07912234953
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION
[Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows:
1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4]
2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 & 6]
3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government.
4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney of record have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome.
5). The Defendant [1]’s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can clearly show.
6). The Defendant [1]’s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1], and has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion for the mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules Discipline for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION
03/16/2010 Letter to Counsel
7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010, 03/25/2010, 04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated the court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant [1] was involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her counsel to not have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for contempt. The Defendant [1]’s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and fails to comply with the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights § 11, in which the alleged matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted.
8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron McKee) and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel advised her that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed a subpoena to produce the materials, in which he failed to do.
9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel stated he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of record expects the Defendant to go to the police Department and retrieve 80% of her property without the bates system, or notifying the court to go through proper procedures, in which makes the Defendant leery of the way her counsel of record is handling this request without going through the court.
10). Defendant [1] request for Depositions of witnesses, to include the Postal Inspector, due to the fact he was called in by the U.S. Attorney post facto, the police officers, due to the conflicting testimony and evidence, witnesses or owners of evidence, due to the inconsistencies within this case.
03/25/2010 Letter to Counsel
11). The Defendant [1] requests that no effort has been made to return the 80% of the seized evidence, by any motion or order, using the bates system, as promised by the U.S. Attorney, as well as, notifying the court in a proper forum, and no suitable provisions are in place to protect the integrity of the case, or the Defendant [1]’s rights, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
12). The Defendant [1]’s counsel stated that these requests by Defendant [1] was frivolous issues. The Defendant [1] then request that the counsel of record file a Motion to Suppress the evidence, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.
13). The Defendant [1] request that a certified chain of custody be produced, in which counsel of record had failed to respond to.
14). The Defendant [1] requested that the counsel of record file a motion to dismiss the case for violations of 18 USC § 3161(d)(2) on time limitations, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.
15). The Defendant [1] had given her attorney 10 working days to respond to these requests, in which he failed to comply with, as far as addressing all the issues.
04/09/2010 Letter to Counsel
16). The Defendant [1] request that her attorney file pre-trial motions pursuant to FRE Rule 410, inclusive is to contest or quash the Defendant’s proffer, in which counsel of record advised the Defendant that the Motion in Limine will address her concerns, in which will not address her concerns.
17). The Defendant [1] request that FRCP Rule 12 for a Motion to Dismiss based upon defects in instituting the prosecution, shall be addressed prior to trial. The attorney claims that all evidence is available, in which has not been produced, in which Defendant [1] can show.
18). The Defendant request that the counsel of record requests transcripts of witnesses during their interviews (audio & video), in their entirety, in which counsel agrees with, but also contradicts his statement that all evidence has been produced.
19). The Defendant [1] request that the investigators get background checks on witnesses, due to their criminal history, criminal record, and pleas or deals in which were offered by the police officers and the U.S. Attorney, in which the counsel of record had failed to respond to.
04/19/2010 Letter to Counsel
20). The Defendant [1] request that her Proffer be Quashed or stricken from the record, due to KSA 77-532(6), as well as, 77-517, for failure to provide an impartial officer (the U.S. Attorney) in which was not present during the Proffer, nor was there properly documented record of the proffer, in which was clearly outside the plain language rule, in which the Defendant cited a 2005 case.
21). The Defendant [1] had also shown that the contract law was violated and had cited a 2009 case.
22). The Defendant request a list of motions for the counsel of record to file.
23). The Defendant [1] incorporates any and all motions filed by Counsel to remain in effect and to be addressed by the court.
24). The Defendant [1] would request that the court appointed investigator (Dan Clark) remain until the case had been resolved.
25). The Defendant [1] would like the court to appoint a counsel of record, only as a legal advisor for the Defendant [1], until the case can be resolved and concluded.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970).
To: Mr. John Duma LLP
303 East Poplar St.
Olathe, Ks. 66061
Date 3/ 25/ 2010
Dear John,
There still seems to be a complication with our ability to communicate. It is evident to me that no effort has been made on my behalf to expedite the return of the 80% of the seized evidence currently being held, by any motion or order, using what is defined as the bates system. And no suitable provisions are in place to protect the integrity of the case or my rights through due process of law, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with the arrangements for pick-up that are currently being offered by the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.
I do not agree with you that these are frivolous issues. When a person whose property is taken wants to challenge the validity of the search, a motion to return the evidence can be made. See, e.g., Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 (g). Failure to file pre-trial motions in regards to the return of the evidence could result in the loss of the claim absent a good reason for the failure. See Fed.R.Crim.P 12 (b)(3)(C). I would request that you file a motion to suppress the evidence, due to the fact the Federal Government cannot show that I had any knowledge that the evidence was stolen.
Therefore I am again requesting that you file a pre-trial motion on my behalf officially requesting the return of my property, and that you include in that motion to require the U.S .Attorney turn over to the court and or defense a detailed list of the property to be returned, using the bates system, along with a certified chain of custody for whom ever handled, checked in or out, or had possession of any property in question from the beginning of the case up until the current date; any and all property in question. Due to the fact I still have a legal right to some of the property that may no longer be in the possession of the Government I am also requesting that a certified chain of custody be provided to the defense inclusive of all theft reports, serial numbers, signatures and identification, and procedural photo affidavits of all conclusory “rightful owners” that have received Yellow House Property, or any & all other property seized and no longer in the Governments possession, as well as, the Motion to Suppress.
I want to make it clear that I am aware that my 180 days from which the Government had to bring me to trial has surpassed. I am requesting that you address that issue with the courts by filing a motion to dismiss on my behalf, for failure to comply with 18 USC § 3161 (d)(2) on statutory time limitations.
