Disctruction of constitutional rights for the owners of the Yellow House Store

CArrie Neighbors Appeals

2011-02-07T12:14:00.001-08:00

General Docket

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-3037	Docketed: 01/26/2011
United States v. Neighbors	Docketed: 01/26/2011
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Kansas - Kansas City
Fee Status: ifp granted

Case Type Information:

1) criminal

2) Conviction and Sentence

3) -

Originating Court Information:
District: 1083-2 : 2:07-CR-20124-CM-JPO-1
Court Reporter: Nancy Wiss, -
Sentencing Judge: Carlos Murguia, -, U.S. District Judge
Date Filed: 09/13/2007
Date NOA Filed:	Date Rec'd COA:
01/26/2011	01/26/2011

Prior Cases:

10-3183
Date Filed: 07/27/2010 Date Disposed: 07/29/2010 Disposition: Jurisdictional Defect
10-3185
Date Filed: 07/27/2010 Date Disposed: 07/29/2010 Disposition: Jurisdictional Defect
10-3187
Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Date Disposed: 08/03/2010 Disposition: Jurisdictional Defect
10-3188
Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Date Disposed: 08/03/2010 Disposition: Jurisdictional Defect
10-3189
Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Date Disposed: 08/03/2010 Disposition: Jurisdictional Defect
10-3251
Date Filed: 10/01/2010 Date Disposed: 10/13/2010 Disposition: dismissed/other

Current Cases:
	Lead	Member	Start	End
	10-3243	10-3251	10/01/2010
Companion
	09-3252	09-3260	09/10/2009
	09-3252	09-3263	09/14/2009
	09-3260	09-3263	09/14/2009
	10-3183	10-3186	07/27/2010
	10-3185	10-3186	07/27/2010
	10-3243	11-3037	01/26/2011
Consolidated
	09-3202	09-3203	09/22/2010
	09-3202	09-3204	09/22/2010
	10-3202	10-3203	08/10/2010
	10-3202	10-3204	08/10/2010
Prior
	09-3202	10-3202	09/22/2010
	10-3202	10-3183	08/10/2010
	10-3202	10-3185	08/10/2010
	10-3202	10-3186	08/10/2010
	10-3202	10-3187	08/10/2010
	10-3202	10-3188	08/10/2010
	10-3202	10-3189	08/10/2010
Prior Related
	02-3296	07-3020	01/23/2007
	02-3336	07-3020	01/23/2007
	04-3298	07-3020	01/23/2007
	05-3046	07-3020	01/23/2007
	05-3344	07-3020	01/23/2007
	06-3144	07-3020	01/23/2007
Related
	04-3296	10-3270	10/22/2010
	09-3068	09-3186	09/04/2009
	09-3186	09-3202	07/21/2009
	09-3203	09-3283	10/02/2009
	09-3203	09-3306	10/23/2009
	09-3204	09-3205	07/23/2009
	09-3283	09-3306	10/23/2009
	10-3183	10-3185	07/27/2010
	10-3187	10-3188	07/30/2010
	10-3189	10-3187	07/30/2010
	10-3189	10-3188	07/30/2010
	10-3202	10-3243	09/24/2010
	10-3203	10-3204	08/10/2010
	10-3203	10-3243	09/24/2010
	10-3204	10-3243	09/24/2010
	10-3254	10-3261	10/13/2010
	10-3270	05-3046	10/22/2010
	10-3270	05-3344	10/22/2010
	10-3270	06-3144	10/22/2010
	10-3270	07-3020	10/22/2010
	10-3270	08-3188	10/22/2010
	10-3270	08-3335	10/22/2010
	10-3270	09-3203	10/22/2010
	10-3270	09-3263	10/22/2010
	10-3270	09-3306	10/22/2010
	10-3270	10-3254	10/22/2010
	10-3270	10-3261	10/22/2010
	11-3037	10-3202	01/26/2010

Panel Assignment:

Not available


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee	Terra Morehead Email: Terra.Morehead@usdoj.gov [NTC Government] Office of the United States Attorney District of Kansas Firm: 913/551-6730 500 State Avenue, Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 D. Christopher Oakley Email: chris.oakley@usdoj.gov [NTC Government] Office of the United States Attorney District of Kansas Firm: 913/551-6730 500 State Avenue, Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 Marietta Parker Direct: 913-551-6730 Email: marietta.parker@usdoj.gov [NTC Government] Office of the United States Attorney District of Kansas Firm: 913/551-6730 500 State Avenue, Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101
v.
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS Defendant - Appellant	John Michael Duma Direct: 913-782-7072 Email: john@dumalaw.com [NTC CJA Appointment] John M. Duma Attorney 303 East Popular Olathe, KS 66061

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant - Appellant.

01/26/2011	90 pg, 758.21 KB	[9835248] Criminal case docketed. Preliminary record filed. DATE RECEIVED: 01/26/2011. Docketing statement due 02/09/2011 for Carrie Marie Neighbors. Notice of appearance due on 02/09/2011 for Carrie Marie Neighbors and United States of America. A/Pet designation of record due 02/09/2011 for Carrie Marie Neighbors. Transcript order form due 02/09/2011 for John Michael Duma.
01/27/2011	3 pg, 53.65 KB	[9835573] Notice of appearance submitted by D. Christopher Oakley for Appellee United States of America for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 01/27/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
01/27/2011	3 pg, 52.88 KB	[9835761] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. D. Christopher Oakley for United States of America. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 01/27/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
01/31/2011	3 pg, 89.2 KB	[9836407] Amended notice of appeal filed.
02/02/2011		[9837497] Notice of appearance submitted by John Michael Duma for Appellant Carrie Marie Neighbors for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 02/02/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA. --[Edited 02/02/2011 by SLS to remove PDF file from docket entry.]
02/02/2011	2 pg, 47.77 KB	[9837508] Acknowledgment of transcript order filed by Carrie Marie Neighbors. Transcript ordered: Motion hearings held 8/20 & 8/23/10 Trial commencing 9/13/10 Sentencing 1/12/11. Served on: 02/02/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
02/02/2011	3 pg, 74.88 KB	[9837510] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. John Michael Duma for Ms. Carrie Marie Neighbors. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 02/02/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
02/02/2011	101 pg, 1.59 MB	[9837514] Docketing statement filed by Carrie Marie Neighbors. Served on 02/02/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
02/03/2011		[9837584] Minute order filed - Transcript order form due 02/17/2011 for Nancy Wiss. (Transcript ordered: Motion hearings held 8/20 & 8/23/10 Trial commencing 9/13/10 Sentencing 1/12/11). (Text Only - No Attachment).
02/04/2011	13 pg, 561.57 KB	[9838105] Designation of record filed by Appellant Carrie Marie Neighbors. Served on 02/04/2011. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.

