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
" ."

~'.'

."

,-­

Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.

i

l'

U:'- ;'\.~ t;~',~ /~~, '

~

l'

.

Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM OS-20tOS-CM

CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT [lJ 'S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST DR. ROBERT G. LUCKING PARTICIPATING IN THIS MATTER
[Pursuant to FRCP Rule 65]

COMES NOW on this 28 th day of June 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting
as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Judge Mary H. Murguia specifically related to testimony by Dr. Robert G. Lucking, and also U.S Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir,. Case no: 08-3700 Us. v. Hessam

Ghane, Decision by MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges Filed: January 29, 2010, to
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 1

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116

Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 13

refrain from a pattern of practice to administer this type of medication, evaluation, testimony based on guess work, as well as, his appearance of prior perjury before a court of law. The Injunction and Restraining Order is as follows: 1). The U.S. Attorney had written in her Motion filed Under Seal on 06/23/2010 that there was ill-gotten privileged communications (both telephone and written) intercepted and included in a competency evaluation report by Dr. Robert G. Lucking on Carrie and Guy Neighbors, in which was violations of ethics, violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged communications, violations of confidential information.

2). The Defendant [I] was evaluated in a report filed with this court by Dr. Robert G. Lucking, as well as, the interrogation of Defendant [2] about his wife's case was beyond the jurisdiction of a Doctor for the competency evaluation. It also violates The World Medical Association, and APA rules stating that a ''physician shall not use nor allow to be used, as far as
he or she can, medical knowledge or skills, or health information specific to individuals, to facilitate or otherwise aid any interrogation, legal or illegal, ofthose individuals. " As well as,

the Doctor had violated Principle E of the code of conduct, in which violated the right to privacy, and illegally intercepting the private letters and phone conversations, or communications between a married couple. Whereby Dr. Lucking's report violates Defendant [1]'s Constitutional right to be evaluated for this court by a qualified physician bound by the rules of ethics, including the procedural intake process and complete medicine evaluation, which establishes a qualified doctor- patient relationship prior to the competency evaluation and submission of report, which is ruled and protected by laws and ethics relating to the practice of psychiatry, which Dr. Lucking did not have with Defendant [1]. Since the government has opened this "Pandora's box", the Defendant [1] now has the right to challenge Doctor Lucking's credibility.
Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 2

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116

Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 13

3). Now the Defendant [1] through research has found out a pattern of practice of Dr. Robert G. Lucking to mislead and/or contradict as to perjure himself, as well as, inappropriately secure a Sell Order, without the Harper Hearing, before initiating a Sell Litigation, in which Dr. Robert G. Lucking has now violated C.F.R. § 549.43, as law mandates.

4). Dr. Robert G. Lucking has failed to prove that Defendant [2] is dangerous to himself or others, nor has he proven that he is gravely disabled, nor offered less intrusive alternatives as law mandates, whereby Dr. Robert G. Lucking has failed to meet the elements as mandated by the Supreme court for this type of court ordered action or medication.

5). The Defendant [1] request that the USDC order an immediate removal of Dr. Robert G. Lucking from this cause of action, due to his failure to comply with proper procedures, as well as, the prior practice to mislead or perjure and or contradict himself, violations of ethics, violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged communications, violations of confidential information, conflict of interest, and an established pattern of practice by Dr. Robert G. Lucking, Staff Psychiatrist, Federal Medical Center, Butner NC" violating fundamental due process rights to a fair trial, to inappropriately secure a Sell Order, without an Harper Hearing, before initiating a Sell Litigation. [See refUSDC ofArizona case no: CR-05-0099-02-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



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