I have in no way agreed to give up my constitutional right to a speedy trial. I have signed nothing to waiver my rights to a speedy trial, nor have I caused any unnecessary time delays. I feel the Government has sought numerous unnecessary delays under the guise to meet the justifiable ends to their satisfaction, but in actual reality in order to prejudice my defense with mounting frivolous indictments that should not be brought to trial. Two mental competency tests, one of which resulted in unlawful prison incarceration. These also include multiple court orders that if violated or if the Government accuses me of violating would result in incarceration without conviction. (As is the case with my co-defendant Guy Neighbors, and was also the case with the frivolous Obstruction case, in which mirrors the first case, in which now constitutes res judicata and collateral estoppel)
The following rules of statutory interpretation provide guidance in interpreting 65-4162(a). "'It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction, to which all other rules are subordinate, that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.'" City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, 253 Kan. 434, 436, 855 P.2d 956 (1993). "When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be." Martindale v. Tenny, 250 Kan. 621, Syl. ¶ 2, 829 P.2d 561 (1992). "The legislature is presumed to intend that a statute be given a reasonable construction, so as to avoid unreasonable or absurd results." Todd v. Kelly, 251 Kan. 512, 520, 837 P.2d 381 (1992).
There is a frivolous undertone to this case, but I am not the one that is frivolous, as you make reference to in your contentions! This entire case is not only frivolous it’s a fraud upon the courts. The indictments are frivolous, the prosecutions repeated delays through motions concerning the blogs have been frivolous, the arrests and incarcerations have been frivolous, and my detainment for 8 hours without food was frivolous. It’s frivolous that my guaranteed constitutional rights have been repeatedly violated. I hope I have made my contentions very clear. I also hope your legal degree doesn’t cloud your judgment in this matter. The U.S. codes are very clear and ambiguous.
I would like a written answer regarding my requests for action in the above matter within 10 working days.
RE: Request for full and complete of Witness Transcripts during their Interviews & Background checks of Governments witnesses
Dear John;
This letter is in reference to more complications I have discovered between our communication and the federal statutes, as well as, the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Please be advised that in accordance to Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; inadmissibility of pleas, plea discussions etc: Anything said during the Proffer is inadmissible and cannot be used in a court of law. I am requesting you address the court, in any pre-trial motions prior to trial, inclusive is the Motion to contest and / or quash the Proffer in its entirety; because without access to the defense notes through the previous Attorney, the Proffer is nothing but hearsay, and shows a pattern of fraud, by the fact that the Proffering ie Plea negotiations ended when the Government committed fraud, which rendered the negotiation void ab initio in its entirety.
Pursuant to Rule 12 FRCP our motions to dismiss can be based on defects in instituting the prosecution, defects in the indictment or information which can be challenged at any stage, but should be raised before a trial begins. Because a criminal prosecution implicates an absolute constitutional guarantee, the discovery is more focused on automatic disclosure principles, which if proven to be violated, will be the grounds for a dismissal of the charges. My requests for discovery is not frivolous, under Rule 12, the Judge required them to produce the documentation in this case: [(Dawson, et al. v. Pittco Capital Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3148-CC (Del. Ch., Feb. 15, 2010)]
Also I am requesting that you get transcripts done, in their entirety, of any & all witnesses whose interviews were Audio or video recorded, during, before or after the Ebay Investigation. Every transcript is to include the pre-interview discussions / negotiations contained in the audios prior to the actual questioning; these will be used by the defense to discredit the witnesses, therefore rendering a need for testimony by the defendant Carrie Neighbors moot.
Under Federal Rules of Evidence 609 (1) (2) & Rule 403 I am also requesting that the defense have our Private investigators Dan Clark and or Denny Conway get background checks on any and all of the Governments witnesses. This will enable the defense to impeach witnesses by showing evidence of previous frauds or convictions of crimes prejudicial to my case, due to any and all deals made with law enforcement or the U.S. Attorney. [see ref audio tapes during all interviews with witnesses prior to the interview]
Our need to use Rule 609 outweighs 403 because it’s prejudicial for the defense, that the Government has made deals with every criminal witness in exchange for their testimony, including but not limited to offering them a payment of money in exchange for their cooperation, or reduction of any charge, as well as, time reduction, to assist officers to manufacture stolen property during the course of the investigation.
Pursuant to Kansas Rule 1.01(b)(1) and Rule 1.03(a) I am requesting a written answer regarding my requests for action in the above matter within 10 working days. Thank you for your time and inconvenience in this matter.
To Mr. John Duma LLP
303 East Poplar Street
Olathe, Ks. 66061
Date: 04/19/2010
From: Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House Store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
Dear John,
This letter is in reference to your last response on 04/14/2010. Please be advised this is my fourth and final attempt to once again clarify what I am requesting of you.
I know that you filed a “Motion In Limine & Memorandum in Support” USA V. Neighbors case 07-20124 July 27, 2009, Pg. 1 (E). Any Statements given by Carrie Neighbors during her proffer. However this is an automatic contractual right if I don’t testify. This request does not eliminate the Proffer from the case, nor does it require a ruling, nor does it protect me if I chose to testify at trial.
My request is that you file a Motion to also Quash, or strike the proffer, in its entirety from this case. This motion can include the Governments violations of Kansas Statutes 77-532 (6), and 77-517, because the agents failed to provide an impartial Presiding officer (in which requires the presence of the U.S. Attorney, in which was not present during the proffer) or transcriber free from bias or prejudice to properly document the statements, in which there is no recording of any statements taken during this proffer.
a). In ref United States v. Stein, 2005 WL1377851 (E.D. Pa. 2005), In my case also, the Defendant made statements only to agents, not to prosecuting attorneys, leaving statements clearly outside the plain language of the rules. Id. At 10, n.12. There are currently no unbiased records or recordings available to the defense in the discovery that factually documented the actual statements made by the defendants.
b). The Proffer was not recorded; the statements have been colored, and therefore is inadmissible in its entirety and should be quashed from the record. Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156, 1159 (Alaska 1985) (describing law enforcement duty to preserve evidence). The court reasoned that electronically recording a defendant’s interrogation helps to ensure his right to a fair trial.. Id. at 1159-60. And failure to do so is a violation of his/her due process. Whereby, any and all unrecorded statements as evidence at trial shall be excluded.