CARRIE NEIGHBORS MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MOTOIN FOR A NEW TRIAL

2010-10-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

CARRIE NEIGHBORS MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MOtioN FOR A NEW TRIAL

07912372285

federal court Judge LungStrums Order to Dismiss case against Guy and Carrie Neighbors

2010-09-14T15:29:00.000-07:00

Judge LungStrums Order to Dismiss case against yellow house store owners Guy and Carrie NEighbors

Motion To Exclude witnesses By Carrie Neighbors in the yellow house Case

2010-09-14T12:58:00.000-07:00

07912297376

United States’ Motion for Severance Filed Pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. 14

2010-09-07T21:05:00.000-07:00

191-main

Jessica (alleged witness to the Yellow house Case)

2010-09-07T12:54:00.000-07:00

Jessica (an alleged witness to crimes in the Yellow house Case) makes a statement that not only were the LPD posing as FBI agents but they were threatening to charge her with a money Laundering, a crime the Lawrence Police Department officers (posing as fBI agents) had no proof that was even committed.

Strangely enough if Jessica was a suspect why was she not read her Miranda rights before being questioned ?

Jessica's Statement March 29, 2009

Change of Venue Motion For Carrie and Guy Neighbors of Lawrence Kansas

2010-09-07T12:36:00.000-07:00

From:Scribd.com

Change of Venue Motion For Carrie and Guy Neighbors of Lawrence Kansas

Carrie Neighbors and Guy Neighbors Owners of the Yellow house store in Lawrence Kansas. File for a change of Venue after presenting Solid evidence to a Federal judge back in 2008. That not only have their rights been Violated, officers from the lawrence Police department have been posing as federal FBI agents in attempt to scare alleged witnesses families into talking to them about crimes that the lawrence police Claim Carrie and Guy allegedly have committed back in 2005. All of the witnesses and witness families have repeatedly told the LPD that Carrie and guy were not conspiring to commit any crimes. The only witnesses that have agreed to testify against Carrie and Guy Have done this to avoid hefty prison sentences for other crimes they have committed which were not related to the Yellow house Case (Less)

Change of Venue Motion For Carrie and Guy Neighbors of Lawrence KAnsas

2010-07-21T20:33:00.001-07:00

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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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

Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker Deliberatly Sending Mail to the Wrong Address

2010-07-13T11:35:00.001-07:00

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

Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker Deliberatly Sending Mail to the Wrong Address

2010-07-13T11:35:00.000-07:00

Motion to Quash or Strike Defendant [1]'s Proffer

2010-07-12T23:28:00.000-07:00

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

MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES

2010-07-12T23:24:00.000-07:00

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

Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence

2010-07-12T23:21:00.000-07:00

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

MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DR. ROBERT G. LUCKING PARTICIPATING IN THIS MATTER

2010-06-30T07:56:00.000-07:00

Restraining Order

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-PHX

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: 08

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-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 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-05-0099

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

Z
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

DEFENDANT' S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO: 07-20073-CM, 07-20l24-CM,

2010-06-25T09:32:00.000-07:00

07912279060

DEFENDANT (1)'S MOTION TO QUASH THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR UNDER SEAL. AS TO DEFENDANT (1) [Pursuant to 18 USC § 3771]

2010-06-24T07:46:00.000-07:00

6-23-2010_07912287374

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 107

Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 3

Carrie Neighbors

Defendant [1J I Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence. Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785

:. ~1. t
~.

n ::
.~'

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-2010S-CM

CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT (1)'S MOTION TO QUASH THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR UNDER SEAL. AS TO DEFENDANT (1)
[Pursuant to 18 USC § 3771]

COMES NOW on this 23 th day of June 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting
as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Quash the Plaintiffs Motion for Under Seal as to Defendant [1], filed on 06/22/2010, pursuant to 18 USC§ 3771. The Motion is as follows: 1). This motion is a kitchen sink motion, in which fails to specifically identify why this Motion for under seal is needed, at this point and time. Whereby, it should be quashed. 2). The Defendant [1] has a right pursuant to18 USC § 3771 not to be excluded from any court proceeding, as well as, the right from unreasonable delay, in which is not so in this matter.

Motion to Quash the Motion for Under Seal as to Carrie Neighbors

Page 1

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 107

Filed 06/23/10 Page 2 of 3

3). Pursuant to President Obama's Memorandum on Transparency, this case should not be allowed to be placed under seal, due to the public has a right to know after the government had spent all the taxpayers monies on attempting to prosecute a case way beyond the statute of time limitations. Now, that the Defendant [1] had raised the proper motions and the government has failed within due diligence, to prosecute in a timely manner. the government now wants to conceal from the public the errors they have committed within this case. 4). This case was not concealed against the Defendant when the government had publicized this case on 12117/2009, even after the court ordered it not to be publicized, whereby stating it in layman's terms when it only benefits the Plaintiff, or government in this matter. Whereby, this now violates the rights of the accused to either defend or challenge the evidence or witnesses against her in a criminal prosecution, now that she is her own attorney. This is holding her to a heightened standard, as well as, confirms that she is denied equal access to justice. This is absurd at this point and time.

THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion to Quash the Plaintiffs Motion for Under Seal as to Defendant [1], filed on 06/22/2010, pursuant to 18 USC§ 3771, and PRAYS the Court Quash the Plaintiffs Motion to place this matter under seal as to Defendant [1] for the above referenced merits. Respectfully submitted.
/J

Carrie Neigh 0 Defendant [1 I Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785

Motion to Quash the Motion for Under Seal as to Carrie Neighbors

Page 2

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 107

Filed 06/23/10 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing docwnent 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 23 rd day of June 2010. Respectfully submitted,

cQ[;;;J

Defendant [IJ I Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785

Motion to Quash the Motion for Under Seal as to Carrie Neighbors

Page 3

MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND

2010-06-24T07:44:00.000-07:00

6-23-2010_07912287356

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 106

Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 4

\

...

