MOTION TO DENY PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND

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