A Proffer should be construed according to principles of contract law. “US v. Merz (WL 1183771 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)(2009).” Whereby if the contract is violated it becomes void in its entirety. The terms of the Proffer contract were violated by the Government when during the negotiations the officers committed fraud by questioning the defendant without her attorney present, while returning a seized camera, in violation of chain of custody rules. Then furthered the violation by refusing to acknowledge any considerations previously promised.
Evidently by now, with both your college decree and legal decree it should not take a rocket scientist to figure out I have no intention or reason to Plea when I am not guilty, and the prosecution has been on a illegal prosecutorial harassment, to include manufacturing evidence against me. Whereby you have not addressed the other requests, issues and Motions, I have brought forth, in my prior letters to you, as well as, your time limitations is expiring on the Motions I have requested you file, to now include the Motion to Quash or Strike the proffer.
The requested Motions are as follows:
a). Motion to strike or Quash the Proffer.
b). Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, due to the inconsistency in returning, and improper handling of evidence, and conspiracy to conceal evidence.
c). Motion to Exclude witnesses.
d). Motion to Request any and all transcripts, in their entirety of any and all interviews.
e). Motion to return any and all evidence or property, by using the Numerical Bates System, in which the Government had seized and is not related to this cause of action.
f). Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with 18 USC § 3161 (d)(2) on time limitations.
Please forward me a copy of each as soon as you have them filed. Thank you for your time and inconvenience in this matter.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
07912234953
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION
[Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows:
1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4]
2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 & 6]
3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government.
4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney of record have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome.
5). The Defendant [1]’s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can clearly show.
6). The Defendant [1]’s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1], and has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion for the mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules Discipline for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION
03/16/2010 Letter to Counsel
7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010, 03/25/2010, 04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated the court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant [1] was involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her counsel to not have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for contempt. The Defendant [1]’s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and fails to comply with the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights § 11, in which the alleged matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted.
8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron McKee) and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel advised her that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed a subpoena to produce the materials, in which he failed to do.
9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel stated he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of record expects the Defendant to go to the police Department and retrieve 80% of her property without the bates system, or notifying the court to go through proper procedures, in which makes the Defendant leery of the way her counsel of record is handling this request without going through the court.
10). Defendant [1] request for Depositions of witnesses, to include the Postal Inspector, due to the fact he was called in by the U.S. Attorney post facto, the police officers, due to the conflicting testimony and evidence, witnesses or owners of evidence, due to the inconsistencies within this case.
03/25/2010 Letter to Counsel
11). The Defendant [1] requests that no effort has been made to return the 80% of the seized evidence, by any motion or order, using the bates system, as promised by the U.S. Attorney, as well as, notifying the court in a proper forum, and no suitable provisions are in place to protect the integrity of the case, or the Defendant [1]’s rights, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
12). The Defendant [1]’s counsel stated that these requests by Defendant [1] was frivolous issues. The Defendant [1] then request that the counsel of record file a Motion to Suppress the evidence, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.
13). The Defendant [1] request that a certified chain of custody be produced, in which counsel of record had failed to respond to.
14). The Defendant [1] requested that the counsel of record file a motion to dismiss the case for violations of 18 USC § 3161(d)(2) on time limitations, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.
15). The Defendant [1] had given her attorney 10 working days to respond to these requests, in which he failed to comply with, as far as addressing all the issues.
04/09/2010 Letter to Counsel
16). The Defendant [1] request that her attorney file pre-trial motions pursuant to FRE Rule 410, inclusive is to contest or quash the Defendant’s proffer, in which counsel of record advised the Defendant that the Motion in Limine will address her concerns, in which will not address her concerns.
17). The Defendant [1] request that FRCP Rule 12 for a Motion to Dismiss based upon defects in instituting the prosecution, shall be addressed prior to trial. The attorney claims that all evidence is available, in which has not been produced, in which Defendant [1] can show.
18). The Defendant request that the counsel of record requests transcripts of witnesses during their interviews (audio & video), in their entirety, in which counsel agrees with, but also contradicts his statement that all evidence has been produced.
19). The Defendant [1] request that the investigators get background checks on witnesses, due to their criminal history, criminal record, and pleas or deals in which were offered by the police officers and the U.S. Attorney, in which the counsel of record had failed to respond to.
04/19/2010 Letter to Counsel
20). The Defendant [1] request that her Proffer be Quashed or stricken from the record, due to KSA 77-532(6), as well as, 77-517, for failure to provide an impartial officer (the U.S. Attorney) in which was not present during the Proffer, nor was there properly documented record of the proffer, in which was clearly outside the plain language rule, in which the Defendant cited a 2005 case.
21). The Defendant [1] had also shown that the contract law was violated and had cited a 2009 case.
22). The Defendant request a list of motions for the counsel of record to file.
23). The Defendant [1] incorporates any and all motions filed by Counsel to remain in effect and to be addressed by the court.
24). The Defendant [1] would request that the court appointed investigator (Dan Clark) remain until the case had been resolved.
25). The Defendant [1] would like the court to appoint a counsel of record, only as a legal advisor for the Defendant [1], until the case can be resolved and concluded.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970).
___________________________________________________________________________
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
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE
[Pursuant to FRE § 402 & FRE § 403]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, pursuant to FRE § 402 & FRE § 403. The Motion is as follows:
1). The evidence or property, in which was improperly seized by the government, and was not recorded properly, as per the Bates system.