.
~;

Carrie Neighbors Defendant [IJ / 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 08-2010S-CM

CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,
MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND

COMES NOW on this 23th day of June 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting
as a pro se litigant, is filing a Motion to Deny the Plaintiff additional time to Respond to the Defendant [1] 's Motions. The Motion to Deny Additional Time is as follows: 1). The Defendant [1] is under the belief that the government is out of order to either request a continuance, or request additional time, when the court had extended the time to June 28th 2010, and it now gives the appearance of undue delay and prejudices the case. 2). If the government was concerned it would not have had the prosecuting attorney take a vacation, in which she recently was on, in which was another 30 day delay, and during that time no attempt was made to obtain the transcripts, nor did the government appoint another

Motion to Deny Plaintiffs Additional Time Request

Page 1

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 106

Filed 06/23/10 Page 2 of 4

attorney to handle the case. Whereby, the government once again has exhausted their request for any other continuances or additional time at this point, in which the court should not allow any further continuances or delays in this matter, when the court already extended the courtesy and allowed the Plaintiff until the 28th ofJune 20 I O. Title I of the Speedy Tria I Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 2080,
as amended August 2,1979,93 Stat. 328, is set forth in 18 U.S.c. §§ 3161-3174.

2). The Defendant [1] has estimated there was 4 days left on the speedy trial clock when the first case was dismissed. Since then, (not inclusive of the first case) in which was a continuance of the first indictment. [see ref Doc 2 ~ 3] Then on 06/20/07 ofthe second indictment was filed, in which an estimate of 785 days have been excluded from the speedy trial clock, on a case that the speedy trial clock already had tolled within 4 days of the subsequent indictment, in which the record would show that the time had already expired. Title I of the Speedy
Trial Act of 1974,88 Stat. 2080, as amended August 2, 1979,93 Stat. 328, is set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174.

3). The time limitations had already had expired prior to the case being designated as a complex case. Whereby we would request the court take judicial notice of [Doc 2 ~ 3] in the record and rule accordingly, as the Defendant [1] had already pointed out in [Doc 141]. 4). The Defendant [1] is uncertain why the Plaintiff needs the transcripts to respond to the motions in question when the order will suffice, unless the Plaintiff is contradicting the courts order, then the Defendant [1] objects, due to the Plaintiff should have filed an appeal, not challenge the courts decision this late in these proceedings. The Defendant can show due to the Plaintiffs tactics delay on the Defendant [I] was minimal, but only by cause of the prosecution, whereby this delay for additional time should not be allowed. 5). The number of high volume of cases pending in the court is insufficient to justify the delay. [See refMcClellan v. Young, 421 F. 2d at 691] [See ref Doc 143 ~ 2]
Motion to Deny Plaintiffs Additional Time Request PageZ

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 106

Filed 06/23/10 Page 3 of 4

6). General congestion of a courts calendar is impennissible factor on which to base ends ofjustice continuance under Speedy Trial Act. 18 USC § 3161(h)(8)(C). cert denied, 456 U.S. 918, 102 S.Ct. 1776, L.Ed.2d 179 (1982). [See ref Doc 143 ~P] 7). The Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 6.1 (a) [See ref USDC ofKansas case No.

09-3075 JAR, Geoffrey L. Rashaw-Bey v. Ricardo Carrizales, et al., Memorandum and Order dated 0412612010]
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Motion to Deny the Plaintiff additional time to Respond to the Defendant [1] 's Motions, and PRAYS the court Deny the Plaintiff additional time to Respond to the Defendant [1] 's Motions for the above referenced or aforementioned reasons.

Respectfully submitted,

Carrie Neighbo Deftndant [lJ 1 Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785

La

Motion to Deny Plaintiffs Additional Time Request

Page 3

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 106

Filed 06/23/10 Page 4 of 4

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 Defondant [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 23rd day of June 2010. Respectfully submitted,

c(!£.l

Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842·2785

Motion to Deny Plaintiffs Additional Time Request

Page 4

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO: 07-20073-CM, 07-20l24-CM, AND 08-20toS-CM WITH PREJUDICE [Pursuant to 18 USC § 3161(c)(1)]

2010-06-21T11:38:00.000-07:00

Carrie Neighbors Owner of the Yellow house store in lawrence Kansas. Has filled a new motion in the case. The Fed Gov't Marietta Parker, Terra Morehead, Lanny Welch VS. Guy and Carrie Neighbors.

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 1 of 13

.

Carrie Neighbors Defendant [IJ / 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 07-20l24-CM 08-20l0S-CM

CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO: 07-20073-CM, 07-20l24-CM, AND 08-20toS-CM WITH PREJUDICE [Pursuant to 18 USC § 3161(c)(1)] COMES NOW on this 14th day of June 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing an Amended Motion to dismiss the indictment No: 07-20073-CM, 07 20124-CM, and 08-20105-CM with prejudice, pursuant to18 USC § 3161(c)(I). as a result of unjustifiable delay in violation of the fifth amendment's due process clause and sixth amendment right to a speedy trial; The Defendant [1] realizes she had filed "motion to dismiss case no: 07 20073-CM with Prejudice" on April 26 th, 2010 at 12:02PM in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, and due to the fact no party has responded to that motion, defendant is within

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismissall cases

Page 1

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 2 of 13

her 180 days to Amend Petition to dismiss, whereby she is exerting her right to file an Amendment at this time. The Amended Motion is as follows: 1). On 05/04/07 the government moved to voluntary dismiss indictment case #06-20171
01/02 CM/JPO. The indictment was dismissed on 05/10/07 by order of this court.

2). On June

zo" 2007, the Defendant [1] was indicted in the present case number 07

20073-CM followed by two subsequent Indictments case numbers 07-20124-CM and 08-20105 CM. The indictment on June 20th is exactly the same as the dismissed indictment, based on the same alleged offense with a new case number and two new counts added. The following two subsequent indictments are also based upon the same conduct / investigation into the same offense as the very first indictment, with no new substantiated evidence filed. 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 already tolled.

