us. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiaml)." "Disagreement with
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 4
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 5 of 13
one's attorney does not make one mentally unable to consult with him". Cf United States v. Minnis, 489 F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir. 2007)
9). Since the Defendant [1] can show recent case law doctrine or case law precedence, the burden now shifts to the government to disprove.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
1). The U.S. Attorney had filed her Motion filed Under Seal on 06/23/2010 to by court order have Defendant [1] 's phone conversations and letters due to Dr. Robert G. Lucking's Report in a "statement of facts", in which stated Defendant [1] has paranoid delusional belief, in which Dr. Robert G. Lucking has now violated confidentiality laws, ethic laws, as well as, USPS mail which was already sealed. 2). Dr. Robert G. Lucking was evaluating the Defendant [1] based upon uncertain facts, as well as, without her consent, by bits and pieces of private communications.
3). Now the Defendant [1] has recently discovered that (quote) "this is not the first time
that a court within the District ofArizona has been addressed by the Federal Medical Center's attempts to inappropriately secure a Sell Order. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 446 F Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2006)." As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09]
by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and also [U.S Court ofAppeals for the 8th Cir.. Case no: 08Â
3700 U'S. v. Hessam Ghane], in which would show a pattern of practice of both extrinsic and
constructive fraud before the court. "This is also a pattern ofpractice ofinconsistencies in Dr.
Lucking's testimony that remains unexplained" As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia. See also: "Dr. Lucking, who had not seen
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 5
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 6 of 13
Dr. Ghane since March 2006 when he hadfound Dr.Ghane competent, when he testified at the August 2006 competency hearing" as stated in [ US Court ofAppeals for the
sth Cir,. Case no:
08-3700 Us. v. Hessam GhanJ Decision by MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges
Filed: January 29, 2010,
4). The Defendant had discovered other related facts in which will be addressed in her Affidavit in Support of the Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter. THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number
[CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09128109J by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and
also [US Court ofAppeals for the 8th Cir,. Case no: 08-3700 Us. v. Hessam Ghane], specifically related to Dr. Robert G. Lucking, as to refrain from a pattern of practice to administer this type of medication, as well as, his appearance of prior perjury and or lack of
credibility before a court of law.
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 6
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 7 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to KSA 60-205]
The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2] counsel ofrecord 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101
On this
zs" day of June 2010.
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 7
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 8 of 13
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM OS-20l0S-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
STATE OF KANSAS
) ) SS COUNTY OF DOUGLAS )
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ill'S MOTION FOR
AN INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST
DR. ROBERT G. LUCKING PARTICIPATING IN THIS MATTER
[Pursuant to FRCP Rule 65]
COMES NOW on this 28th day of June 2010, I, Carrie Neighbors, (Defendant 1) being of lawful age and sound mind, swear on oath, and hereby give an Affidavit in Support of Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in relation to
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 8
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 9 of 13
Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number [CR-05Â
0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and also
[US Court ofAppealsfor the 8th Cir.. Case no: 08-3700 u.s. v. Hessam Ghane], specifically
related to Dr. Robert G. Lucking, as to refrain from a pattern of practice to administer this type of medication evaluation, as well as, his prior appearance of perjury before a court of law. That the following is true and accurate: 1). The U.S. Attorney had written in her Motion filed Under Seal on 06/23/2010, that there was ill-gotten privileged communications (both telephone and written) intercepted, in which was violations of ethics, violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged communications, violations of confidential information. 2). Dr. Robert G. Lucking was evaluating the Defendant [1] based upon uncertain facts, as well as, without her consent, by bits and pieces of her private communications, involving unknown facts. 3). Now the Defendant [1] has recently discovered that "this is not the first time that a
court within the District ofArizona has been addressed by the Federal Medical Center's attempts to inappropriately secure a Sell Order. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2006)." As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09]
by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and also [US Court ofAppealsfor the 8th Cir.. Case no:
08-3700 Us. v. Hessam Ghane, (Jan.29,201 0)) in which would give the appearance of a pattern
of practice of both extrinsic and constructive fraud before the court. "This is also a pattern of
practice ofinconsistencies in Dr. Lucking's testimony that remains unexplained. " As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia.
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 9
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 10 of 13
4). In [United States v. Hessam Ghane Case no: 08-3700 (8th Cir. 20l0)J
The Appellate court found, Dr. Lucking gives conflicting indecisive testimony "Dr. Lucking
believed that Ghane has never been competent to stand trial, contrary to his own earlier evaluations ofGhane"
5.) According to Dr. Lucking's theory of competency, a defendants desire to be found competent is a factor to find him incompetent to stand trial. [US Court ofAppeals for the 8th
Cir.. Case no: 08-3700 Us. v. Hessam Ghane,(Jan.29,20l0)J "We are also concerned about the magistrate judge's reliance on Dr. Ghane's goal ofbeing found competent, afactor also identified by Dr. Lucking, as evidence that he was in fact incompetent to stand trial. "
6.) Dr. Lucking's testimony has issues with credibility. See ref: [US V. Fabela, USDC of
Arizona case number CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] "Defendant takes issue with Dr. Lucking's claim that extrapyramidal symptoms occur in less than approximately 30% of patients, and that Dr. Lucking had not seen an acute dystonic reaction in a number ofyears. Defendant notes that within five days ofstarting Defendant on Haldol, Dr. Lucking prescribed Defendant Cogentin, which is a known treatment for dystonic reactions to Haldol. "
7.) This FMC under the direction of Dr. Robert G. Lucking has made it a practice to fail to attempt to exhaust all other practical voluntary treatment options, including the fact that during 5 months of evaluations under Dr. Lucking in FMC Butner, Defendant [2] was never referred to a competency class. See also: See ref: [US V. Fabela, USDC ofArizona case number CR-05-0099Â
02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] "Generally, before seeking an Order from this Court under Sell, the government shouldfirst attempt to exhaust all other practical voluntary treatment
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 10
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 11 of 13
options. The Court is not convinced that such an exhaustive attempt has been made by the FMC in this case ".
8). Whereby, it is more likely or practical that with the supporting documents in this case, with the other case law Defendant [1] has incorporated in this document, that the 51 % burden of proof is in favor ofthe Defendant [1], in which likely probability that Dr. Robert G. Lucking report is bias, prejudicial, and tainted, or even directed by a third party, and continues, since Defendant [2]'s phone privileges at CCA were ordered blocked by a third party, as well as, interfered with.
WHEREBY, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number
[CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia
specifically related to Dr. Robert G. Lucking, and also [U.S Court ofAppealsfor the 8th Cir,.
Case no: 08-3700 UiS. v. Hessam Ghane, also known as Sam Ghane Decision by MURPHY,
HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges Filed: January 29,2010,] to refrain from a pattern of practice to administer this type of medication evaluation, testimony based on guess work, as well as, his prior appearance of perjury and inconsistency before a court of law, and PRA YS this USDC Court GRANT in favor of the Defendant [l]'s Injunction and Restraining Order and submit an Order to Remove Dr. Robert G. Lucking from this cause of action, as well as, any and all documentation he or his facility had submitted, due to what appears to be a pattern of
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 11
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 12 of 13
practice to mislead, perjure, violate ethics, and violate the proper procedures, as defined in C.F.R. § 549.43.
Respectfully submitted,
Ca rre Neighbors Defendant [1J / Pro e Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this
day of June 2010.
My commission Expires on:
5)31/1 . . 1
SEAL:
+.()~8(/('
11111
WILL McCULLOUGH
MyAPPt.EXp.3!'5'j' ....,
UrI\IIN~A~
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 12
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116
Filed 06/29/10 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to KSA 60-205]
The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel ofrecord 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this 28th day of June 2010.
Ca . ei bors Defendant [1J/ Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order
Page 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn A. Hutchinson, Ph.D.
Owner : Missouri Licensed Psychologist
Address:
Suite 100, 222 West Gregory Blvd.
Kansas City
Missouri
USA
64114
Telephone: (816) 361-0664 x202
Information: Dr. Hutchinson is owner and manager of Hutchinson & Associates. She is a Missouri Licensed Psychologist who specializes in women’s unique issues, growth and development. She has experience with a wide range of concerns of individuals and couples. She has over thirty years experience as a university professor, a psychologist at a university mental health center, and in private practice. She does forensic evaluations throughout the United States in civil and criminal matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion
Federal Prosecutor Deliberatly Sending Mail to the Wrong Address
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker Deliberatly Sending Mail to the Wrong Address
Federal Prosecutor Deliberatly Sending Mail to the Wrong Address
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 6
','
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20t24-CM OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
Request for Judicial clerks oversight of mailings and change of address COMES NOW on this N d a y of July 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors,
acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk. 1). The U.S. Attorney seems to be having a problem with getting the Defendant [I]'s name and address correct on her recent mailings and this is causing undue delay and the potential of Prejudice. Whereby giving rise to the appearance of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. (See attachment 1). 2). The Defendant would also notify the court that a second certified mailing perhaps from the U.S. Attorney's office sent to Defendant [1] via certified mail, has now become
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 6
undeliverable and the card appears to have been originally addressed to 1144 Andover, then changed to 1104 with scribbles over said number. (See attachment 2.) 3). This certified mailing is currently missing. The Lawrence Kansas Vermont street Post office is currently attempting to locate this mailing and will notify Defendant [1] iffound. 4). There are currently two pending sealed motions by the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker which Defendant [1] conveniently has not received, has no access to on the Pacer site, and has been unable to respond to. 5). Defendant [1] requests that the court also order all future mailings in this cause of action from the U.S. Attorney's office, Kansas District Court, be sent to the Defendant at her business address which is her daytime address and thus will allow her to sign for any certified mailings at the time of delivery: Carrie Marie Neighbors Yellow House Store, 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence Kansas, 66046 Intentionally mailing the Defendant necessary court documents to the wrong address gives the appearance by the Government of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. An abuse of discretion standard of review is applied in [960 F2d 150 Taylor v. Warren County Regional Jail] "plaintiffstated that he was unable to respond to the motions to dismiss or the magistrate judge's reports because his mail was sent to the wrong address" See Ref Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F2d 1512,1522 (lOth Cir.1988). "In reviewing such a dismissal, three factors are considered: 1) the degree ofactual prejudice to the defendant; 2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; and 3) the culpability ofthe litigant. DeBardeleben, 937 F2d at 504. "
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 6
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk and also sent to the Defendant [l]'s daytime Business address.