2). The Affidavit for the warrant on the home residence was vague and did not have any probable cause of criminal activity shown in the home, nor did the Affidavit show that the Defendant [1] had personal knowledge that the property was stolen, whereby the Affidavit was insufficient on its face.
3). The Defendant [1] has discovered that the proper chain of custody was violated.
4). There is not a photo affidavit of some of the alleged victims.
5). Serial numbers were changed or not documented on evidence logs.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE
6). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on (Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59 , L. 10 through p. 61, L. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly documented, whereby any and all the evidence should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command, and the failure to record and / or document the evidence properly, in this cause of action.
7). Police Officer Michael Riner testified on 08/13/08, he had destroyed his field notes, in which now constitutes tampering with evidence to a case, (documents involving investigation), and or recording a true and accurate document of the events during the investigation, or perjury, due to the fact that his notes have never been produced.
8). There are no suitable provisions in place to protect the rights of the accused, as well as integrity of the case, and the Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to avoid any potential element of surprise to the court, as well as, any and all parties involved in this cause of action, whereby, the only recourse is to have an evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the evidence prior to any trial to avoid any unnecessary delay or confusion, or to Dismiss any and all evidence prior to trial.
9). Whereby testimony already given has shown that evidence, as well as, the investigation was tampered with and cannot be admitted due to inadmissibility and exclusion due to Defendant [1]’s constitutional rights were not protected during this cause of action, and it would now prejudice this case. Whereby any and all evidence is inadmissible and should be excluded at this point and time.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, pursuant to FRE § 402 & FRE § 403.
___________________________________________________
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
[Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5.1]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5.1. The Motion is as follows:
1). The evidence or property, in which was seized by the government was not recorded properly, as per the Bates system.
2). The Defendant [1] has discovered that the proper chain of custody was violated, has been tampered with, and is contaminated. .
3). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on (Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59 , L. 10 through p. 61, L. 6. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly documented, whereby any and all the evidence should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command, and the failure to record and / or document the evidence properly, in this cause of action.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
4). The government has never produced the unalterable bates system on any and all evidence or property seized, only the Lawrence Police Departments logs, in which now evidence, as well as, property, cannot be identified even in the return to the Defendant [1]. Therefore the Defendant [1] can only assume it was never documented properly, it has been tainted or the original item has been exchanged for another, is missing or mishandled through the chain of command, in which now constitutes tainted evidence. [See ref United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (10th Cir. 1989)].
5). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on (Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59 , L. 10 through p. 61, L. 6. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly handled and or documented, evidence return procedures were not followed, whereby any and all the evidence should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command, and the failure to record and / or document the evidence properly, and follow chain of custody return procedures in this cause of action.
6). The receipt of evidence (receipt for same list) was left at the home residence, documentation of seized evidence was vague and incomplete, whereby it was not properly handled or documented, including property and guns serial numbers not documented.
7). K.U. Detective Michael Riner testified on 08/13/08, he had destroyed his field notes, in which now constitutes a violation of the fourteenth Amendment’s due process and bad faith tampering with exculpatory evidence to a case, (documents involving an ongoing investigation), and or recording a true and accurate document of the events during the investigation, or perjury, due to the fact that his notes have never been produced. Detective Riner was aware of the ongoing Federal investigations, was being directed by involved Federal Prosecutors and officers, whereby he had an extenuating duty to preserve any and all possible relevant evidence. [See ref. Henning v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008)],
8). There are no suitable provisions in place to protect the rights of the accused, as well as integrity of the case, the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate to the court that it is reasonably probable or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred.[See ref. United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992)].The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to avoid any potential element of surprise to the court, as well as, any and all parties involved in this cause of action, whereby, the only recourse is to have an evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the evidence prior to any trial to avoid any unnecessary delay or confusion.
_________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO: 07-20073-CM WITH PREJUDICE
[Pursuant to 18 USC § 3161(c)(1)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss case No: 07-20073-CM, with prejudice, pursuant to18 USC § 3161(c)(1). The Motion is as follows:
1). On 05/04/07 the government moved to voluntary dismiss the indictment. The indictment was dismissed on 05/10/07 by order of the court.
2). On June 20th 2007, the Defendant [1] was indicted in the present case number. The new indictment is exactly the same, as the dismissed indictment with two new counts added to the indictment.
3). Defendant [1] has more than enough reason to believe that more than 180 days elapsed without the Defendant [1] being taken to trial. Defendant has reason to believe that after excluding certain days during which time permitted to bring the Defendant [1] to trial under 18 USC § 3161 has tolled. [See ref Zedner v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 1984 (2006)]
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO: 07-20073-CM WITH PREJUDICE
4). The Speedy Trial Act provides in relevant part that:
“In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a Defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of a offense shall commence within 70 days from… the date the Defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court, in which such a charge is pending. 18 USC § 3161(c)(1).”
5). The Speedy Trial Act further provides that if the government dismissed an indictment against a Defendant and then re-files charges against that individual with “the same offense, or an offense based on the same conduct, or arising from the same criminal episode, the provisions of (b) and (c) of this section shall be applicable with respect to such subsequence…. Indictment.” 18 USC § 3161(d)(1).
6). The Defendant [1] has not been brought to trial on the allegations in the original indictment within 70 includable days of the Defendants first appearance before a judicial officer in this case. This case shall be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to what law mandates, as well as, the court order should show.
7). The government has made it a pattern of practice to continuously delay this action, due to problems with the chain of custody of evidence, manufactured evidence.
8). The warrant itself, on its face was improper and lacked probable cause and support for the search.