[See ref Zedner v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 1984 (2006)]

4). The Speedy Trial Act provides in relevant part that:
"In any case in which a plea ofnot guilty is entered, the trial ofa Defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission ofa offense shall commence within 70 days from ... the date the Defendant has appeared before ajudicial officer ofthe 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 trom the same criminal episode, the provisions of(b) and (c) ofthis section shall be applicable with respect to such subsequence .... Indictment."

18 USC § 3161(d)(1). Whereby case 07-20073-CM and 07-20124-CM both originated from the same alleged criminal episode. Case 08-201 05-CM originated from a State investigation into a Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases Page 2

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 3 of 13

theft by a KU employee, investigated by KU Police, was not Federal, and resulted in state charges for the KU employee, the defendants were only brought before this Federal court in violation of due process, Federal charges were brought against the Defendants in this court, only because of the prior two Federal cases already pending against the Defendants in this court. Whereby Defendant asserts that the speedy trial limitations apply to this case as a continuance of the other two indictments. The delays between filing the separate indictments all based upon the original alleged offense, based on the same conduct, or arising from the same criminal episode, has prejudiced the defense with repeated arrests, search incidents, pre-trial incarcerations, loss of liberty, Federal Indictment with only state jurisdiction, and multiple violations of due process, whereby repeatedly rewarding the Government with additional time on the speedy trial clock to prosecute for their failure to apply due diligence to this cause of action. 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, 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 credibility of witnesses, the chain of custody of evidence, as well as manufactured evidence. 8). The original warrant itself, on its face was improper and lacked probable cause and support for the search as well as subsequent warrants, or lack thereof in violation of FRCP 41(b). 9). The Defendant [1] has not caused any unnecessary delay or continuance, whereby by the governments dismissing and bringing subsequent indictments gave the government a tactical

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 3

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 4 of 13

advantage over the Defendant [1], in the governments prosecutorial efforts to be a detriment to the Defendant[l]. 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 (61h Cir. 1992)(same) (see refArcher, 984 F. Supp. At 323]
11). I S . .:;'; i I :d I ()lj) states, "Dismissal ofan 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 (lSI Cir. 1974)]

MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT [11'S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO:07-20124-CM. 07-20073-CM.08-20195-CM WITH PREJUDICE
1). Pursuant to U.S. Seltzer Case No: 08-1469 (C.A. 10, Feb. 17th 2010)(10th Cir.)

The Supreme Court has called the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy trial both an "amorphous" right and a "fundamental" one. 2.) The length ofthe delay to bring these indictments to trial has crossed the thresholdfrom "ordinary" to "presumptively prejudicial" ([See Ref United States v. Batie, 433 F.3d 1287, 1290 (lOth Cir. 2006))) because it has been more than 4 years since the first indictment against
Defendant [1] before this court on December 7, 2006 case #06-20171-01/02 CM!JPO. 3.) The subsequent indictments case 07-20073-cm & 07-20124-cm, are based upon the same information available to the Government at the time ofthe first indictment December 7, 2006, case #06-20171-0l/02-cm, the new and additional indictments arose from the same facts known to the Government in the initial indictment. As referenced by the court, case 07-20124 which is now considered a "Complex case" the court states: see ref.[ doc. 36 page 20, USA v.
Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases Page 4

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 5 of 13

Neighbors (loth cir. 2007)] "There was evidence that only after negative publicity and passage of time did government informants begin talking This is further evidence ofprejudice defendants will continue to suffer for a prolonged period due to the delay". The original Indictment was
dismissed by the Government, at the time it has been established by the court that the Government already had the evidence and witnesses for the subsequent cases yet failed to act diligently in its filing. See Ref [doc. 36 page 13 USA v. Neighbors (1d h cir. 2007)] "The court

cannot always control when an informant or witness begins to give relevant information. At the hearing, however, the government provided little evidence ofany other iriformation completely unknown to it, such as when a newly discovered witness shows up at a time too late to utilize him or her at a scheduled trial. The additional information based on the evidence presented at the hearing seems to stem from sources whose credibility is questionable andfrom iriformation and people known to the government at a date much earlier than the day the first trial was scheduled to begin. " whereby the time limitations within which trial is to begin on the subsequent
indictments currently before this court has tolled to the same statutory limitations period that applied to the original indictment.

4.) The Supreme Court in Barker established afour-part balancing test to establish if the defendant'S right to a speedy trial has been violated Thesefactors are: (1) the length ofthe delay,' (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion ofhis desire for a speedy trial; and (4) the determination ofwhether the delay prejudiced the defendant. As the Barker Court stated, "[a] balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis. " Id at 530. No single factor is determinative or necessary, rather all four are considered to determine whether a violation has occurred Id at 533. A.) Length of delay: The first factor looks to the length ofthe delay in pursuing the case against the defendant. This is a double inquiry. First, "[sjimply to trigger a speedy trial analysis, an accused must allege that the interval between accusation and trial has crossed the threshold dividing ordinary from 'presumptively prejudicial' delay one factor among several, the extent to which the delay stretches beyond the bare minimum needed to trigger judicial examination ofthe claim. "Id at 652.

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 5

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 6 of 13

[United States v. Batie, 433 F.3d 1287,1290 (lOth Cir. 2006)] ("Thefirstfactor, length ofdelay, functions as a gatekeeper. "); In the case before this court Defendant [1]'s
length ofthe delay crossed the threshold from "ordinary" to "presumptively prejudicial" because it is more than 4 years. See Ref: [United States v. Batie, 433 F.3d 1287, 1290

(lOth Cir. 2006)] Delays approaching one year generally satisfy the requirement of presumptive prejudice. ''). See also: [Jackson v. Ray, 390 F.3d 1254, 1261 (lOth Cir. 2004)]. "The general rule is that the speedy trial right attaches when the defendant is arrested or indicted, whichever comes first. " The Defendants were first indicted
December 7, 2006; It was dismissed May 4, 2007 with just 7 days left on the speedy trial clock. A continuance of the same Indictment given a new case number 07-20073 eM based on the same offense with two counts added with no new substantive evidence was filed and a second arrest and search incident occurred June 20, 2007 A delay of four years. Two years is twice the time presumed to be ordinary. See
[f)0i:',\::dr