Car . rs Defendant [1] / Pro Se Li gant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
'l::'k~~~c.:~i~jgf~~I~~.t~:l!;§W~,3;;:;r~~-----~
Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 6
11 1
11J! 1
'H l' "l''1111! II/n,! 1/ f/'11' I,ll' IhI,tiP/II
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel ofrecord 142 Cherry olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 Guy Neighbors 11520031 CCA Leavenworth 100 Highway Terrace Leavenworth, KS. 66048 On this ~ day of July 2010.
itigant
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 6
','
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20t24-CM OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
Request for Judicial clerks oversight of mailings and change of address COMES NOW on this N d a y of July 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors,
acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk. 1). The U.S. Attorney seems to be having a problem with getting the Defendant [I]'s name and address correct on her recent mailings and this is causing undue delay and the potential of Prejudice. Whereby giving rise to the appearance of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. (See attachment 1). 2). The Defendant would also notify the court that a second certified mailing perhaps from the U.S. Attorney's office sent to Defendant [1] via certified mail, has now become
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 6
undeliverable and the card appears to have been originally addressed to 1144 Andover, then changed to 1104 with scribbles over said number. (See attachment 2.) 3). This certified mailing is currently missing. The Lawrence Kansas Vermont street Post office is currently attempting to locate this mailing and will notify Defendant [1] iffound. 4). There are currently two pending sealed motions by the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker which Defendant [1] conveniently has not received, has no access to on the Pacer site, and has been unable to respond to. 5). Defendant [1] requests that the court also order all future mailings in this cause of action from the U.S. Attorney's office, Kansas District Court, be sent to the Defendant at her business address which is her daytime address and thus will allow her to sign for any certified mailings at the time of delivery: Carrie Marie Neighbors Yellow House Store, 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence Kansas, 66046 Intentionally mailing the Defendant necessary court documents to the wrong address gives the appearance by the Government of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. An abuse of discretion standard of review is applied in [960 F2d 150 Taylor v. Warren County Regional Jail] "plaintiffstated that he was unable to respond to the motions to dismiss or the magistrate judge's reports because his mail was sent to the wrong address" See Ref Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F2d 1512,1522 (lOth Cir.1988). "In reviewing such a dismissal, three factors are considered: 1) the degree ofactual prejudice to the defendant; 2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; and 3) the culpability ofthe litigant. DeBardeleben, 937 F2d at 504. "
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 6
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk and also sent to the Defendant [l]'s daytime Business address.
Car . rs Defendant [1] / Pro Se Li gant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
'l::'k~~~c.:~i~jgf~~I~~.t~:l!;§W~,3;;:;r~~-----~
Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 6
11 1
11J! 1
'H l' "l''1111! II/n,! 1/ f/'11' I,ll' IhI,tiP/II
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel ofrecord 142 Cherry olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 Guy Neighbors 11520031 CCA Leavenworth 100 Highway Terrace Leavenworth, KS. 66048 On this ~ day of July 2010.
itigant
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 4
Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker Deliberatly Sending Mail to the Wrong Address
Federal Prosecutor Deliberatly Sending Mail to the Wrong Address
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 6
','
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20t24-CM OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
Request for Judicial clerks oversight of mailings and change of address COMES NOW on this N d a y of July 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors,
acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk. 1). The U.S. Attorney seems to be having a problem with getting the Defendant [I]'s name and address correct on her recent mailings and this is causing undue delay and the potential of Prejudice. Whereby giving rise to the appearance of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. (See attachment 1). 2). The Defendant would also notify the court that a second certified mailing perhaps from the U.S. Attorney's office sent to Defendant [1] via certified mail, has now become
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 6
undeliverable and the card appears to have been originally addressed to 1144 Andover, then changed to 1104 with scribbles over said number. (See attachment 2.) 3). This certified mailing is currently missing. The Lawrence Kansas Vermont street Post office is currently attempting to locate this mailing and will notify Defendant [1] iffound. 4). There are currently two pending sealed motions by the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker which Defendant [1] conveniently has not received, has no access to on the Pacer site, and has been unable to respond to. 5). Defendant [1] requests that the court also order all future mailings in this cause of action from the U.S. Attorney's office, Kansas District Court, be sent to the Defendant at her business address which is her daytime address and thus will allow her to sign for any certified mailings at the time of delivery: Carrie Marie Neighbors Yellow House Store, 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence Kansas, 66046 Intentionally mailing the Defendant necessary court documents to the wrong address gives the appearance by the Government of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. An abuse of discretion standard of review is applied in [960 F2d 150 Taylor v. Warren County Regional Jail] "plaintiffstated that he was unable to respond to the motions to dismiss or the magistrate judge's reports because his mail was sent to the wrong address" See Ref Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F2d 1512,1522 (lOth Cir.1988). "In reviewing such a dismissal, three factors are considered: 1) the degree ofactual prejudice to the defendant; 2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; and 3) the culpability ofthe litigant. DeBardeleben, 937 F2d at 504. "
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 6
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk and also sent to the Defendant [l]'s daytime Business address.
Car . rs Defendant [1] / Pro Se Li gant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
'l::'k~~~c.:~i~jgf~~I~~.t~:l!;§W~,3;;:;r~~-----~
Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 6
11 1
11J! 1
'H l' "l''1111! II/n,! 1/ f/'11' I,ll' IhI,tiP/II
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel ofrecord 142 Cherry olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 Guy Neighbors 11520031 CCA Leavenworth 100 Highway Terrace Leavenworth, KS. 66048 On this ~ day of July 2010.
itigant
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 6
','
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20t24-CM OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
Request for Judicial clerks oversight of mailings and change of address COMES NOW on this N d a y of July 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors,
acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk. 1). The U.S. Attorney seems to be having a problem with getting the Defendant [I]'s name and address correct on her recent mailings and this is causing undue delay and the potential of Prejudice. Whereby giving rise to the appearance of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. (See attachment 1). 2). The Defendant would also notify the court that a second certified mailing perhaps from the U.S. Attorney's office sent to Defendant [1] via certified mail, has now become
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 6
undeliverable and the card appears to have been originally addressed to 1144 Andover, then changed to 1104 with scribbles over said number. (See attachment 2.) 3). This certified mailing is currently missing. The Lawrence Kansas Vermont street Post office is currently attempting to locate this mailing and will notify Defendant [1] iffound. 4). There are currently two pending sealed motions by the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker which Defendant [1] conveniently has not received, has no access to on the Pacer site, and has been unable to respond to. 5). Defendant [1] requests that the court also order all future mailings in this cause of action from the U.S. Attorney's office, Kansas District Court, be sent to the Defendant at her business address which is her daytime address and thus will allow her to sign for any certified mailings at the time of delivery: Carrie Marie Neighbors Yellow House Store, 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence Kansas, 66046 Intentionally mailing the Defendant necessary court documents to the wrong address gives the appearance by the Government of an abuse of discretion and interference with the judicial process. An abuse of discretion standard of review is applied in [960 F2d 150 Taylor v. Warren County Regional Jail] "plaintiffstated that he was unable to respond to the motions to dismiss or the magistrate judge's reports because his mail was sent to the wrong address" See Ref Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F2d 1512,1522 (lOth Cir.1988). "In reviewing such a dismissal, three factors are considered: 1) the degree ofactual prejudice to the defendant; 2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; and 3) the culpability ofthe litigant. DeBardeleben, 937 F2d at 504. "
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 6
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant, is requesting the court order any and all future mailing by the U.S. Attorney's office be checked for errors prior to mailing, by Judge Murgia's court clerk and also sent to the Defendant [l]'s daytime Business address.
Car . rs Defendant [1] / Pro Se Li gant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
'l::'k~~~c.:~i~jgf~~I~~.t~:l!;§W~,3;;:;r~~-----~
Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 6
11 1
11J! 1
'H l' "l''1111! II/n,! 1/ f/'11' I,ll' IhI,tiP/II
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 186
Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel ofrecord 142 Cherry olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 Guy Neighbors 11520031 CCA Leavenworth 100 Highway Terrace Leavenworth, KS. 66048 On this ~ day of July 2010.
itigant
Request for Oversight of Mailings and Change of Address
Page 4
Monday, July 12, 2010
Motion to Quash or Strike Defendant [1]'s Proffer
07912297136
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 12
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
",'
if
,! .'
i"
'~';)
,"
~ '·t Hi")
I-
t: •.