9). The Defendant [1] has not caused any unnecessary delay or continuance, whereby by the government dismissing and re-filing the case gave the government a tactical advantage over the Defendant [1], in the governments prosecutorial efforts to be a detriment to the Defendant[1].
10). This was no inadvertent error or mistake made by the government, due to this is a pattern of practice to extend the case past the time limitations, as per the first dismissal, in which results in bad faith prosecutions, in which constitutes gross negligence. [See ref United States v. Kottmyer, 961 F.2d 569, 572-73 (6th Cir. 1992)(same) (see ref Archer, 984 F. Supp. At 323]
11). U.S. 531 F. 2d 1095 states, “Dismissal of an indictment is strong medicine, even where re-indictment is possible. But we have indicated rather stringent limits to judicial discretion in countenancing delay.” [see ref United States v. Fay, 505 F.2d 1037 (1st Cir. 1974)]
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss case No: 07-20073-CM, with prejudice, pursuant to18 USC § 3161(c)(1).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNSEL’S PROFFER ON 08/25/09
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss Counsel’s Proffer on 08/25/09. The Motion is as follows:
1). Counsel for the Defendant [1] had made a Proffer on 08/25/09, in which prejudice this cause of action, and now made the counsel a witness against the Defendant [1], in which the testimony should have been terminated, and the counsel should have been sanctioned for testifying against his client, whereby this is grounds for mistrial. Whereby the Defendant [1] request that the proffer used as evidence against the Defendant [1], on the governments Motion to Revoke Bond should be Dismissed and Stricken from the record, or a mistrial is in order, due to violations of attorney-client privilege, as well as, conduct of counsel, contradictory to clients rights and privileges, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. [see ref Order dated 08/26/09 on case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO]
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNSEL’S PROFFER ON 08/25/09
2). The Defendant [1]’s counsel has placed both the court and the Defendant [1] in an unusual position, due to his proffer against his own client now present issues of violation of his own contract between his own client (Defendant [1]), due to the fact that now there is violations of attorney-client privilege, trust issues, competency issues, as well as, violations of:
a). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 1.2 (a) in which states, “a lawyer shall abide by a clients decisions concerning the lawful objectives of representation.” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did not.
b). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 1.6 (a) in which states, “a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client consents,” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did not.
c). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 1.8 (b) in which states, “a lawyer shall not use information relating to the representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client, unless the client gives informed consent.” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did not.
d). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 3.4 (e) in which states, “a lawyer shall not in trial assert personal knowledge of the facts.” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did, during his own proffer.
3). The preamble a lawyer zealously asserts the clients position under the rules of adversary system, in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel of record did not.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss Counsel’s Proffer on 08/25/09, or allow the Defendant [1] to declare a mistrial, due to the prejudice allowed to occur within this cause of action.
-------___________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
[Pursuant to FRE § 609 (a)(1)&(2)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Exclude Witnesses, pursuant to FRE § 609 (a)(1)&(2). The Motion is as follows:
1). The government had made deals with the witnesses to manufacture a case, to include offering reduction of sentence, reduction of time, not charging witnesses for crimes committed, offered money to manufacture a case, or change testimony.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
2). Pursuant to FRE 408 prevents these witnesses from testifying, due to this coercive testimony, constitutes bias, or prejudicing this cause of action.
3). Pursuant to United States v. Oldbear, 568 F. 3d 814 (10th Cir. June 10th 2009)(No. 08-6095) in which evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible, due to not one witness can testify that the Defendant [1] had knowledge that the items were stolen, nor can they testify that the person who sold the items, had notified the Defendant [1] that the property was stolen, in which would only prejudice and show bias in this cause of action.
4). Pursuant to Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City, 248 F.3d 1214,1232-33 (10th Cir. 2001) 5 acts was insufficient to establish a habitual pattern, in which was never shown in this case, in which would only prejudice and show bias in this cause of action.
5). During the interviews the government / or police officers had made deals with the witnesses to manufacture a case, to include offering reduction of sentence, reduction of time, not charging witnesses for crimes committed, offered money to manufacture a case, or change testimony. Whereby the creditability of the witnesses is at question, to tell the truth to reduce their sentence, or time, or offered money to manufacture a case, or change testimony.
6). Now this brings into question the appearance of prosecutorial misconduct to manufacture a case.
“The government must act with great care when engaging in the practice of paying witnesses for more than expenses. A defendant’s right to be apprised of the government’s compensation arrangement with the witness and to inquire about it on cross-examination, must be vigorously protected. United States v. Lipford, 203 S.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000).”
“The bribery statute 18 U.S.C.A. §201(c)(2 proscribing giving a thing of value for a witness’s testimony does not prohibit the United States from acting in accordance with long-standing practice and statutory authority to pay fees, expenses, and rewards to informants even when the payment is solely for testimony, so long as the payment is not for or because of any corruption of truth of testimony.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO TURN OVER ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT
EVIDENCE, OR PERSONAL PROPERTY SEIZED, PURSUANT TO THE BATES
SYSTEM, IN WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THIS CAUSE OF ACTION
[Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g), FRE § 402 and FRE § 403]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Turn Over any and all Government Evidence, or Personal Property seized, pursuant to the Bates Numerical System, in which is not related to this cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g), FRE § 402 and FRE § 403.
1). Any and all evidence seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g).
2). Any and all personal property seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
3). Any and all Merchandise seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
4). Any and all Jewelry seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
5). Any and all computers or electronics seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
6). Any and all Bicycles seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
7). Any and all weapons or ammunition seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action. (Or place a hold on this property until this cause of action is over), so not to be in violation of a Court order and bond.)
8). Any and all shoes or clothing seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
9) The Defendant [1] request that proper record of any and all evidence was documented to preserve any and all evidence seized from either the personal home of the Defendant or the Business of the Defendant. The Defendant will only accept evidence that is properly recorded through the bates numerical system.