505 ! ..-,

ill

65.:] (the greater the delay, the more likely it is to weigh in the

defendant'sfavor). But to be sure, given other factors, a lengthy delay may not be unreasonable-and, conversely, even a minor delay may be deemed untimely. For example, a court should take into consideration the nature ofthe charges. FJurAlT /il
( \" ill

53 I.

B.) Complexity of case: Defendant [1] asserts the allegations before this court are simple

not complex, at the time of the first search on Dec. 5th 2005, the record will show there were no theft reports and no victims connected to Defendant [1]. All the evidence thereafter was manufactured, and or derived from the "fruit of the poisonous tree". Voluminous pages of non-probative documents with no connection to the case were Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases Page 6

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 7 of 13

piled onto the defense to give the illusion of a complex case, as well as, the Government has mislead the court into believing that there is a voluminous amount of evidence when just recently the Government has admitted that 80% of the evidence seized should be returned to the Defendants because it has no probative value in this cause of action. Whereby violates Defendant [l],s right to a speedy trial which Defendant [1] is now asserting, as well as, has now at this point and time prejudiced this case against Defendant [1], giving the case an appearance of a complex case when it is not, whereby violates defendants Constitutional right to a speedy trial. And further supports Defendant [1]' s arguments that this is not a complex case. As well as, the continuous pattern of practice of constructive fraud before this court. And also the Defendant [1] requests the court take Judicial notice, the Prosecution requesting the court to sanction defendant [1] for filing any future motions in this court on OS/24/2010, violates Defendant [1]'s due process right under the fourteenth Amendment to the

u.s.

Constitution to redress grievances' before this court of law, in which violates Kansas S.C.R. 3.8 & 8.4 (d).

(Citing Guidelines for the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act & Related Statutes, Vol. 7, Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Sec. A. Ch. 2, Part C § 2.22B(3)). Some courts have looked to other factors including voluminous evidence and complex defenses that require a greater than average amount of time or skill in preparing the defense. See Id. (citing United

States v. Muhktaar, No. 06, Cr. 31, 2008 WL 2151798, *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 21,2008))

The case before this court is not a complex case. Neither the indictment, the docket entries, nor has any witness statements or actual evidence with probative value to the actual charges been

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 7

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 8 of 13

presented to this court that would substantiate any unusual or complex legal or factual issues. As well as, including part of the evidence and charges have been by ill-gotten means, due to the fact that the Postal Inspector was brought into this cause of action without Jurisdiction to do so, as well as, the fraud committed in the Postal Inspectors (criminal complaint, warrant for arrest and Affidavit in support of,[document 1 case 2:08-mj-08077-JPO USA v. Neighbors (loth cir. 2008)}

C.) Reason for delay: Besides considering whether the delay was lengthy and unreasonable, the court must also factor in the reasons offered by the government for not exercising due diligence. This factor is especially important: "the flag all litigants

seek to capture is the secondfactor, the reason for delay. " United States v. Loud Hawk, 47-1 US. 302. 315 (/986). The burden belongs to the government to provide an acceptable rationale for the delay. Jackson, 390 F. 3d at 1261 ("The Supreme Court places the burden on the state to provide an inculpable explanation for delays in speedy trial claims. ''). "[Different weights should be assigned to different reasons. " Barker, 407 US. at 531. "A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. D.) In the case before this court it was the Government that has caused the delays, a pattern
of filing subsequent indictments in different courts, based on the same offense absent of new substantive evidence, does not cause the speedy trial clock to start anew, previously established by this court's Order and Memorandum [See Ref US v.

Neighbors, Document 36 Pg.11 (l dh cir. 2007}) "In this case, it was the government's culpability that caused the delay. It is well established that "the Government bears the burden ofensuring the Defendant's speedy trial rights are not violated. [ United States v. Saltzman, 984 F2d 1087, 1093 (l993). When the second indictment was filed here the government did not move to expedite the case. It did not notify this court, which did not handle the case under the first indictment, that there was a potential speedy trial issue with the filing ofthe second indictment. Additionally, the government did not exercise due diligence concerning the timing ofthe speedy trial clock. It originally

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 8

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 9 of 13

argued to this court that the speedy trial clock began anew on Count 2 when the second indictment was filed. But, as noted in the court's prior Memorandum and Order, that interpretation is directly contrary to a Tenth Circuit case decidedjust last year. ") ..See Ref [US. v Taylor, 487, US. 326,340-41(1988)] "The longer the delay, the greater the presumptive or actual prejudice to the defendant ....} Importantly, as the Court stated
in Barker, "the ultimate responsibility" for justifying the delay belongs to the
govemment itn ( .\. ul 53 I. Unlike in [United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262, 1274

(10th Cir. 2009)j, where the defendant requested seven of the nine continuances
granted by the district court, the delay here can be attributed to the Governments continued delays, dismissal, and subsequent indictments based upon the same alleged offense, arising from the same alleged criminal episode. The government bears the burden of bringing this case to trial in a timely fashion, absent sufficient justification. No such justification is present here. [United States v. Saltzman, 984 F.2d 1087, 1093

(10th Cir. 1993) (quotations omitted)). "Where the delay is the result ofintentional dilatory conduct or a pattern ofneglect on the part ofthe Government, dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate remedy." Id. at 1093-94.

E.) Defendants assertion for Speedy Trial: Since Defendant [1] has made the assertion of
her speedy trial right, then she is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether that right has been deprived.. [See Batie, 433 F. 3d at 1291j ("Perhaps most

important is whether the defendant has actively asserted his right to a speedy trial. "}; see also Barker, 407 Us. at 531-32 (t'The defendant's assertion ofhis speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived ofthe right. ").