3? ...•
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff, v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20t24-CM 08-20tOS-eM CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT HI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [lJ'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
COMES NOW on this
&th
day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. The Reply is as follows: 1.) In,-r 1, The Plaintiff states that "defendant's motion is without merit and should be denied in its entirety because rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings. However Defendant [1] asserts that the Plaintiffs reliance on that claim is misplaced." When in actuality the Defendant [1] can show that the Plaintiffs is both intentionally misleading, as well as, inaccurate in her statement before the court. Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 12
a). See Ref: The Fifth Circuit has held rule 408 applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. See United States v. Hays, 872 F2d 582,588-89 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that
Rule 408 applies in a criminal proceeding as well as a civil proceeding to bar The Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit evidence of a settlement agreement) Rule 408 may apply in a criminal proceeding. b). See also: United States v. Skeddle, 176 FR.D. 254, 256 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (disagreeing with government's argument that Rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings, noting that H[n]othing in Rule 408 limits its application to civil litigation that was preceded by or included settlement negotiations'') and State v. Gano, 92 Hawai'i 161, 988 P.2d 1153, 1159-60 (Haw.1999) (discussing cases and concluding that "Rule 408 does apply in criminal proceedings ''). 2). Also note for the record, that the plaintiff has also intentionally left out 408 (b), in which states, "Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a) Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation." In which is so in this cause of action, whereby, this would not only disprove the Plaintiffs theory but assist the Defendant [1] in her ability to use Rule 408. a). The Government also states: "Clearly Rule 408 does not bar evidence of offers of leniency in exchange for truthful testimony or substantial assistance within the meaning of USSG § 5K1.1", in which states: "The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include ... the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant. "Id. at § 5K1.1 (a),(2). suggested in dicta that
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 12
Defendant [1] asserts that the provision of this law authorizes only that substantial assistance can be rewarded after it is rendered; It in no way authorizes the government to make a deal for testimony before it is given, as the Government has clearly done in this case. Consequently this statute cannot justify the government's deals with the witnesses in this case before the court. 3.) The Government claim's is that "No practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime for which the defendant is charged and having that witness ..... testify under a plea bargain that promises him a reduced sentence." Once again the plaintiff had intentionally left out the rest of United States v. Singleton, 165 F. 3d 1297, 1301 (1oth Or. 1999) in which states, "This ingrained practice of buying testimony indicates that suppression is necessary to compel respect for the statutory protections Congress has placed around testimony infederal courts. Exclusion is also necessary to remove the incentive to disregard the statute. See [Calandra, 414 Us. at 347 (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 Us. 206, 217 (1960) (quoting US v. Singleton)]. "The benefits of deterrence outweigh the evil of excluding relevant evidence, and the balance falls heavily infavor of suppression". a.) The Government goes on to say that "Furthermore the weighing of evidence, the reconciliation of inconsistent testimony, and the assessment of a witness' credibility is solely within the province ofthe jury." b.) The Government claims that defendants motion provides no grounds for the exclusion of witness testimony and that the credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly with the sole province of the jury and the defendants request for pretrial exclusion of
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 12
evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the Government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or in law. The Defendant [1] disagrees, see ref: "The promise of intangible benefits imports as great a threat to a witness's truthfulness as a cash payment. " See [United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F 2d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 1987)] (lilt is difficult to imagine a greater motivation to lie than the inducement of a reduced sentence .... "), cert. denied, 484
u.s. 1026
(1988); Schwartz, 785 F2d
at 680 ("A violation of trust which is influenced by the offer of an intangible service is no less damaging ... than if the influence was in the form of a cash kickback. "); United States v. Meinster, 619 F2d 1041, 1045 (4th Cir. 1980) ("We think it obvious that promises of immunity or leniency premised on cooperation in a particular case may provide a strong inducement to falsify in that case. "); see also United States v. Kimble, 719 F2d 1253, 1255-57 (5th Cir. 1983) (stating witness "admitted lying in over thirty different statements motivated by his sense of selfpreservation" under plea arrangement requiring his testimony in return for lenient sentence), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 (1984). 4.) Government claims that several cooperating witnesses and an undercover police officer are expected to testify that they informed the defendant that the items that they were offering to sell defendant were stolen. The Defendant [1] asserts that the items sold by the undercover officer were indeed not stolen. Nor did the Officer state that his items were "stolen Property." Defendant is prepared to show proof to the court that indeed the Defendant did directly question the undercover officer about whether the items were stolen, and that parts of the conversation that would be exculpatory for the Defendant have been edited from the Audio of the video. Tainted testimony as to any direct conversations between defendant [1] and non-credible witnesses bribed by the
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 12
Government should be inadmissible as hearsay and has no place before ajury. The district court must at least make preliminary factual findings on the record regarding the admissibility of the statements. See United States v. Perez, 989 F2d 1574,1580 (lOth Cir. 1993) (en bane). 5.) The Government states that the issue ofthe credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly within the sole province of the jury and the defendant's request for pretrial exclusion of evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or law. a). The Defendant [1] states that the witnesses in this case before this court clearly fall within the "Exclusionary Rule." "The principal reason behind the adoption of the exclusionary rule was the Government's failure to observe its own laws. " United States v. Russell, 411 Us. 423, 430 (1973) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 Us. 643, 659 (1961)). The exclusionary rule has been applied to constitutional, statutory, and procedural rule violations to deter unlawful conduct. See United States v. Blue, 384 Us. 251, 255 (l966). b). If the Governments Assistant U.S. Attorneys were to be allowed to present tainted witnesses before a Federal Jury the U.S. Attorneys would clearly be in violation of Kansas Professional Rule 3.4(b). Because clearly the promise ofleniency, years of freedom after a Federal conviction and sentencing, or not having serious charges added to an indictment are all an incentive to lie. The rule, adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, provides, "A lawyer shall not ... offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(b) (1997). This court must exclude any and all of the witnesses, due to the fact they have been tainted, in this case before this court, because clearly their testimony would be unreliable. Agreements to seek leniency, allow freedom after bond violations and Federal crime
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 5
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 12
conviction, or refrain from filing charges in return for testimony are entered into with the intention of presenting to a court the testimony so acquired. Excluding that tainted testimony removes the sole purpose of the unlawful conduct and leaves no incentive to violate § 201 ©(2). Cf. id. See Ref: USA v. Singleton (lOth cir. 1999) Courts will not be made party to lawlessness by permitting unhindered use of the fruits of illegality. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 (1968); Mapp, 367
u.s.
1, 12-13
u.s. at 660."But
we have found no case in which prosecutors, in their role as
lawyers representing the government after the initiation of criminal proceedings, have been granted a justification to violate generally applicable laws. " See United States v. Ryans, 903 F 2d 731, 739-40 (10th Cir.) (Holding that disciplinary rule applies to prosecutors upon commencement of criminal proceedings), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855 (1990). c.) The United states submits that the Government will be able to establish the defendant's "habitual pattern" of purchasing new, in the box items from regular customers at prices far below retail, allowing the reasonable inference to be drawn by the fact-finders that the defendant knew or should have known that the items she was buying were stolen had she not deliberately closed her eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to her. d). The Government has presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Defendant [1] had any knowledge that any of the items were stolen. Nor can a witness testify as to the state of mind of Defendant [1]. As most of the witnesses did not even know Defendants [1]'s name. The Government has already stated that the newer or new items brought in by sellers were purchased by the Defendant [1] at 50-80% of the retail value, (which is nowhere near "far below retail.)" All items purchased by the business were paid for by check. There is no evidence to establish the items were stolen, or that the Defendant would have knowledge of such, there were no theft reports or victims on file with the Lawrence Police Dept. connected to Defendant [1] or
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 7 of 12
[2] or the Business; Yellow House Quality Used Appliances Incorporated, search warrants.
at the time of the first
6.) The Defendant [1] however argues the Government has overstepped its bounds, and made a mockery of what Congress had intended when allowing for testimony under plea deals. See witness interrogation; (Parsons Video interrogation interviews, (Video 01)(R -1) Thurs. Oct. 12, 2006) And Parsons Interview 01(Camera 1) Thurs Oct. 19,2006.)) This witness is a
convicted felon caught in possession of3 firearms, sold an AK-47 Assault rifle, Narcotics and stolen property to an undercover officer and was not charged for the crimes in exchange for his agreement to testify that he conspired to conceal the conspiracy in the property case against Defendant [1]. To meet the ends of Justice for his promised testimony Mr. Parsons along with other witnesses have pled guilty to Federal crimes, have already been sentenced to Federal Prison, yet remain free, and have continued to flaunt the law with criminal acts while free on bond as payment for their promised testimony. Our Government is like the King. It demands respect from the people beneath it, it teaches people by its own example. If our Government condones people to break laws, then its people will have no respect for its law. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law "the end justifies the means" would mean this Court condones that this Government allows criminal acts in order to secure the conviction of a criminal would be a Perversion of everything our Forefathers stood for and our Country's soldiers have died for. Reply on the Footnote #2: Footnote 2) The Government states that the defendant's claim that the government has "offered money to its witnesses to manufacture a case" (doc. 227 at P 5) is incorrect. The Defendant asserts that this is an attempt by the Government to mislead the court. The Defendant [1] has
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 7
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 8 of 12
been informed by a number of witnesses that money was offered to them by the Government in exchange for their participation in the manufacturing of this case. [See ref Attach 1] a).Laura claims in her affidavit that someone within the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered her money to assist in the manufacturing of this case, in which is in violation ofFRE § 609 (a) (1) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b) . . "We must balance the good of preventing future unlawful conduct with the evil of disallowing relevant evidence of guilt in an individual case". See United States v. Duchi, 944 F 2d, 391, 396 (8th Or. 1991). b). "To permit this unlawfully obtained evidence "to be made the basis of a conviction in the federal courts would stultify the policy which Congress has enacted into law." United States v. Mitchell, 322 Us. 65, 67 (1944) (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 Us. 332, 345 (1943). Whereby the Defendant [1] is correct in her Motion to Exclude Witnesses, in which need to be either suppressed or excluded. [See ref Attachment 1- Affidavit of Laura Helm dated 04/22/06] The Defendant [1] has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses should be excluded due to the Plaintiffs intentional misrepresentation before this tribunal.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1] is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. Wherefore for all the reasons set forth in the above referenced Reply, the Defendant [1] respectfully requests that the court deny the Governments response and exclude all witnesses pursuant to FRE § 609 (a) (I) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b).
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 8
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 9 of 12
Respectfully submitted,
ca~~Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 9
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 10 of 12
/
WOOD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC.
:"FFIDA VIT
1. Laura Helm. oflawful
age. being fully sworn upon oath, states;
That. in early March 2006. I was contacted by two men while I was staying at my brother's fRay Mayberry'} residence Ioested at 2200 Harper. C-44 Lawrence. Ks, I am unsure of the date. but I do recall it was several weeksago and it was during the week. (
believe. but 1 am not certain. that the date these two men contacted was March 6. !006 between 9:00 a.m .• 10:00 a.m. and interviewed me
Th;ll. these two men. approached my residence and asked (0 speak with me. 1can best describe the first man as a w/m. 5'05". a little belly and short spiky blonde hair. This man did most of the talking during our contact. He said his name. which ( do not
recall. and 'laid Ihey worked with the "Federal Bureau of Investigation." He did not say '. 3\ .1f\1~he ~tlid ,n.: entire bureau name, The second rnan was a w/m. short dark hair.
0'0" and a bigger build than the first man. The second man did Dot say much. The second man did tell me I was not in trouble. but Guy and Carrie Neighbors were. Both men were similarty dressed in slacks and shins. They both wore a badge on their belts and had guns in holsters made of light color leather that was also worn on their waist.
Ther, the first man told me r "had to talk to them." I asked him ifit "had to be today:' He said it did not have to be today and they agreed \0 come back the following dav These ,\m,"e~ retuned th.: ~le}(l ,iay imJ pick c me up in 'I ·jark Hue '1 'v !~r.'~' "j vemcle. ~Jtd not want ttl go with them. but feit trom the way they were acting that ( did not have ~I choice. They drove me to the Lawrence Police Department at 11,h and Massachusetts Street. Lawrence, KS, We went inside the building through an outside door. , n't'all the men entering in a :J15S code to the interior dOM that allowed us inside the police JepilClTTlCnl. '"Ye went into an interview room where both men talked to me. Thev ques(loned me about irerns I haLl sold to the Yellow House in the past. Thev told me ;hey okained my nome through checks that were written by the Yellow House .• That, after th~;' questioned me for an hour to an hour and a half. they then drove me back to my house. During the drive home they gave me a business card with gold lettering on it. I have misplaced that ':8«1. They (old me (0 call if I decided to work for them on the Yellow House case. They offered me $50.00 for each time I would be willing to attempt t? se]1 stolen items to the Yellow House,
•
1.
Untitled
Page 20 of 20
II
~'''-.
I.
•
me __
lbIt. I did ooi' r.t ~ J hid • cboiee m dill ~ •• or 1 \YOWd ba'IC •••• iD wubIe.
wIIh "._
IICIIIlld io 10 fD
Tbtt. bec8U~ I em "" probMil'l).I COQUlacd my p~ QtHc;:c. 'liqrtey EddiiL . •••• flU Q)IlIICt.fIO ~ h&il •••••• 0GCUhd. H. 10Id AIr _ I ooaW •• be IaYolwd il\.1IN ~ wot'k. f'!lf' dw ~ice if I ••• to ••• 10 tiJr.t ~ order. I aeVIi'.., l1IIy or wo~ .• ida lilt poIioe and IOId 1blIiD11WMIld ••. . 11-. Police ()fflcas._
i.,,,,l
«' i.-.ti_
"r .:J.:rol! Uun:.w
blVc ••• IbeIe -iMt\ before •• I believe ~ •• Lawn=oce IIlltfirdmlliJp:t1tl. The:first m«n cl_I~' idendtwctbimseir. ~
.If In,cl$UpllQD.··
AnJAH17 SAYS NOT
t· c"\ Ll
I'
\0 •..•.•
1-.: ,.. 4
;! t
r>. http://docs.google.comIView?dooID=dgpt'72qd497~
jatalt
10l1f2008
<1'~'b~+\
..