10). The government has failed to properly handle (through the chain of command), or properly document any and all evidence seized, in which is governed by equitable principles. [see ref Floyd v. United States, 860 F. 2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988)]
11). The Defendant [1] is attempting to make a good faith attempt to avoid any potential element of surprise to the court, as well as, any and all parties involved in this cause of action, whereby, the only recourse is to have an evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the evidence, prior to any trial to avoid any unnecessary delay or confusion, as well as, make the court aware of the evidence being returned back to the Defendant [1], alleviating the courts waste of time through unnecessary evidence being presented in which may prejudice the case.
THEREFORE , the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Turn Over any and all Government Evidence, or Personal Property seized, pursuant to the Bates Numerical System, in which is not related to this cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g), FRE § 402 and FRE § 403.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION
[Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows:
1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4]
2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 & 6]
3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government.
4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney of record have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome.
5). The Defendant [1]’s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can clearly show.
6). The Defendant [1]’s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1], and has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion for the mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules Discipline for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MARSDEN MOTION
03/16/2010 Letter to Counsel
7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010, 03/25/2010, 04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated the court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant [1] was involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her counsel to not have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for contempt. The Defendant [1]’s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and fails to comply with the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights § 11, in which the alleged matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted.
8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron McKee) and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel advised her that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed a subpoena to produce the materials, in which he failed to do.
9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel stated he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of record expects the Defendant to go to the police Department and retrieve 80% of her property without the bates system, or notifying the court to go through proper procedures, in which makes the Defendant leery of the way her counsel of record is handling this request without going through the court.
10). Defendant [1] request for Depositions of witnesses, to include the Postal Inspector, due to the fact he was called in by the U.S. Attorney post facto, the police officers, due to the conflicting testimony and evidence, witnesses or owners of evidence, due to the inconsistencies within this case.
03/25/2010 Letter to Counsel
11). The Defendant [1] requests that no effort has been made to return the 80% of the seized evidence, by any motion or order, using the bates system, as promised by the U.S. Attorney, as well as, notifying the court in a proper forum, and no suitable provisions are in place to protect the integrity of the case, or the Defendant [1]’s rights, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
12). The Defendant [1]’s counsel stated that these requests by Defendant [1] was frivolous issues. The Defendant [1] then request that the counsel of record file a Motion to Suppress the evidence, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.
13). The Defendant [1] request that a certified chain of custody be produced, in which counsel of record had failed to respond to.
14). The Defendant [1] requested that the counsel of record file a motion to dismiss the case for violations of 18 USC § 3161(d)(2) on time limitations, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.
15). The Defendant [1] had given her attorney 10 working days to respond to these requests, in which he failed to comply with, as far as addressing all the issues.
04/09/2010 Letter to Counsel
16). The Defendant [1] request that her attorney file pre-trial motions pursuant to FRE Rule 410, inclusive is to contest or quash the Defendant’s proffer, in which counsel of record advised the Defendant that the Motion in Limine will address her concerns, in which will not address her concerns.
17). The Defendant [1] request that FRCP Rule 12 for a Motion to Dismiss based upon defects in instituting the prosecution, shall be addressed prior to trial. The attorney claims that all evidence is available, in which has not been produced, in which Defendant [1] can show.
18). The Defendant request that the counsel of record requests transcripts of witnesses during their interviews (audio & video), in their entirety, in which counsel agrees with, but also contradicts his statement that all evidence has been produced.
19). The Defendant [1] request that the investigators get background checks on witnesses, due to their criminal history, criminal record, and pleas or deals in which were offered by the police officers and the U.S. Attorney, in which the counsel of record had failed to respond to.
04/19/2010 Letter to Counsel
20). The Defendant [1] request that her Proffer be Quashed or stricken from the record, due to KSA 77-532(6), as well as, 77-517, for failure to provide an impartial officer (the U.S. Attorney) in which was not present during the Proffer, nor was there properly documented record of the proffer, in which was clearly outside the plain language rule, in which the Defendant cited a 2005 case.
21). The Defendant [1] had also shown that the contract law was violated and had cited a 2009 case.
22). The Defendant request a list of motions for the counsel of record to file.
23). The Defendant [1] incorporates any and all motions filed by Counsel to remain in effect and to be addressed by the court.
24). The Defendant [1] would request that the court appointed investigator (Dan Clark) remain until the case had been resolved.
25). The Defendant [1] would like the court to appoint a counsel of record, only as a legal advisor for the Defendant [1], until the case can be resolved and concluded.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970).
___________________________________________________________________________
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
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE
[Pursuant to FRE § 402 & FRE § 403]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, pursuant to FRE § 402 & FRE § 403. The Motion is as follows:
1). The evidence or property, in which was improperly seized by the government, and was not recorded properly, as per the Bates system.
2). The Affidavit for the warrant on the home residence was vague and did not have any probable cause of criminal activity shown in the home, nor did the Affidavit show that the Defendant [1] had personal knowledge that the property was stolen, whereby the Affidavit was insufficient on its face.
3). The Defendant [1] has discovered that the proper chain of custody was violated.
4). There is not a photo affidavit of some of the alleged victims.
5). Serial numbers were changed or not documented on evidence logs.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE
6). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on (Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59 , L. 10 through p. 61, L. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly documented, whereby any and all the evidence should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command, and the failure to record and / or document the evidence properly, in this cause of action.
7). Police Officer Michael Riner testified on 08/13/08, he had destroyed his field notes, in which now constitutes tampering with evidence to a case, (documents involving investigation), and or recording a true and accurate document of the events during the investigation, or perjury, due to the fact that his notes have never been produced.