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 9

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 10 of 13

F.) Prejudice to Defendants:

Defendant [1] has been prejudiced by repeated arrests,

search incidents, pre-trial incarcerations, "pretrial incarceration is a well-established type ofprejudice that a defendant may rely upon in making a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim" prejudicial press releases, loss of liberty by court orders, deprivation of property, repeated competency evaluations, prejudicial delays and loss of counsel. (Ref Doc. 36 pg 15 footnote 4. USA v. Neighbors 1rJh cir. 2007)] 'This court distinguishes this case because the weight accorded to the seriousness ofthe offense was lessened by the evaluation ofthe applicable advisory sentencing guidelines, there has been prejudice shown in this case, and there would likely have been a serious delay defendants would have sat on their rights instead ofso promptly bringing their motion. " Guidelines have been established to which a defendant should be brought to trial, See ref Pursuant to [STATE v. GARZA 2009-NM-063 O. 151] "guidelinesfor determining the length of delay necessary to trigger the speedy trial inquiry ( twelve months for simple cases, fifteen months for cases ofintermediate complexity. and eighteen months for complex cases. ) " "The individual claiming the Sixth Amendment violation has the burden ofshowing prejudice. " Toombs, 574 F.3d at 1275. Prejudice should be assessed in light of the interests that the speedy trial right was designed to protect. The courts have identified three main interests: (i) the prevention of oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) the minimization of anxiety and co cern of the accused; and (iii) Minimization of the possibility that the defense will be impaired. (iv) [d. (citing Barker, 407 u.s. at 532). "Ofthese interests, the most serious is the "hindrance ofthe defense" because the inability ofa defendant to adequately prepare his case skews the fairness ofthe entire system. Id.3 "Because the seriousness ofa post accusation delay worsens when the wait is accompanied by pretrial incarceration, oppressive pretrial incarceration is the second most important factor. " Jackson, 390 F.3d at 1264".

if

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 10

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 11 of 13

Conclusion As the Defendant [1] has shown, in the above referenced document, Defendant [1] has defined the controlling precedence as well as "law of the case doctrine" in these specific issues on the right to Speedy Trial. Whereby the court has no other alternative but to find in Defendant [1]'s favor because of the Government's inability to bring this cause of action to trial within reasonable due diligence; has now prejudiced this cause of action, as the pattern of practice, the first case was already dismissed by the Honorable Judge Carlos Murguia which clearly identified that the statute of time limitations, which has expired on this cause of action. In which was followed by the Honorable Judge John Lungstrums Memorandum & Order for dismissal with Prejudice, in which was then followed by case 2:08-mj-08077-JPO (USA v. Neighbors) filed
08/08/2008 and Terminated 08/20/2008. Whereas the court cannot continue this facade, due to

the fact two Honorable Kansas Federal District court Judges have already acknowledged that the case should be dismissed. In which now constitutes constructive fraud before this court.
"[The Bill ofRights" does not speak ofthe rights and interests ofthe government. " Richard Uviller, Barker v. Wingo: Speedy Trial Gets a Fast ShufJle, 72 Colum. L. Rev. 1376, 1378 (1972); see 5 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 18.1(b) (3d ed 2007) ("It is rather misleading to say . . . that this 'societal interest' is somehow part ofthe right.")' The heart ofthe right to a speedy trial is preventing prejudice to the accused!

THEREFORE for all the reasons as stated above, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing an Amended Motion to dismiss indictment No: 07-20073-CM, 07-20I24-CM, and 08-20I05-CM with prejudice, pursuant toI8 USC § 3I6I(c)(l). as a result of unjustifiable delay in violation of the fifth amendment's due process clause and sixth amendment right to a speedy trial, pursuant toI8 USC § 3I6I(c)(I) and PRAYS the court dismiss case numbers 07-20073-CM, 07-201 24-CM,and 08-201 05-CM with prejudice, pursuant toI8 USC §

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 11

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 Page 12 of 13

3161(c)(1), due to the government's failure to bring the Defendant [1] to trial with reasonable due diligence, prior to prejudicing this cause of action.

Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] Pro se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 12

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 98

Filed 06/14/10 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, KS (No. 14601) MORGAN PILATE LLC 142 N. Cherry Olathe, KS 66061

MARlETTA PARKER KS Dist. Ct. # 77807 TERRA D. MOREHEAD KS S.Ct # #12759 Assistant United States Attorney 500 State Avenue, Suite 360 Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Date mailed out on this

.vr:

of June 2010.

Carrie Neighbors Amended Motion to Dismiss all cases

Page 13

07912279060

Pro-se Motion for Reconsideration

2010-06-04T12:05:00.000-07:00

Pro-se Motion for Reconsideration Marietta parker Lanny D Welch Carrie Neighbors

2010-04-27T20:48:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-04-27T20:45:00.000-07:00

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. Â§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.

2010-04-26T18:59:00.000-07:00

07912112885

2010-04-26T18:58:00.000-07:00

07912006068

2010-04-26T18:56:00.001-07:00

Motion 8-12-09 Ruling on Mental Eval. for Guy Neighbors

Guy Neighbors’ Sealed Motion in 07-20124-

2010-04-26T18:55:00.000-07:00

07912006101

CARLOS MURGUIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2010-04-26T18:53:00.000-07:00

07912111649

CARLOS MURGUIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2010-04-26T18:52:00.001-07:00

07912112898

WAS FBI INVESTIGATION A QUESTION OF ETHICS VIOLATION BY MARIETTA PARKER IN YELLOW HOUSE STORE CASE?

2010-03-28T13:33:00.001-07:00

Was FBI Investigation a Question of Ethics Violation by Marietta Parker in Yellow House Store Case

Guns Missing From Lawrence kansas Police Evidence Room Turn Up In 2 local Pawn Shops For Sale

2010-03-28T13:28:00.001-07:00

Guns Missing From Lawrence Kansas Police Evidence Room Turn Up in 2 Local Pawn Shops for Sal1

Ron Olin & Marietta Parkers Superseding Indictment Is a Vindictive Corruption Cover-Up In The Yellow House Case.

2010-03-28T13:26:00.001-07:00

Ron Olin

Marietta Parker & Terra D. Morehead's Vindictive illegal Lis Pendens Against Yellow House Business Owner's Property.