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2] counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
c.~e~~·
Defendant [l} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 10
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 12
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
",'
if
,! .'
i"
'~';)
,"
~ '·t Hi")
I-
t: •.
3? ...•
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff, v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20t24-CM 08-20tOS-eM CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT HI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [lJ'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
COMES NOW on this
&th
day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. The Reply is as follows: 1.) In,-r 1, The Plaintiff states that "defendant's motion is without merit and should be denied in its entirety because rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings. However Defendant [1] asserts that the Plaintiffs reliance on that claim is misplaced." When in actuality the Defendant [1] can show that the Plaintiffs is both intentionally misleading, as well as, inaccurate in her statement before the court. Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 12
a). See Ref: The Fifth Circuit has held rule 408 applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. See United States v. Hays, 872 F2d 582,588-89 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that
Rule 408 applies in a criminal proceeding as well as a civil proceeding to bar The Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit evidence of a settlement agreement) Rule 408 may apply in a criminal proceeding. b). See also: United States v. Skeddle, 176 FR.D. 254, 256 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (disagreeing with government's argument that Rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings, noting that H[n]othing in Rule 408 limits its application to civil litigation that was preceded by or included settlement negotiations'') and State v. Gano, 92 Hawai'i 161, 988 P.2d 1153, 1159-60 (Haw.1999) (discussing cases and concluding that "Rule 408 does apply in criminal proceedings ''). 2). Also note for the record, that the plaintiff has also intentionally left out 408 (b), in which states, "Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a) Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation." In which is so in this cause of action, whereby, this would not only disprove the Plaintiffs theory but assist the Defendant [1] in her ability to use Rule 408. a). The Government also states: "Clearly Rule 408 does not bar evidence of offers of leniency in exchange for truthful testimony or substantial assistance within the meaning of USSG § 5K1.1", in which states: "The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include ... the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant. "Id. at § 5K1.1 (a),(2). suggested in dicta that
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 12
Defendant [1] asserts that the provision of this law authorizes only that substantial assistance can be rewarded after it is rendered; It in no way authorizes the government to make a deal for testimony before it is given, as the Government has clearly done in this case. Consequently this statute cannot justify the government's deals with the witnesses in this case before the court. 3.) The Government claim's is that "No practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime for which the defendant is charged and having that witness ..... testify under a plea bargain that promises him a reduced sentence." Once again the plaintiff had intentionally left out the rest of United States v. Singleton, 165 F. 3d 1297, 1301 (1oth Or. 1999) in which states, "This ingrained practice of buying testimony indicates that suppression is necessary to compel respect for the statutory protections Congress has placed around testimony infederal courts. Exclusion is also necessary to remove the incentive to disregard the statute. See [Calandra, 414 Us. at 347 (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 Us. 206, 217 (1960) (quoting US v. Singleton)]. "The benefits of deterrence outweigh the evil of excluding relevant evidence, and the balance falls heavily infavor of suppression". a.) The Government goes on to say that "Furthermore the weighing of evidence, the reconciliation of inconsistent testimony, and the assessment of a witness' credibility is solely within the province ofthe jury." b.) The Government claims that defendants motion provides no grounds for the exclusion of witness testimony and that the credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly with the sole province of the jury and the defendants request for pretrial exclusion of
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 12
evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the Government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or in law. The Defendant [1] disagrees, see ref: "The promise of intangible benefits imports as great a threat to a witness's truthfulness as a cash payment. " See [United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F 2d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 1987)] (lilt is difficult to imagine a greater motivation to lie than the inducement of a reduced sentence .... "), cert. denied, 484
u.s. 1026
(1988); Schwartz, 785 F2d
at 680 ("A violation of trust which is influenced by the offer of an intangible service is no less damaging ... than if the influence was in the form of a cash kickback. "); United States v. Meinster, 619 F2d 1041, 1045 (4th Cir. 1980) ("We think it obvious that promises of immunity or leniency premised on cooperation in a particular case may provide a strong inducement to falsify in that case. "); see also United States v. Kimble, 719 F2d 1253, 1255-57 (5th Cir. 1983) (stating witness "admitted lying in over thirty different statements motivated by his sense of selfpreservation" under plea arrangement requiring his testimony in return for lenient sentence), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 (1984). 4.) Government claims that several cooperating witnesses and an undercover police officer are expected to testify that they informed the defendant that the items that they were offering to sell defendant were stolen. The Defendant [1] asserts that the items sold by the undercover officer were indeed not stolen. Nor did the Officer state that his items were "stolen Property." Defendant is prepared to show proof to the court that indeed the Defendant did directly question the undercover officer about whether the items were stolen, and that parts of the conversation that would be exculpatory for the Defendant have been edited from the Audio of the video. Tainted testimony as to any direct conversations between defendant [1] and non-credible witnesses bribed by the
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 12
Government should be inadmissible as hearsay and has no place before ajury. The district court must at least make preliminary factual findings on the record regarding the admissibility of the statements. See United States v. Perez, 989 F2d 1574,1580 (lOth Cir. 1993) (en bane). 5.) The Government states that the issue ofthe credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly within the sole province of the jury and the defendant's request for pretrial exclusion of evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or law. a). The Defendant [1] states that the witnesses in this case before this court clearly fall within the "Exclusionary Rule." "The principal reason behind the adoption of the exclusionary rule was the Government's failure to observe its own laws. " United States v. Russell, 411 Us. 423, 430 (1973) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 Us. 643, 659 (1961)). The exclusionary rule has been applied to constitutional, statutory, and procedural rule violations to deter unlawful conduct. See United States v. Blue, 384 Us. 251, 255 (l966). b). If the Governments Assistant U.S. Attorneys were to be allowed to present tainted witnesses before a Federal Jury the U.S. Attorneys would clearly be in violation of Kansas Professional Rule 3.4(b). Because clearly the promise ofleniency, years of freedom after a Federal conviction and sentencing, or not having serious charges added to an indictment are all an incentive to lie. The rule, adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, provides, "A lawyer shall not ... offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(b) (1997). This court must exclude any and all of the witnesses, due to the fact they have been tainted, in this case before this court, because clearly their testimony would be unreliable. Agreements to seek leniency, allow freedom after bond violations and Federal crime
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 5
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 12
conviction, or refrain from filing charges in return for testimony are entered into with the intention of presenting to a court the testimony so acquired. Excluding that tainted testimony removes the sole purpose of the unlawful conduct and leaves no incentive to violate § 201 ©(2). Cf. id. See Ref: USA v. Singleton (lOth cir. 1999) Courts will not be made party to lawlessness by permitting unhindered use of the fruits of illegality. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 (1968); Mapp, 367
u.s.
1, 12-13
u.s. at 660."But
we have found no case in which prosecutors, in their role as
lawyers representing the government after the initiation of criminal proceedings, have been granted a justification to violate generally applicable laws. " See United States v. Ryans, 903 F 2d 731, 739-40 (10th Cir.) (Holding that disciplinary rule applies to prosecutors upon commencement of criminal proceedings), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855 (1990). c.) The United states submits that the Government will be able to establish the defendant's "habitual pattern" of purchasing new, in the box items from regular customers at prices far below retail, allowing the reasonable inference to be drawn by the fact-finders that the defendant knew or should have known that the items she was buying were stolen had she not deliberately closed her eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to her. d). The Government has presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Defendant [1] had any knowledge that any of the items were stolen. Nor can a witness testify as to the state of mind of Defendant [1]. As most of the witnesses did not even know Defendants [1]'s name. The Government has already stated that the newer or new items brought in by sellers were purchased by the Defendant [1] at 50-80% of the retail value, (which is nowhere near "far below retail.)" All items purchased by the business were paid for by check. There is no evidence to establish the items were stolen, or that the Defendant would have knowledge of such, there were no theft reports or victims on file with the Lawrence Police Dept. connected to Defendant [1] or
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 7 of 12
[2] or the Business; Yellow House Quality Used Appliances Incorporated, search warrants.
at the time of the first
6.) The Defendant [1] however argues the Government has overstepped its bounds, and made a mockery of what Congress had intended when allowing for testimony under plea deals. See witness interrogation; (Parsons Video interrogation interviews, (Video 01)(R -1) Thurs. Oct. 12, 2006) And Parsons Interview 01(Camera 1) Thurs Oct. 19,2006.)) This witness is a
convicted felon caught in possession of3 firearms, sold an AK-47 Assault rifle, Narcotics and stolen property to an undercover officer and was not charged for the crimes in exchange for his agreement to testify that he conspired to conceal the conspiracy in the property case against Defendant [1]. To meet the ends of Justice for his promised testimony Mr. Parsons along with other witnesses have pled guilty to Federal crimes, have already been sentenced to Federal Prison, yet remain free, and have continued to flaunt the law with criminal acts while free on bond as payment for their promised testimony. Our Government is like the King. It demands respect from the people beneath it, it teaches people by its own example. If our Government condones people to break laws, then its people will have no respect for its law. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law "the end justifies the means" would mean this Court condones that this Government allows criminal acts in order to secure the conviction of a criminal would be a Perversion of everything our Forefathers stood for and our Country's soldiers have died for. Reply on the Footnote #2: Footnote 2) The Government states that the defendant's claim that the government has "offered money to its witnesses to manufacture a case" (doc. 227 at P 5) is incorrect. The Defendant asserts that this is an attempt by the Government to mislead the court. The Defendant [1] has
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 7
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 8 of 12
been informed by a number of witnesses that money was offered to them by the Government in exchange for their participation in the manufacturing of this case. [See ref Attach 1] a).Laura claims in her affidavit that someone within the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered her money to assist in the manufacturing of this case, in which is in violation ofFRE § 609 (a) (1) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b) . . "We must balance the good of preventing future unlawful conduct with the evil of disallowing relevant evidence of guilt in an individual case". See United States v. Duchi, 944 F 2d, 391, 396 (8th Or. 1991). b). "To permit this unlawfully obtained evidence "to be made the basis of a conviction in the federal courts would stultify the policy which Congress has enacted into law." United States v. Mitchell, 322 Us. 65, 67 (1944) (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 Us. 332, 345 (1943). Whereby the Defendant [1] is correct in her Motion to Exclude Witnesses, in which need to be either suppressed or excluded. [See ref Attachment 1- Affidavit of Laura Helm dated 04/22/06] The Defendant [1] has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses should be excluded due to the Plaintiffs intentional misrepresentation before this tribunal.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1] is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. Wherefore for all the reasons set forth in the above referenced Reply, the Defendant [1] respectfully requests that the court deny the Governments response and exclude all witnesses pursuant to FRE § 609 (a) (I) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b).