8). There are no suitable provisions in place to protect the rights of the accused, as well as integrity of the case, and the Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to avoid any potential element of surprise to the court, as well as, any and all parties involved in this cause of action, whereby, the only recourse is to have an evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the evidence prior to any trial to avoid any unnecessary delay or confusion, or to Dismiss any and all evidence prior to trial.
9). Whereby testimony already given has shown that evidence, as well as, the investigation was tampered with and cannot be admitted due to inadmissibility and exclusion due to Defendant [1]’s constitutional rights were not protected during this cause of action, and it would now prejudice this case. Whereby any and all evidence is inadmissible and should be excluded at this point and time.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, pursuant to FRE § 402 & FRE § 403.
___________________________________________________
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
[Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5.1]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5.1. The Motion is as follows:
1). The evidence or property, in which was seized by the government was not recorded properly, as per the Bates system.
2). The Defendant [1] has discovered that the proper chain of custody was violated, has been tampered with, and is contaminated. .
3). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on (Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59 , L. 10 through p. 61, L. 6. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly documented, whereby any and all the evidence should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command, and the failure to record and / or document the evidence properly, in this cause of action.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
4). The government has never produced the unalterable bates system on any and all evidence or property seized, only the Lawrence Police Departments logs, in which now evidence, as well as, property, cannot be identified even in the return to the Defendant [1]. Therefore the Defendant [1] can only assume it was never documented properly, it has been tainted or the original item has been exchanged for another, is missing or mishandled through the chain of command, in which now constitutes tainted evidence. [See ref United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (10th Cir. 1989)].
5). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on (Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59 , L. 10 through p. 61, L. 6. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly handled and or documented, evidence return procedures were not followed, whereby any and all the evidence should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command, and the failure to record and / or document the evidence properly, and follow chain of custody return procedures in this cause of action.
6). The receipt of evidence (receipt for same list) was left at the home residence, documentation of seized evidence was vague and incomplete, whereby it was not properly handled or documented, including property and guns serial numbers not documented.
7). K.U. Detective Michael Riner testified on 08/13/08, he had destroyed his field notes, in which now constitutes a violation of the fourteenth Amendment’s due process and bad faith tampering with exculpatory evidence to a case, (documents involving an ongoing investigation), and or recording a true and accurate document of the events during the investigation, or perjury, due to the fact that his notes have never been produced. Detective Riner was aware of the ongoing Federal investigations, was being directed by involved Federal Prosecutors and officers, whereby he had an extenuating duty to preserve any and all possible relevant evidence. [See ref. Henning v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 530 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008)],
8). There are no suitable provisions in place to protect the rights of the accused, as well as integrity of the case, the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate to the court that it is reasonably probable or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred.[See ref. United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992)].The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to avoid any potential element of surprise to the court, as well as, any and all parties involved in this cause of action, whereby, the only recourse is to have an evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the evidence prior to any trial to avoid any unnecessary delay or confusion.
_________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO: 07-20073-CM WITH PREJUDICE
[Pursuant to 18 USC § 3161(c)(1)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss case No: 07-20073-CM, with prejudice, pursuant to18 USC § 3161(c)(1). The Motion is as follows:
1). On 05/04/07 the government moved to voluntary dismiss the indictment. The indictment was dismissed on 05/10/07 by order of the court.
2). On June 20th 2007, the Defendant [1] was indicted in the present case number. The new indictment is exactly the same, as the dismissed indictment with two new counts added to the indictment.
3). Defendant [1] has more than enough reason to believe that more than 180 days elapsed without the Defendant [1] being taken to trial. Defendant has reason to believe that after excluding certain days during which time permitted to bring the Defendant [1] to trial under 18 USC § 3161 has tolled. [See ref Zedner v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 1984 (2006)]
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO: 07-20073-CM WITH PREJUDICE
4). The Speedy Trial Act provides in relevant part that:
“In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a Defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of a offense shall commence within 70 days from… the date the Defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court, in which such a charge is pending. 18 USC § 3161(c)(1).”
5). The Speedy Trial Act further provides that if the government dismissed an indictment against a Defendant and then re-files charges against that individual with “the same offense, or an offense based on the same conduct, or arising from the same criminal episode, the provisions of (b) and (c) of this section shall be applicable with respect to such subsequence…. Indictment.” 18 USC § 3161(d)(1).
6). The Defendant [1] has not been brought to trial on the allegations in the original indictment within 70 includable days of the Defendants first appearance before a judicial officer in this case. This case shall be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to what law mandates, as well as, the court order should show.
7). The government has made it a pattern of practice to continuously delay this action, due to problems with the chain of custody of evidence, manufactured evidence.
8). The warrant itself, on its face was improper and lacked probable cause and support for the search.
9). The Defendant [1] has not caused any unnecessary delay or continuance, whereby by the government dismissing and re-filing the case gave the government a tactical advantage over the Defendant [1], in the governments prosecutorial efforts to be a detriment to the Defendant[1].