2010-03-28T13:22:00.001-07:00

Marietta Parker

Federal Prosecutor's Terra Morehead & Marietta Parker Controls Attorneys With Corrupt Contract

2010-03-28T13:19:00.001-07:00

Federal Prosecutor

Federal Prosecutor Threatens & Intimidates Defense Attorneys In The Yellow House Investigation‏

2010-03-28T13:14:00.001-07:00

Federal Prosecutor Threatens

Missing EVIDENCE Leads to 4 Year coverup

2010-03-28T13:04:00.000-07:00

Missing EVIDENCE Leads to 4 Yr

Lawrence Police Officer Mike McAtee Corruptly Operates as a Federal Agent Crossing State Lines to Interrogate

2010-03-28T12:58:00.001-07:00

Archive of an Email Guy Neighbors received :4/22/2009

Lawrence Police Officer Mike McAtee Corruptly Operates as a Federal Agent Crossing State Lines to Interroga...

Web Archive on The corrupt yellow house Case in Lawrence KAnsas

2010-03-07T21:07:00.000-08:00

Documents pulled from a web archive on The yellow house case involving Guy and Carrie Neighbors

Guns Missing From Lawrence Kansas Police Evidence Room Turn Up in 2 Local Pawn Shops for Sale

Prosecutor Marietta Parker Uses Illegally Obtained Search Warrant to Delete Guy Neighbors Blogspot Post Abo...

Civil Rights Violations in Lawrence Kansas

Terra Morehead

Federal Prosecution in the Yellow House Investigation Has NEVER Been Federal Because the FBI Was NEVER Invo...

The Yellow House Case Involves Wrongful Prosecution

Business Owner Pissed Off Because Lawrence Police Officers Lied

More letters

2010-02-22T15:12:00.001-08:00

This letter was dated 2008

Information Needed to Investigate Our Claim o1

Letter from the Co-owner of the Yellow House Store.

2010-02-22T14:42:00.000-08:00

Another letter dated 2007

From the co-Owner of the Yellow house store in Lawrence Kansas.

Police Corruption is Defined as the Abuse of Police Authority for Personal or Organizational Gain

Letter from the Co-owner of the Yellow House Store.

2010-02-22T14:10:00.001-08:00

Letter from the owner of the Yellow House Store.
Dated 5/10/2006

Regarding Lawrence Kansas Police Ongoing Investigation

Prison For Criticizing Federal Prosecutors

2010-02-02T09:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/may/jail-criticizing-federal-prosecutors

A federal judge has sent a Kansas man to prison for criticizing federal prosecutors, claiming that the man posed a threat of “continued criminal defamation of government counsel and witnesses.”

The man (Guy Neighbors) in the northwest Kansas college town of Lawrence has been accused of selling stolen goods in the popular secondhand store he has owned for two decades and has been free on bond pending trial in October. For more than four years federal prosecutors and local police have tried shutting down Neighbors’ store (the Yellow House) but the charges have been dropped once by a federal judge and the trial date has been moved more than a dozen times.

This week U.S. Magistrate Judge James O’Hara revoked the man’s bond (effectively sending him to prison) because federal prosecutors pointed out that in late April he made statements in electronic mails that accused them and police of corruption in the stolen-goods case against him.

The email that landed Neighbors in jail said prosecutors and police officers have acted “in a pattern of conspiracy and cover-up.” Neighbors had previously posted blogs that were similarly critical of authorities, including officers at two local police departments and the federal prosecutor handling his case.

A web site dedicated to following the case posts all the federal documents, including the judge’s order to revoke bail and official transcripts of lengthy court hearings almost entirely devoted to Neighbors’ internet blogging on the matter. It also includes Neighbors’ request for a change of venue alleging he can’t get a fair trial in Kansas.

formal complaints alleging Police misconduct

2010-01-26T13:10:00.000-08:00

07911758391

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

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

Plaintiff,

~.(.lA

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

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

I,

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

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

The

14th Amendment

guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens to due

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

).

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

DEFENDANTS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD

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

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

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

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

s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

l,

claiming the FBI was investigating the Yellow House and had him on tape going into the business with a drill.) (Exhibit #4 page 5, Letter to defense attorney Sarah Swain from Police Chief Ron Olin stating that he could not release the identity of the Federal Investigators, that Police posing as FBI would be a crime, and that Special Agent Bob Shaefer had spoken to her about the issue. He also states that further correspondence concerning the case should be directed to u.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.) (Exhibit #4 page 6 & 7, Letter to Sarah Swain from the FBI explaining that u.S. Attorney Marietta Parker sent FBI Special Agent Walter Schaefer to investigate the allegations of police posing as FBI agents, verifying 60 days had passed and made reference to repeated unanswered phone calls made by Swains office to the FBI in an attempt to set up further meetings with SA Schaefer. According to Special Agent Scott Gentine from the Topeka FBI, the letter was Signed by a retired special agent Kevin Stafford, sent by Timothy A Gallagher) (Exhibit #4 page 8, letter to Bob Schaefer FBI, from Defense attorney Sarah Swain) (Exhibit #4 page 9 &
10,

article in LJworid newpaper that the FBI was

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

complaint. Even though the defense attorney had attempted multiple times to set up meetings, some days attempted to call SA Schaefer 6 times 'without a return call, left messages and faxes for SA Schaefer.) (Exhibit #4 page
12,

Article in LJworld Newspaper confirming the FBI had

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

against the defendants.

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

!D.

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

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

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

A FAIR TRIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE STATE OF KANSAS or MISOURI -_._-- _----_ _ ..
..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o /5
~
]',

Pm.s- f"YlcI
4\'5ft")jU+-

07\

)

S
I ;/

Jj

1 jLb
o '

r..J Cj
VU

y fJ"'e~tof

~~

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

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

",leI

â€¢. ~
VI

(\k S do "-C

(\+",~>,,Â«1

*" *'
\.
<'\

V1

7 qJd-

l

0

l.<"-

(.Je
.:::\.)

C,

.~ sd'" ~
~ L1--

,no, ~ ~ \A('<:
(VI

f-v-W',

Y

Ok' j

,,~ .

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

Personal Deliverv:

I declare that on

jI- D3-oVI personally delivered the attached/%tiol!
(Dat~k.L

J

~

(

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

I

(! /

r

o'--/''t--

(Description of Document)

~;? v

(Name of Recipient)

sl-c;~

Cofl

(Location)

:;1'7
Part 3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the forJ'1!'0ing is true and Executedon6-tJ( at (Date)
c~rrect

and that this declaration was

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

cf-

.Kansas.