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 8
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 9 of 12
Respectfully submitted,
ca~~Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 9
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 10 of 12
/
WOOD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC.
:"FFIDA VIT
1. Laura Helm. oflawful
age. being fully sworn upon oath, states;
That. in early March 2006. I was contacted by two men while I was staying at my brother's fRay Mayberry'} residence Ioested at 2200 Harper. C-44 Lawrence. Ks, I am unsure of the date. but I do recall it was several weeksago and it was during the week. (
believe. but 1 am not certain. that the date these two men contacted was March 6. !006 between 9:00 a.m .• 10:00 a.m. and interviewed me
Th;ll. these two men. approached my residence and asked (0 speak with me. 1can best describe the first man as a w/m. 5'05". a little belly and short spiky blonde hair. This man did most of the talking during our contact. He said his name. which ( do not
recall. and 'laid Ihey worked with the "Federal Bureau of Investigation." He did not say '. 3\ .1f\1~he ~tlid ,n.: entire bureau name, The second rnan was a w/m. short dark hair.
0'0" and a bigger build than the first man. The second man did Dot say much. The second man did tell me I was not in trouble. but Guy and Carrie Neighbors were. Both men were similarty dressed in slacks and shins. They both wore a badge on their belts and had guns in holsters made of light color leather that was also worn on their waist.
Ther, the first man told me r "had to talk to them." I asked him ifit "had to be today:' He said it did not have to be today and they agreed \0 come back the following dav These ,\m,"e~ retuned th.: ~le}(l ,iay imJ pick c me up in 'I ·jark Hue '1 'v !~r.'~' "j vemcle. ~Jtd not want ttl go with them. but feit trom the way they were acting that ( did not have ~I choice. They drove me to the Lawrence Police Department at 11,h and Massachusetts Street. Lawrence, KS, We went inside the building through an outside door. , n't'all the men entering in a :J15S code to the interior dOM that allowed us inside the police JepilClTTlCnl. '"Ye went into an interview room where both men talked to me. Thev ques(loned me about irerns I haLl sold to the Yellow House in the past. Thev told me ;hey okained my nome through checks that were written by the Yellow House .• That, after th~;' questioned me for an hour to an hour and a half. they then drove me back to my house. During the drive home they gave me a business card with gold lettering on it. I have misplaced that ':8«1. They (old me (0 call if I decided to work for them on the Yellow House case. They offered me $50.00 for each time I would be willing to attempt t? se]1 stolen items to the Yellow House,
•
1.
Untitled
Page 20 of 20
II
~'''-.
I.
•
me __
lbIt. I did ooi' r.t ~ J hid • cboiee m dill ~ •• or 1 \YOWd ba'IC •••• iD wubIe.
wIIh "._
IICIIIlld io 10 fD
Tbtt. bec8U~ I em "" probMil'l).I COQUlacd my p~ QtHc;:c. 'liqrtey EddiiL . •••• flU Q)IlIICt.fIO ~ h&il •••••• 0GCUhd. H. 10Id AIr _ I ooaW •• be IaYolwd il\.1IN ~ wot'k. f'!lf' dw ~ice if I ••• to ••• 10 tiJr.t ~ order. I aeVIi'.., l1IIy or wo~ .• ida lilt poIioe and IOId 1blIiD11WMIld ••. . 11-. Police ()fflcas._
i.,,,,l
«' i.-.ti_
"r .:J.:rol! Uun:.w
blVc ••• IbeIe -iMt\ before •• I believe ~ •• Lawn=oce IIlltfirdmlliJp:t1tl. The:first m«n cl_I~' idendtwctbimseir. ~
.If In,cl$UpllQD.··
AnJAH17 SAYS NOT
t· c"\ Ll
I'
\0 •..•.•
1-.: ,.. 4
;! t
r>. http://docs.google.comIView?dooID=dgpt'72qd497~
jatalt
10l1f2008
<1'~'b~+\
..
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2] counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
c.~e~~·
Defendant [l} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 10
MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
07912297376
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 12
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
",'
if
,! .'
i"
'~';)
,"
~ '·t Hi")
I-
t: •.
3? ...•
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff, v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20t24-CM 08-20tOS-eM CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT HI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [lJ'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
COMES NOW on this
&th
day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. The Reply is as follows: 1.) In,-r 1, The Plaintiff states that "defendant's motion is without merit and should be denied in its entirety because rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings. However Defendant [1] asserts that the Plaintiffs reliance on that claim is misplaced." When in actuality the Defendant [1] can show that the Plaintiffs is both intentionally misleading, as well as, inaccurate in her statement before the court. Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 12
a). See Ref: The Fifth Circuit has held rule 408 applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. See United States v. Hays, 872 F2d 582,588-89 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that
Rule 408 applies in a criminal proceeding as well as a civil proceeding to bar The Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit evidence of a settlement agreement) Rule 408 may apply in a criminal proceeding. b). See also: United States v. Skeddle, 176 FR.D. 254, 256 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (disagreeing with government's argument that Rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings, noting that H[n]othing in Rule 408 limits its application to civil litigation that was preceded by or included settlement negotiations'') and State v. Gano, 92 Hawai'i 161, 988 P.2d 1153, 1159-60 (Haw.1999) (discussing cases and concluding that "Rule 408 does apply in criminal proceedings ''). 2). Also note for the record, that the plaintiff has also intentionally left out 408 (b), in which states, "Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a) Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation." In which is so in this cause of action, whereby, this would not only disprove the Plaintiffs theory but assist the Defendant [1] in her ability to use Rule 408. a). The Government also states: "Clearly Rule 408 does not bar evidence of offers of leniency in exchange for truthful testimony or substantial assistance within the meaning of USSG § 5K1.1", in which states: "The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include ... the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant. "Id. at § 5K1.1 (a),(2). suggested in dicta that
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 12
Defendant [1] asserts that the provision of this law authorizes only that substantial assistance can be rewarded after it is rendered; It in no way authorizes the government to make a deal for testimony before it is given, as the Government has clearly done in this case. Consequently this statute cannot justify the government's deals with the witnesses in this case before the court. 3.) The Government claim's is that "No practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime for which the defendant is charged and having that witness ..... testify under a plea bargain that promises him a reduced sentence." Once again the plaintiff had intentionally left out the rest of United States v. Singleton, 165 F. 3d 1297, 1301 (1oth Or. 1999) in which states, "This ingrained practice of buying testimony indicates that suppression is necessary to compel respect for the statutory protections Congress has placed around testimony in federal courts. Exclusion is also necessary to remove the incentive to disregard the statute. See [Calandra, 414 Us. at 347 (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 Us. 206, 217 (1960) (quoting US v. Singleton)]. "The benefits of deterrence outweigh the evil of excluding relevant evidence, and the balance falls heavily in favor of suppression". a.) The Government goes on to say that "Furthermore the weighing of evidence, the reconciliation of inconsistent testimony, and the assessment of a witness' credibility is solely within the province of the jury." b.) The Government claims that defendants motion provides no grounds for the exclusion of witness testimony and that the credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly with the sole province of the jury and the defendants request for pretrial exclusion of
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 12
evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the Government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or in law. The Defendant [1] disagrees, see ref: "The promise of intangible benefits imports as great a threat to a witness's truthfulness as a cash payment. " See [United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F 2d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 1987)] (lilt is difficult to imagine a greater motivation to lie than the inducement of a reduced sentence .... "), cert. denied, 484
u.s. 1026
(1988); Schwartz, 785 F2d
at 680 ("A violation of trust which is influenced by the offer of an intangible service is no less damaging ... than if the influence was in the form of a cash kickback. "); United States v. Meinster, 619 F2d 1041, 1045 (4th Cir. 1980) ("We think it obvious that promises of immunity or leniency premised on cooperation in a particular case may provide a strong inducement to falsify in that case. "); see also United States v. Kimble, 719 F2d 1253, 1255-57 (5th Cir. 1983) (stating witness "admitted lying in over thirty different statements motivated by his sense of selfpreservation" under plea arrangement requiring his testimony in return for lenient sentence), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 (1984). 4.) Government claims that several cooperating witnesses and an undercover police officer are expected to testify that they informed the defendant that the items that they were offering to sell defendant were stolen. The Defendant [1] asserts that the items sold by the undercover officer were indeed not stolen. Nor did the Officer state that his items were "stolen Property." Defendant is prepared to show proof to the court that indeed the Defendant did directly question the undercover officer about whether the items were stolen, and that parts of the conversation that would be exculpatory for the Defendant have been edited from the Audio of the video. Tainted testimony as to any direct conversations between defendant [1] and non-credible witnesses bribed by the
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 12
Government should be inadmissible as hearsay and has no place before ajury. The district court must at least make preliminary factual findings on the record regarding the admissibility of the statements. See United States v. Perez, 989 F2d 1574,1580 (lOth Cir. 1993) (en bane). 5.) The Government states that the issue ofthe credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly within the sole province of the jury and the defendant's request for pretrial exclusion of evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or law. a). The Defendant [1] states that the witnesses in this case before this court clearly fall within the "Exclusionary Rule." "The principal reason behind the adoption of the exclusionary rule was the Government's failure to observe its own laws. " United States v. Russell, 411 Us. 423, 430 (1973) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 Us. 643, 659 (1961)). The exclusionary rule has been applied to constitutional, statutory, and procedural rule violations to deter unlawful conduct. See United States v. Blue, 384 Us. 251, 255 (l966). b). If the Governments Assistant U.S. Attorneys were to be allowed to present tainted witnesses before a Federal Jury the U.S. Attorneys would clearly be in violation of Kansas Professional Rule 3.4(b). Because clearly the promise ofleniency, years of freedom after a Federal conviction and sentencing, or not having serious charges added to an indictment are all an incentive to lie. The rule, adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, provides, "A lawyer shall not ... offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(b) (1997). This court must exclude any and all of the witnesses, due to the fact they have been tainted, in this case before this court, because clearly their testimony would be unreliable. Agreements to seek leniency, allow freedom after bond violations and Federal crime
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 5
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 12
conviction, or refrain from filing charges in return for testimony are entered into with the intention of presenting to a court the testimony so acquired. Excluding that tainted testimony removes the sole purpose of the unlawful conduct and leaves no incentive to violate § 201 ©(2). Cf. id. See Ref: USA v. Singleton (lOth cir. 1999) Courts will not be made party to lawlessness by permitting unhindered use of the fruits of illegality. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 (1968); Mapp, 367
u.s.