10). This was no inadvertent error or mistake made by the government, due to this is a pattern of practice to extend the case past the time limitations, as per the first dismissal, in which results in bad faith prosecutions, in which constitutes gross negligence. [See ref United States v. Kottmyer, 961 F.2d 569, 572-73 (6th Cir. 1992)(same) (see ref Archer, 984 F. Supp. At 323]
11). U.S. 531 F. 2d 1095 states, “Dismissal of an indictment is strong medicine, even where re-indictment is possible. But we have indicated rather stringent limits to judicial discretion in countenancing delay.” [see ref United States v. Fay, 505 F.2d 1037 (1st Cir. 1974)]
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss case No: 07-20073-CM, with prejudice, pursuant to18 USC § 3161(c)(1).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNSEL’S PROFFER ON 08/25/09
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss Counsel’s Proffer on 08/25/09. The Motion is as follows:
1). Counsel for the Defendant [1] had made a Proffer on 08/25/09, in which prejudice this cause of action, and now made the counsel a witness against the Defendant [1], in which the testimony should have been terminated, and the counsel should have been sanctioned for testifying against his client, whereby this is grounds for mistrial. Whereby the Defendant [1] request that the proffer used as evidence against the Defendant [1], on the governments Motion to Revoke Bond should be Dismissed and Stricken from the record, or a mistrial is in order, due to violations of attorney-client privilege, as well as, conduct of counsel, contradictory to clients rights and privileges, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. [see ref Order dated 08/26/09 on case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO]
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNSEL’S PROFFER ON 08/25/09
2). The Defendant [1]’s counsel has placed both the court and the Defendant [1] in an unusual position, due to his proffer against his own client now present issues of violation of his own contract between his own client (Defendant [1]), due to the fact that now there is violations of attorney-client privilege, trust issues, competency issues, as well as, violations of:
a). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 1.2 (a) in which states, “a lawyer shall abide by a clients decisions concerning the lawful objectives of representation.” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did not.
b). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 1.6 (a) in which states, “a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client consents,” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did not.
c). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 1.8 (b) in which states, “a lawyer shall not use information relating to the representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client, unless the client gives informed consent.” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did not.
d). Kan. S. Ct, Rules Discipline of Attorneys 3.4 (e) in which states, “a lawyer shall not in trial assert personal knowledge of the facts.” in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel did, during his own proffer.
3). The preamble a lawyer zealously asserts the clients position under the rules of adversary system, in which the Defendant [1]’s counsel of record did not.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Dismiss Counsel’s Proffer on 08/25/09, or allow the Defendant [1] to declare a mistrial, due to the prejudice allowed to occur within this cause of action.
-------___________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
[Pursuant to FRE § 609 (a)(1)&(2)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Exclude Witnesses, pursuant to FRE § 609 (a)(1)&(2). The Motion is as follows:
1). The government had made deals with the witnesses to manufacture a case, to include offering reduction of sentence, reduction of time, not charging witnesses for crimes committed, offered money to manufacture a case, or change testimony.
MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES
2). Pursuant to FRE 408 prevents these witnesses from testifying, due to this coercive testimony, constitutes bias, or prejudicing this cause of action.
3). Pursuant to United States v. Oldbear, 568 F. 3d 814 (10th Cir. June 10th 2009)(No. 08-6095) in which evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible, due to not one witness can testify that the Defendant [1] had knowledge that the items were stolen, nor can they testify that the person who sold the items, had notified the Defendant [1] that the property was stolen, in which would only prejudice and show bias in this cause of action.
4). Pursuant to Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City, 248 F.3d 1214,1232-33 (10th Cir. 2001) 5 acts was insufficient to establish a habitual pattern, in which was never shown in this case, in which would only prejudice and show bias in this cause of action.
5). During the interviews the government / or police officers had made deals with the witnesses to manufacture a case, to include offering reduction of sentence, reduction of time, not charging witnesses for crimes committed, offered money to manufacture a case, or change testimony. Whereby the creditability of the witnesses is at question, to tell the truth to reduce their sentence, or time, or offered money to manufacture a case, or change testimony.
6). Now this brings into question the appearance of prosecutorial misconduct to manufacture a case.
“The government must act with great care when engaging in the practice of paying witnesses for more than expenses. A defendant’s right to be apprised of the government’s compensation arrangement with the witness and to inquire about it on cross-examination, must be vigorously protected. United States v. Lipford, 203 S.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000).”
“The bribery statute 18 U.S.C.A. §201(c)(2 proscribing giving a thing of value for a witness’s testimony does not prohibit the United States from acting in accordance with long-standing practice and statutory authority to pay fees, expenses, and rewards to informants even when the payment is solely for testimony, so long as the payment is not for or because of any corruption of truth of testimony.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 07-20073-CM
07-20124-CM
08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [1]’S MOTION TO TURN OVER ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT
EVIDENCE, OR PERSONAL PROPERTY SEIZED, PURSUANT TO THE BATES
SYSTEM, IN WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THIS CAUSE OF ACTION
[Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g), FRE § 402 and FRE § 403]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Turn Over any and all Government Evidence, or Personal Property seized, pursuant to the Bates Numerical System, in which is not related to this cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g), FRE § 402 and FRE § 403.
1). Any and all evidence seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g).
2). Any and all personal property seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
3). Any and all Merchandise seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
4). Any and all Jewelry seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
5). Any and all computers or electronics seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
6). Any and all Bicycles seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
7). Any and all weapons or ammunition seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action. (Or place a hold on this property until this cause of action is over), so not to be in violation of a Court order and bond.)
8). Any and all shoes or clothing seized, in which the government does not intend to use during this cause of action.
9) The Defendant [1] request that proper record of any and all evidence was documented to preserve any and all evidence seized from either the personal home of the Defendant or the Business of the Defendant. The Defendant will only accept evidence that is properly recorded through the bates numerical system.
10). The government has failed to properly handle (through the chain of command), or properly document any and all evidence seized, in which is governed by equitable principles. [see ref Floyd v. United States, 860 F. 2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988)]
11). The Defendant [1] is attempting to make a good faith attempt to avoid any potential element of surprise to the court, as well as, any and all parties involved in this cause of action, whereby, the only recourse is to have an evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the evidence, prior to any trial to avoid any unnecessary delay or confusion, as well as, make the court aware of the evidence being returned back to the Defendant [1], alleviating the courts waste of time through unnecessary evidence being presented in which may prejudice the case.
THEREFORE , the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Turn Over any and all Government Evidence, or Personal Property seized, pursuant to the Bates Numerical System, in which is not related to this cause of action, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (g), FRE § 402 and FRE § 403.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