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

Â£"'>"'/1.11,;- ..

Â£XJ//rIILFf,
Wichita OjJicl

500 Stak Awn""

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

\. V Wichita, Kanras 67101-4811

llOOEpic Center 301 N. Mai. Topeka Office

U4 Qwinq S.lte ]!IIJ

Tape*". Kanuu 66~]-]591

. United States vs. James McKeighan

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

as

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

\

I

,I

, U.S. Department of Justice
rr-.

â€¢
June 5, 2006

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

Tope1:a

ODie<

SuiJe290

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

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

â€¢

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

Sincerely,

j

J~-D.J/VL~
YERRAO. MOREHEADÂ·
Ass istanHfuited-Sfutes-AttOIII ey

TMijrns Enclosures

â€¢

),

Law Office of Aaron C. McKee, Esq.

-

21604 West 98th Terrace Lenexa, KS 66220
Phone (913) 219-0652 Fax (913) 764-0652
aaronmckee@mckee~law.com

www.mckee-Iaw.com

l"

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

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

Amount Due

Amount Enclosed

$6,057.85
Dale 08/28/2006
Transaction

Rate 175.00

Hours 02

Amount

Balance 4,692.85

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

3500
787.50

I
, i
I

08/29/2006

175.00

4.5

5,480.35

L

08/29/2006

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

175.00

1.4

245.00

5,725.35

08/30/2006

17500
175.00

0.4

70.00

5,795.35

08/30/2006

0.3

52.50
87.50

5,847.85

08/31/2006

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

175.00 175.00

0.5
0.2

5,935.35

08/3112006

35.00

5,970.35

I

i

08/31/2006

175.00

0.5

87.50

6,057.85

negotiations.

I
l

, ,
:

I
i
, ,

:

j

CURRENT 3,380.35

1-30 DAYS PAST DUE 2,677.50

31-60 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

61-90 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

OVER 90 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

Amount Due

$6,057.85

-

Page 3

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

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

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

11130/2006

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

Amount Enclosed

Amount 280.00

Balance 3,195.35

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

ACM - Meeti.

175.00 175.00

2 0.3

350.00 52,50

3.545.35 3,597.85

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

17500

03

52.50

3,650.35

I"'"
09/11/2006

175.00

0.2

35,00

3,685.35

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

ACMÂ· Telep ...

175.00

0.2

3500

3,720.35

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

175.00

0.2

35.00

3,155.35

ACM - Telep .. ACM - Telep...

175.00 175.00

0.2 0.2

35.00 35.00

3,790.35

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

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

175.00

0.2

35.00

3,860.35

175.00

0.3

52.50

3,912.85

I

.I

CURRENT 2,432.50

1-30 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

31Â·60 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

61-90 DAYS PAST DUE 2,051.85

OVER 90 DAYS PAST DUE 0.00

Amount Due $4,490.35

Page 3

KANSAS
Office of Public Safety
October 8, 2008

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

RVO!sp cc: Marietta Parker

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

r>.

THE SWAIN LAW OFFICE
Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law
601 Missouri. Suite 3 Lawrence, KS 66044 (785) 842-2787
www.lawrencecriminalattomey.com

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

FAX COVER SHE~~r

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

RE:
PAGES: 1 COMMENTS:

Untitled

rage

I 'J

or zu

/
WOOD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC.

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

!

\">1~

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

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

,t

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

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

mt:

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

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

r

bttp:lldocs.google.comIView?docIb=dgpr72qd_497g2ppzmfp&revision=_latest

10/112008

Untitled

Page 20 of20

Tha~ j

did oor leellike I bad â€¢ choice in talking with tbest RlCII amll bad to go to

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

00'

AFfIAN'IT SAYSNOT

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

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

"

â€¢

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

10/112008

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

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

4

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

5

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

April 20, 2006 Sarah Swain, Attorney at Law

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

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

W. Ronaid Olin, Ph.D. Chief of Police
WRO:mrp

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

............

,..-

~,

'

I)
In Reply, Pfense Refer to

U.S. O~partltl~nl of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

FileNo.

194-KC-C81080

1300 Summit July 7, 2006

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

66044

~,~

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

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

Sincerely Kevin L. Stafford Special Agent in Charge

2

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

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

866-550Â·2787

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

JIJ1.L
Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law

Ir

I inquiry underway in conduct orponce I Lr wortd.com

"Hj-'", â€¢â€¢

TÂ·

â€¢ â€¢ -.- â€¢ â€¢

..J â€¢â€¢ _ â€¢ â€¢ _

LJWor/d.com
,", â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ E-mail stQ!Y Printer-friendly E-mail editor Comments (44) iPod friendly

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

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

i'
I

That allegation culminated in a sworn affidavit from Lawrence

"r II

6/15/2oo610:08A.

rDI 'nqUlt')'

uneer way 111 ""naUel ofpoJice j

LJWorld.com

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

Photo by Thad Allender
.~,.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More about the inquiry
pgli~e..reYJ~wJ19.M
[,!-'J!er frQJ.!lJ~gE"Â£ ...CJ.ller Rqrlt)JigJg Sm;:..;' 0""i!!g}lbtmUJ)e illve~ti&-ation bft!c)'ll';''1Â£LÂ£)jJlt:JCrs Ll1!.!.tl ...

I..mil)

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

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

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

July 8,2006
Advertisement

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

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

~ ,

s:

Photo by

lU'id ,;item!.u

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

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

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

..,r--.

n~.L
Sarah G Swain AttOiT,E;Y at Law

~

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

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

2.) A.

3.) A. B.

4.) A. B.

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

C.

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

5.) A. B.

C. D.

6. )

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

2.

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

3.

.B.!!.l- O()./o7 JJOtÂ·"/ ~~'1

~ -J" P l,

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

C.

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

5.) A. B.

C. D.

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

2.

â€¢

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

â€¢

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

James McKeighan

Police Lies Backfired

2010-01-20T19:34:00.000-08:00

Here is yet another story of misconduct in Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ Cries Spreading Like Wildfire in SoCal

2010-01-13T16:08:00.000-08:00

Prosecutorial Misconduct’ Cries Spreading Like Wildfire in SoCal

By Ashby Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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