1, 12-13
u.s. at 660."But
we have found no case in which prosecutors, in their role as
lawyers representing the government after the initiation of criminal proceedings, have been granted a justification to violate generally applicable laws. " See United States v. Ryans, 903 F 2d 731, 739-40 (10th Cir.) (Holding that disciplinary rule applies to prosecutors upon commencement of criminal proceedings), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855 (1990). c.) The United states submits that the Government will be able to establish the defendant's "habitual pattern" of purchasing new, in the box items from regular customers at prices far below retail, allowing the reasonable inference to be drawn by the fact-finders that the defendant knew or should have known that the items she was buying were stolen had she not deliberately closed her eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to her. d). The Government has presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Defendant [1] had any knowledge that any of the items were stolen. Nor can a witness testify as to the state of mind of Defendant [1]. As most of the witnesses did not even know Defendants [1]'s name. The Government has already stated that the newer or new items brought in by sellers were purchased by the Defendant [1] at 50-80% of the retail value, (which is nowhere near "far below retail.)" All items purchased by the business were paid for by check. There is no evidence to establish the items were stolen, or that the Defendant would have knowledge of such, there were no theft reports or victims on file with the Lawrence Police Dept. connected to Defendant [1] or
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 7 of 12
[2] or the Business; Yellow House Quality Used Appliances Incorporated, search warrants.
at the time of the first
6.) The Defendant [1] however argues the Government has overstepped its bounds, and made a mockery of what Congress had intended when allowing for testimony under plea deals. See witness interrogation; (Parsons Video interrogation interviews, (Video 01)(R -1) Thurs. Oct. 12, 2006) And Parsons Interview 01(Camera 1) Thurs Oct. 19,2006.)) This witness is a
convicted felon caught in possession of3 firearms, sold an AK-47 Assault rifle, Narcotics and stolen property to an undercover officer and was not charged for the crimes in exchange for his agreement to testify that he conspired to conceal the conspiracy in the property case against Defendant [1]. To meet the ends of Justice for his promised testimony Mr. Parsons along with other witnesses have pled guilty to Federal crimes, have already been sentenced to Federal Prison, yet remain free, and have continued to flaunt the law with criminal acts while free on bond as payment for their promised testimony. Our Government is like the King. It demands respect from the people beneath it, it teaches people by its own example. If our Government condones people to break laws, then its people will have no respect for its law. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law "the end justifies the means" would mean this Court condones that this Government allows criminal acts in order to secure the conviction of a criminal would be a Perversion of everything our Forefathers stood for and our Country's soldiers have died for. Reply on the Footnote #2: Footnote 2) The Government states that the defendant's claim that the government has "offered money to its witnesses to manufacture a case" (doc. 227 at P 5) is incorrect. The Defendant asserts that this is an attempt by the Government to mislead the court. The Defendant [1] has
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 7
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 8 of 12
been informed by a number of witnesses that money was offered to them by the Government in exchange for their participation in the manufacturing of this case. [See ref Attach 1] a).Laura claims in her affidavit that someone within the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered her money to assist in the manufacturing of this case, in which is in violation ofFRE § 609 (a) (1) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b) . . "We must balance the good of preventing future unlawful conduct with the evil of disallowing relevant evidence of guilt in an individual case". See United States v. Duchi, 944 F 2d, 391, 396 (8th Or. 1991). b). "To permit this unlawfully obtained evidence "to be made the basis of a conviction in the federal courts would stultify the policy which Congress has enacted into law." United States v. Mitchell, 322 Us. 65, 67 (1944) (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 Us. 332, 345 (1943). Whereby the Defendant [1] is correct in her Motion to Exclude Witnesses, in which need to be either suppressed or excluded. [See ref Attachment 1- Affidavit of Laura Helm dated 04/22/06] The Defendant [1] has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses should be excluded due to the Plaintiffs intentional misrepresentation before this tribunal.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1] is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. Wherefore for all the reasons set forth in the above referenced Reply, the Defendant [1] respectfully requests that the court deny the Governments response and exclude all witnesses pursuant to FRE § 609 (a) (I) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b).
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 8
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 9 of 12
Respectfully submitted,
ca~~Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 9
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 10 of 12
/
WOOD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC.
:"FFIDA VIT
1. Laura Helm. oflawful
age. being fully sworn upon oath, states;
That. in early March 2006. I was contacted by two men while I was staying at my brother's fRay Mayberry'} residence Ioested at 2200 Harper. C-44 Lawrence. Ks, I am unsure of the date. but I do recall it was several weeksago and it was during the week. (
believe. but 1 am not certain. that the date these two men contacted was March 6. !006 between 9:00 a.m .• 10:00 a.m. and interviewed me
Th;ll. these two men. approached my residence and asked (0 speak with me. 1can best describe the first man as a w/m. 5'05". a little belly and short spiky blonde hair. This man did most of the talking during our contact. He said his name. which ( do not
recall. and 'laid Ihey worked with the "Federal Bureau of Investigation." He did not say '. 3\ .1f\1~he ~tlid ,n.: entire bureau name, The second rnan was a w/m. short dark hair.
0'0" and a bigger build than the first man. The second man did Dot say much. The second man did tell me I was not in trouble. but Guy and Carrie Neighbors were. Both men were similarty dressed in slacks and shins. They both wore a badge on their belts and had guns in holsters made of light color leather that was also worn on their waist.
Ther, the first man told me r "had to talk to them." I asked him ifit "had to be today:' He said it did not have to be today and they agreed \0 come back the following dav These ,\m,"e~ retuned th.: ~le}(l ,iay imJ pick c me up in 'I ·jark Hue '1 'v !~r.'~' "j vemcle. ~Jtd not want ttl go with them. but feit trom the way they were acting that ( did not have ~I choice. They drove me to the Lawrence Police Department at 11,h and Massachusetts Street. Lawrence, KS, We went inside the building through an outside door. , n't'all the men entering in a :J15S code to the interior dOM that allowed us inside the police JepilClTTlCnl. '"Ye went into an interview room where both men talked to me. Thev ques(loned me about irerns I haLl sold to the Yellow House in the past. Thev told me ;hey okained my nome through checks that were written by the Yellow House .• That, after th~;' questioned me for an hour to an hour and a half. they then drove me back to my house. During the drive home they gave me a business card with gold lettering on it. I have misplaced that ':8«1. They (old me (0 call if I decided to work for them on the Yellow House case. They offered me $50.00 for each time I would be willing to attempt t? se]1 stolen items to the Yellow House,
•
1.
Untitled
Page 20 of 20
II
~'''-.
I.
•
me __
lbIt. I did ooi' r.t ~ J hid • cboiee m dill ~ •• or 1 \YOWd ba'IC •••• iD wubIe.
wIIh "._
IICIIIlld io 10 fD
Tbtt. bec8U~ I em "" probMil'l).I COQUlacd my p~ QtHc;:c. 'liqrtey EddiiL . •••• flU Q)IlIICt.fIO ~ h&il •••••• 0GCUhd. H. 10Id AIr _ I ooaW •• be IaYolwd il\.1IN ~ wot'k. f'!lf' dw ~ice if I ••• to ••• 10 tiJr.t ~ order. I aeVIi'.., l1IIy or wo~ .• ida lilt poIioe and IOId 1blIiD11WMIld ••. . 11-. Police ()fflcas._
i.,,,,l
«' i.-.ti_
"r .:J.:rol! Uun:.w
blVc ••• IbeIe -iMt\ before •• I believe ~ •• Lawn=oce IIlltfirdmlliJp:t1tl. The:first m«n cl_I~' idendtwctbimseir. ~
.If In,cl$UpllQD.··
AnJAH17 SAYS NOT
t· c"\ Ll
I'
\0 •..•.•
1-.: ,.. 4
;! t
r>. http://docs.google.comIView?dooID=dgpt'72qd497~
jatalt
10l1f2008
<1'~'b~+\
..
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2] counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
c.~e~~·
Defendant [l} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 10
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 12
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
",'
if
,! .'
i"
'~';)
,"
~ '·t Hi")
I-
t: •.
3? ...•
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff, v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20t24-CM 08-20tOS-eM CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT HI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [lJ'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
COMES NOW on this
&th
day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. The Reply is as follows: 1.) In,-r 1, The Plaintiff states that "defendant's motion is without merit and should be denied in its entirety because rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings. However Defendant [1] asserts that the Plaintiffs reliance on that claim is misplaced." When in actuality the Defendant [1] can show that the Plaintiffs is both intentionally misleading, as well as, inaccurate in her statement before the court. Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 12
a). See Ref: The Fifth Circuit has held rule 408 applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. See United States v. Hays, 872 F2d 582,588-89 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that
Rule 408 applies in a criminal proceeding as well as a civil proceeding to bar The Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit evidence of a settlement agreement) Rule 408 may apply in a criminal proceeding. b). See also: United States v. Skeddle, 176 FR.D. 254, 256 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (disagreeing with government's argument that Rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings, noting that H[n]othing in Rule 408 limits its application to civil litigation that was preceded by or included settlement negotiations'') and State v. Gano, 92 Hawai'i 161, 988 P.2d 1153, 1159-60 (Haw.1999) (discussing cases and concluding that "Rule 408 does apply in criminal proceedings ''). 2). Also note for the record, that the plaintiff has also intentionally left out 408 (b), in which states, "Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a) Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation." In which is so in this cause of action, whereby, this would not only disprove the Plaintiffs theory but assist the Defendant [1] in her ability to use Rule 408. a). The Government also states: "Clearly Rule 408 does not bar evidence of offers of leniency in exchange for truthful testimony or substantial assistance within the meaning of USSG § 5K1.1", in which states: "The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include ... the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant. "Id. at § 5K1.1 (a),(2). suggested in dicta that
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 12
Defendant [1] asserts that the provision of this law authorizes only that substantial assistance can be rewarded after it is rendered; It in no way authorizes the government to make a deal for testimony before it is given, as the Government has clearly done in this case. Consequently this statute cannot justify the government's deals with the witnesses in this case before the court. 3.) The Government claim's is that "No practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime for which the defendant is charged and having that witness ..... testify under a plea bargain that promises him a reduced sentence." Once again the plaintiff had intentionally left out the rest of United States v. Singleton, 165 F. 3d 1297, 1301 (1oth Or. 1999) in which states, "This ingrained practice of buying testimony indicates that suppression is necessary to compel respect for the statutory protections Congress has placed around testimony in federal courts. Exclusion is also necessary to remove the incentive to disregard the statute. See [Calandra, 414 Us. at 347 (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 Us. 206, 217 (1960) (quoting US v. Singleton)]. "The benefits of deterrence outweigh the evil of excluding relevant evidence, and the balance falls heavily in favor of suppression". a.) The Government goes on to say that "Furthermore the weighing of evidence, the reconciliation of inconsistent testimony, and the assessment of a witness' credibility is solely within the province of the jury." b.) The Government claims that defendants motion provides no grounds for the exclusion of witness testimony and that the credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly with the sole province of the jury and the defendants request for pretrial exclusion of
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 12
evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the Government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or in law. The Defendant [1] disagrees, see ref: "The promise of intangible benefits imports as great a threat to a witness's truthfulness as a cash payment. " See [United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F 2d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 1987)] (lilt is difficult to imagine a greater motivation to lie than the inducement of a reduced sentence .... "), cert. denied, 484
u.s. 1026
(1988); Schwartz, 785 F2d
at 680 ("A violation of trust which is influenced by the offer of an intangible service is no less damaging ... than if the influence was in the form of a cash kickback. "); United States v. Meinster, 619 F2d 1041, 1045 (4th Cir. 1980) ("We think it obvious that promises of immunity or leniency premised on cooperation in a particular case may provide a strong inducement to falsify in that case. "); see also United States v. Kimble, 719 F2d 1253, 1255-57 (5th Cir. 1983) (stating witness "admitted lying in over thirty different statements motivated by his sense of selfpreservation" under plea arrangement requiring his testimony in return for lenient sentence), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 (1984). 4.) Government claims that several cooperating witnesses and an undercover police officer are expected to testify that they informed the defendant that the items that they were offering to sell defendant were stolen. The Defendant [1] asserts that the items sold by the undercover officer were indeed not stolen. Nor did the Officer state that his items were "stolen Property." Defendant is prepared to show proof to the court that indeed the Defendant did directly question the undercover officer about whether the items were stolen, and that parts of the conversation that would be exculpatory for the Defendant have been edited from the Audio of the video. Tainted testimony as to any direct conversations between defendant [1] and non-credible witnesses bribed by the
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 12
Government should be inadmissible as hearsay and has no place before ajury. The district court must at least make preliminary factual findings on the record regarding the admissibility of the statements. See United States v. Perez, 989 F2d 1574,1580 (lOth Cir. 1993) (en bane). 5.) The Government states that the issue ofthe credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases is clearly within the sole province of the jury and the defendant's request for pretrial exclusion of evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or law. a). The Defendant [1] states that the witnesses in this case before this court clearly fall within the "Exclusionary Rule." "The principal reason behind the adoption of the exclusionary rule was the Government's failure to observe its own laws. " United States v. Russell, 411 Us. 423, 430 (1973) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 Us. 643, 659 (1961)). The exclusionary rule has been applied to constitutional, statutory, and procedural rule violations to deter unlawful conduct. See United States v. Blue, 384 Us. 251, 255 (l966). b). If the Governments Assistant U.S. Attorneys were to be allowed to present tainted witnesses before a Federal Jury the U.S. Attorneys would clearly be in violation of Kansas Professional Rule 3.4(b). Because clearly the promise ofleniency, years of freedom after a Federal conviction and sentencing, or not having serious charges added to an indictment are all an incentive to lie. The rule, adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, provides, "A lawyer shall not ... offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(b) (1997). This court must exclude any and all of the witnesses, due to the fact they have been tainted, in this case before this court, because clearly their testimony would be unreliable. Agreements to seek leniency, allow freedom after bond violations and Federal crime
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 5
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 12
conviction, or refrain from filing charges in return for testimony are entered into with the intention of presenting to a court the testimony so acquired. Excluding that tainted testimony removes the sole purpose of the unlawful conduct and leaves no incentive to violate § 201 ©(2). Cf. id. See Ref: USA v. Singleton (lOth cir. 1999) Courts will not be made party to lawlessness by permitting unhindered use of the fruits of illegality. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 (1968); Mapp, 367
u.s.
1, 12-13
u.s. at 660."But
we have found no case in which prosecutors, in their role as
lawyers representing the government after the initiation of criminal proceedings, have been granted a justification to violate generally applicable laws. " See United States v. Ryans, 903 F 2d 731, 739-40 (10th Cir.) (Holding that disciplinary rule applies to prosecutors upon commencement of criminal proceedings), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855 (1990). c.) The United states submits that the Government will be able to establish the defendant's "habitual pattern" of purchasing new, in the box items from regular customers at prices far below retail, allowing the reasonable inference to be drawn by the fact-finders that the defendant knew or should have known that the items she was buying were stolen had she not deliberately closed her eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to her. d). The Government has presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Defendant [1] had any knowledge that any of the items were stolen. Nor can a witness testify as to the state of mind of Defendant [1]. As most of the witnesses did not even know Defendants [1]'s name. The Government has already stated that the newer or new items brought in by sellers were purchased by the Defendant [1] at 50-80% of the retail value, (which is nowhere near "far below retail.)" All items purchased by the business were paid for by check. There is no evidence to establish the items were stolen, or that the Defendant would have knowledge of such, there were no theft reports or victims on file with the Lawrence Police Dept. connected to Defendant [1] or
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 7 of 12
[2] or the Business; Yellow House Quality Used Appliances Incorporated, search warrants.
at the time of the first
6.) The Defendant [1] however argues the Government has overstepped its bounds, and made a mockery of what Congress had intended when allowing for testimony under plea deals. See witness interrogation; (Parsons Video interrogation interviews, (Video 01)(R -1) Thurs. Oct. 12, 2006) And Parsons Interview 01(Camera 1) Thurs Oct. 19,2006.)) This witness is a
convicted felon caught in possession of3 firearms, sold an AK-47 Assault rifle, Narcotics and stolen property to an undercover officer and was not charged for the crimes in exchange for his agreement to testify that he conspired to conceal the conspiracy in the property case against Defendant [1]. To meet the ends of Justice for his promised testimony Mr. Parsons along with other witnesses have pled guilty to Federal crimes, have already been sentenced to Federal Prison, yet remain free, and have continued to flaunt the law with criminal acts while free on bond as payment for their promised testimony. Our Government is like the King. It demands respect from the people beneath it, it teaches people by its own example. If our Government condones people to break laws, then its people will have no respect for its law. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law "the end justifies the means" would mean this Court condones that this Government allows criminal acts in order to secure the conviction of a criminal would be a Perversion of everything our Forefathers stood for and our Country's soldiers have died for. Reply on the Footnote #2: Footnote 2) The Government states that the defendant's claim that the government has "offered money to its witnesses to manufacture a case" (doc. 227 at P 5) is incorrect. The Defendant asserts that this is an attempt by the Government to mislead the court. The Defendant [1] has
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 7
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 8 of 12
been informed by a number of witnesses that money was offered to them by the Government in exchange for their participation in the manufacturing of this case. [See ref Attach 1] a).Laura claims in her affidavit that someone within the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered her money to assist in the manufacturing of this case, in which is in violation ofFRE § 609 (a) (1) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b) . . "We must balance the good of preventing future unlawful conduct with the evil of disallowing relevant evidence of guilt in an individual case". See United States v. Duchi, 944 F 2d, 391, 396 (8th Or. 1991). b). "To permit this unlawfully obtained evidence "to be made the basis of a conviction in the federal courts would stultify the policy which Congress has enacted into law." United States v. Mitchell, 322 Us. 65, 67 (1944) (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 Us. 332, 345 (1943). Whereby the Defendant [1] is correct in her Motion to Exclude Witnesses, in which need to be either suppressed or excluded. [See ref Attachment 1- Affidavit of Laura Helm dated 04/22/06] The Defendant [1] has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses should be excluded due to the Plaintiffs intentional misrepresentation before this tribunal.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1] is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. Wherefore for all the reasons set forth in the above referenced Reply, the Defendant [1] respectfully requests that the court deny the Governments response and exclude all witnesses pursuant to FRE § 609 (a) (I) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b).
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 8
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 9 of 12
Respectfully submitted,
ca~~Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 9
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 10 of 12
/
WOOD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC.
:"FFIDA VIT
1. Laura Helm. oflawful
age. being fully sworn upon oath, states;
That. in early March 2006. I was contacted by two men while I was staying at my brother's fRay Mayberry'} residence Ioested at 2200 Harper. C-44 Lawrence. Ks, I am unsure of the date. but I do recall it was several weeksago and it was during the week. (
believe. but 1 am not certain. that the date these two men contacted was March 6. !006 between 9:00 a.m .• 10:00 a.m. and interviewed me
Th;ll. these two men. approached my residence and asked (0 speak with me. 1can best describe the first man as a w/m. 5'05". a little belly and short spiky blonde hair. This man did most of the talking during our contact. He said his name. which ( do not
recall. and 'laid Ihey worked with the "Federal Bureau of Investigation." He did not say '. 3\ .1f\1~he ~tlid ,n.: entire bureau name, The second rnan was a w/m. short dark hair.
0'0" and a bigger build than the first man. The second man did Dot say much. The second man did tell me I was not in trouble. but Guy and Carrie Neighbors were. Both men were similarty dressed in slacks and shins. They both wore a badge on their belts and had guns in holsters made of light color leather that was also worn on their waist.
Ther, the first man told me r "had to talk to them." I asked him ifit "had to be today:' He said it did not have to be today and they agreed \0 come back the following dav These ,\m,"e~ retuned th.: ~le}(l ,iay imJ pick c me up in 'I ·jark Hue '1 'v !~r.'~' "j vemcle. ~Jtd not want ttl go with them. but feit trom the way they were acting that ( did not have ~I choice. They drove me to the Lawrence Police Department at 11,h and Massachusetts Street. Lawrence, KS, We went inside the building through an outside door. , n't'all the men entering in a :J15S code to the interior dOM that allowed us inside the police JepilClTTlCnl. '"Ye went into an interview room where both men talked to me. Thev ques(loned me about irerns I haLl sold to the Yellow House in the past. Thev told me ;hey okained my nome through checks that were written by the Yellow House .• That, after th~;' questioned me for an hour to an hour and a half. they then drove me back to my house. During the drive home they gave me a business card with gold lettering on it. I have misplaced that ':8«1. They (old me (0 call if I decided to work for them on the Yellow House case. They offered me $50.00 for each time I would be willing to attempt t? se]1 stolen items to the Yellow House,
•
1.
Untitled
Page 20 of 20
II
~'''-.
I.
•
me __
lbIt. I did ooi' r.t ~ J hid • cboiee m dill ~ •• or 1 \YOWd ba'IC •••• iD wubIe.
wIIh "._
IICIIIlld io 10 fD
Tbtt. bec8U~ I em "" probMil'l).I COQUlacd my p~ QtHc;:c. 'liqrtey EddiiL . •••• flU Q)IlIICt.fIO ~ h&il •••••• 0GCUhd. H. 10Id AIr _ I ooaW •• be IaYolwd il\.1IN ~ wot'k. f'!lf' dw ~ice if I ••• to ••• 10 tiJr.t ~ order. I aeVIi'.., l1IIy or wo~ .• ida lilt poIioe and IOId 1blIiD11WMIld ••. . 11-. Police ()fflcas._
i.,,,,l
«' i.-.ti_
"r .:J.:rol! Uun:.w
blVc ••• IbeIe -iMt\ before •• I believe ~ •• Lawn=oce IIlltfirdmlliJp:t1tl. The:first m«n cl_I~' idendtwctbimseir. ~
.If In,cl$UpllQD.··
AnJAH17 SAYS NOT
t· c"\ Ll
I'
\0 •..•.•
1-.: ,.. 4
;! t
r>. http://docs.google.comIView?dooID=dgpt'72qd497~
jatalt
10l1f2008
<1'~'b~+\
..
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 172
Filed 07/06/10
Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2] counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
c.~e~~·
Defendant [l} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Governments
Response to Defendant
[1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses
Page 10
Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
07912297385
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 6
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM OS-20t05-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT [IrS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [IJ'S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE COMES NOW on this 6th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [I]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence. The Reply is as follows: 1). The Defendant [1] requests that the court take judicial notice that the Plaintiff had failed to specifically raise any objections in reference to the allegations by Defendant [1] as to police mishandling of evidence, destruction of evidence, failure to follow police procedures as to record a true and accurate document ofthe events during the investigation, or perjury, the affidavits were too vague for a warrant to be issued, as shown in the Defendant [1]'s Motion to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 6
dismiss evidence, whereby the Defendant [1] has proven by the undisputed facts that any and all evidence should be dismissed by order of this court. 2). In [Doc 257, , 3] the Plaintiff admits that the Plaintiff does not have a chain of custody, and did not have enough evidence to pursue an affidavit for a warrant, but will show at trial enough proof. First this presents a post facto (after the fact) situation, and second it violates the constitution and due process rights of the accused prior to the warrant being served. a.) The Affidavit for the warrant was improper, it failed to show any direct connection of criminal activity to the defendant [1] or her property, or others who were allegedly committing crimes outside of the defendant's knowledge or control. b.) The affidavit provides voluminous details of the alleged criminal activities of other individuals but fails to show why the criminal activity of others would justify a warrant to be served upon Defendant [1], and some of the incidents cited by affiant in the affidavit were in actuality exculpatory in nature. c.) Whereby it was insufficient grounds to apply for a proper search warrant. Therefore the Affidavit fails to meet the criteria or elements needed to secure a proper search warrant. 3.) "The Government submits that at the time of the trial it will establish, through officers who executed the search warrants and inventoried the items, the foundation for the admissibility of each exhibit, including chain of custody for each .... " As prior testimony by the Officers has already established, the evidence seized from the defendant [were] mishandled, not properly documented or logged into evidence, or destroyed by the same officers the Government makes reference to. The evidence logs have been altered with handwritten notes and additions, the Federal evidence the Government wants to present in this case before this court was not properly
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 6
documented with serial numbers or identification through the Bates system, items appearing in photo affidavits as [stolen] property returned to [rightful owner] cannot be found in evidence logs or photos. The Plaintiff states: ''Although the defendant seems to assert that in order to properly establish the chain of custody the items should be Bates stamped, she fails to cite to and the government cannot locate any legal authority for that claim. " In contrast to the Governments claim see referenced case in which the Judge required the Bates-numerical system be used. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)J "A piece of paper or electronically stored
information, without any indication of its creator, source, or custodian may not be authenticated
under Federal Rule of Evidence. " Federal evidence being held pending a Federal investigation by the Lawrence Police Dept., has been randomly given away to "alleged" victims, by the LKPD police officers who originally seized the items, (not Federal agents as mandated by law) absent any kind of hearing before a judge to establish rightful ownership, absent prior theft reports, without verification the item did indeed belong to the alleged victim, missing the mandatory photo affidavits or Identification documentation of the alleged victims, as required by LKPD policy and procedures for return of evidence. Whereby there is no way to verify the items seized from the business or home, are the same items referenced to in the evidence logs, are the same items in the evidence locker today, would be the same items brought before this court as evidence. The Plaintiff states, that although there is no proper chain of custody to protect the integrity of the evidence or this case, [Doc 257 ~ 3] "Through the testimony of the seizing officers, the government will establish the foundation necessary for the admission of these non-fungible exhibits. " 4). The requirement of authentication or identification is a condition precedent to admissibility. "If proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 6
change, the foundation need only consist of testimony confirming its relevance. It is when the evidence is susceptible to alteration that the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody of the item and sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or has been subjected to tampering or contamination"] US v. Cardenas 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (ldh Cir. 1989)]
5). Due to the (2) officers testimony the evidence was susceptible to alteration, in which the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody, in which also during the Federal Case, in which law requires any and all evidence be documented by the bates system, in which was not done in this cause of action, " ... the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate to the court that it is reasonably probably or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred "[See ref
us v. Ortiz, 966 F 2d 707(rt
Cir. 1992)].
Since the evidence was not properly documented, evidence logs have been altered, serial numbers were not documented and or changed, procedures were not followed, the Government will not be able to meet the burden of proof in this case before this court. Whereby the chain of custody has been broken, may not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence, which requires the Defendant [1] now must pray the court order dismissal of any and all evidence for the above referenced reasons. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)] JOHN M FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge: "In criminal cases, there is unfortunately no rule to which the courts can look for guidance in determining whether the production of documents by the government has been in aform or format that is appropriate. This may be because the "big paper" case is the exception rather than the rule in criminal cases. Be that as it may, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speakspecijica/ly to theform of production. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their present form are the product of nearly 70 years of use and have been consistently amended by advisory committees consisting of judges, practitioners, and distinguished academics to meet
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 6
perceived deficiencies. It isfoolish to disregard them merely because this is a criminal case, particularly where, as is the case here, it isfar better to use these rules than to reinvent the wheel when the production of documents in criminal and civil cases raises the same
problems."
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, due to the vague affidavits, as well as, failure to comply with the unalterable Bates-numbering System and PRA YS the court Dismiss any and all evidence for the chain of custody being broken, and failing to document the evidence properly, as Federal Law Mandates.
Respectfully submitted,
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
LL~
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 5
Case 2:01-cr-200/3-CIVI
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
Carrie ei hbors Defendant [1]/ Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants
Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 6
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM OS-20t05-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT [IrS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [IJ'S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE COMES NOW on this 6th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [I]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence. The Reply is as follows: 1). The Defendant [1] requests that the court take judicial notice that the Plaintiff had failed to specifically raise any objections in reference to the allegations by Defendant [1] as to police mishandling of evidence, destruction of evidence, failure to follow police procedures as to record a true and accurate document ofthe events during the investigation, or perjury, the affidavits were too vague for a warrant to be issued, as shown in the Defendant [1]'s Motion to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 6
dismiss evidence, whereby the Defendant [1] has proven by the undisputed facts that any and all evidence should be dismissed by order of this court. 2). In [Doc 257, , 3] the Plaintiff admits that the Plaintiff does not have a chain of custody, and did not have enough evidence to pursue an affidavit for a warrant, but will show at trial enough proof. First this presents a post facto (after the fact) situation, and second it violates the constitution and due process rights of the accused prior to the warrant being served. a.) The Affidavit for the warrant was improper, it failed to show any direct connection of criminal activity to the defendant [1] or her property, or others who were allegedly committing crimes outside of the defendant's knowledge or control. b.) The affidavit provides voluminous details of the alleged criminal activities of other individuals but fails to show why the criminal activity of others would justify a warrant to be served upon Defendant [1], and some of the incidents cited by affiant in the affidavit were in actuality exculpatory in nature. c.) Whereby it was insufficient grounds to apply for a proper search warrant. Therefore the Affidavit fails to meet the criteria or elements needed to secure a proper search warrant. 3.) "The Government submits that at the time of the trial it will establish, through officers who executed the search warrants and inventoried the items, the foundation for the admissibility of each exhibit, including chain of custody for each .... " As prior testimony by the Officers has already established, the evidence seized from the defendant [were] mishandled, not properly documented or logged into evidence, or destroyed by the same officers the Government makes reference to. The evidence logs have been altered with handwritten notes and additions, the Federal evidence the Government wants to present in this case before this court was not properly
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 6
documented with serial numbers or identification through the Bates system, items appearing in photo affidavits as [stolen] property returned to [rightful owner] cannot be found in evidence logs or photos. The Plaintiff states: ''Although the defendant seems to assert that in order to properly establish the chain of custody the items should be Bates stamped, she fails to cite to and the government cannot locate any legal authority for that claim. " In contrast to the Governments claim see referenced case in which the Judge required the Bates-numerical system be used. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)J "A piece of paper or electronically stored
information, without any indication of its creator, source, or custodian may not be authenticated
under Federal Rule of Evidence. " Federal evidence being held pending a Federal investigation by the Lawrence Police Dept., has been randomly given away to "alleged" victims, by the LKPD police officers who originally seized the items, (not Federal agents as mandated by law) absent any kind of hearing before a judge to establish rightful ownership, absent prior theft reports, without verification the item did indeed belong to the alleged victim, missing the mandatory photo affidavits or Identification documentation of the alleged victims, as required by LKPD policy and procedures for return of evidence. Whereby there is no way to verify the items seized from the business or home, are the same items referenced to in the evidence logs, are the same items in the evidence locker today, would be the same items brought before this court as evidence. The Plaintiff states, that although there is no proper chain of custody to protect the integrity of the evidence or this case, [Doc 257 ~ 3] "Through the testimony of the seizing officers, the government will establish the foundation necessary for the admission of these non-fungible exhibits. " 4). The requirement of authentication or identification is a condition precedent to admissibility. "If proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 6
change, the foundation need only consist of testimony confirming its relevance. It is when the evidence is susceptible to alteration that the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody of the item and sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or has been subjected to tampering or contamination"] US v. Cardenas 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (ldh Cir. 1989)]
5). Due to the (2) officers testimony the evidence was susceptible to alteration, in which the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody, in which also during the Federal Case, in which law requires any and all evidence be documented by the bates system, in which was not done in this cause of action, " ... the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate to the court that it is reasonably probably or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred "[See ref
us v. Ortiz, 966 F 2d 707(rt
Cir. 1992)].
Since the evidence was not properly documented, evidence logs have been altered, serial numbers were not documented and or changed, procedures were not followed, the Government will not be able to meet the burden of proof in this case before this court. Whereby the chain of custody has been broken, may not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence, which requires the Defendant [1] now must pray the court order dismissal of any and all evidence for the above referenced reasons. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)] JOHN M FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge: "In criminal cases, there is unfortunately no rule to which the courts can look for guidance in determining whether the production of documents by the government has been in aform or format that is appropriate. This may be because the "big paper" case is the exception rather than the rule in criminal cases. Be that as it may, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speakspecijica/ly to theform of production. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their present form are the product of nearly 70 years of use and have been consistently amended by advisory committees consisting of judges, practitioners, and distinguished academics to meet
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 6
perceived deficiencies. It isfoolish to disregard them merely because this is a criminal case, particularly where, as is the case here, it isfar better to use these rules than to reinvent the wheel when the production of documents in criminal and civil cases raises the same
problems."
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, due to the vague affidavits, as well as, failure to comply with the unalterable Bates-numbering System and PRA YS the court Dismiss any and all evidence for the chain of custody being broken, and failing to document the evidence properly, as Federal Law Mandates.
Respectfully submitted,
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
LL~
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 5
Case 2:01-cr-200/3-CIVI
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
Carrie ei hbors Defendant [1]/ Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants
Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
