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
Showing posts with label possiable corruption with federal prosecutors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label possiable corruption with federal prosecutors. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
07912297385
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 6
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM OS-20t05-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT [IrS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [IJ'S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE COMES NOW on this 6th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [I]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence. The Reply is as follows: 1). The Defendant [1] requests that the court take judicial notice that the Plaintiff had failed to specifically raise any objections in reference to the allegations by Defendant [1] as to police mishandling of evidence, destruction of evidence, failure to follow police procedures as to record a true and accurate document ofthe events during the investigation, or perjury, the affidavits were too vague for a warrant to be issued, as shown in the Defendant [1]'s Motion to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 6
dismiss evidence, whereby the Defendant [1] has proven by the undisputed facts that any and all evidence should be dismissed by order of this court. 2). In [Doc 257, , 3] the Plaintiff admits that the Plaintiff does not have a chain of custody, and did not have enough evidence to pursue an affidavit for a warrant, but will show at trial enough proof. First this presents a post facto (after the fact) situation, and second it violates the constitution and due process rights of the accused prior to the warrant being served. a.) The Affidavit for the warrant was improper, it failed to show any direct connection of criminal activity to the defendant [1] or her property, or others who were allegedly committing crimes outside of the defendant's knowledge or control. b.) The affidavit provides voluminous details of the alleged criminal activities of other individuals but fails to show why the criminal activity of others would justify a warrant to be served upon Defendant [1], and some of the incidents cited by affiant in the affidavit were in actuality exculpatory in nature. c.) Whereby it was insufficient grounds to apply for a proper search warrant. Therefore the Affidavit fails to meet the criteria or elements needed to secure a proper search warrant. 3.) "The Government submits that at the time of the trial it will establish, through officers who executed the search warrants and inventoried the items, the foundation for the admissibility of each exhibit, including chain of custody for each .... " As prior testimony by the Officers has already established, the evidence seized from the defendant [were] mishandled, not properly documented or logged into evidence, or destroyed by the same officers the Government makes reference to. The evidence logs have been altered with handwritten notes and additions, the Federal evidence the Government wants to present in this case before this court was not properly
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 6
documented with serial numbers or identification through the Bates system, items appearing in photo affidavits as [stolen] property returned to [rightful owner] cannot be found in evidence logs or photos. The Plaintiff states: ''Although the defendant seems to assert that in order to properly establish the chain of custody the items should be Bates stamped, she fails to cite to and the government cannot locate any legal authority for that claim. " In contrast to the Governments claim see referenced case in which the Judge required the Bates-numerical system be used. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)J "A piece of paper or electronically stored
information, without any indication of its creator, source, or custodian may not be authenticated
under Federal Rule of Evidence. " Federal evidence being held pending a Federal investigation by the Lawrence Police Dept., has been randomly given away to "alleged" victims, by the LKPD police officers who originally seized the items, (not Federal agents as mandated by law) absent any kind of hearing before a judge to establish rightful ownership, absent prior theft reports, without verification the item did indeed belong to the alleged victim, missing the mandatory photo affidavits or Identification documentation of the alleged victims, as required by LKPD policy and procedures for return of evidence. Whereby there is no way to verify the items seized from the business or home, are the same items referenced to in the evidence logs, are the same items in the evidence locker today, would be the same items brought before this court as evidence. The Plaintiff states, that although there is no proper chain of custody to protect the integrity of the evidence or this case, [Doc 257 ~ 3] "Through the testimony of the seizing officers, the government will establish the foundation necessary for the admission of these non-fungible exhibits. " 4). The requirement of authentication or identification is a condition precedent to admissibility. "If proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 6
change, the foundation need only consist of testimony confirming its relevance. It is when the evidence is susceptible to alteration that the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody of the item and sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or has been subjected to tampering or contamination"] US v. Cardenas 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (ldh Cir. 1989)]
5). Due to the (2) officers testimony the evidence was susceptible to alteration, in which the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody, in which also during the Federal Case, in which law requires any and all evidence be documented by the bates system, in which was not done in this cause of action, " ... the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate to the court that it is reasonably probably or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred "[See ref
us v. Ortiz, 966 F 2d 707(rt
Cir. 1992)].
Since the evidence was not properly documented, evidence logs have been altered, serial numbers were not documented and or changed, procedures were not followed, the Government will not be able to meet the burden of proof in this case before this court. Whereby the chain of custody has been broken, may not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence, which requires the Defendant [1] now must pray the court order dismissal of any and all evidence for the above referenced reasons. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)] JOHN M FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge: "In criminal cases, there is unfortunately no rule to which the courts can look for guidance in determining whether the production of documents by the government has been in aform or format that is appropriate. This may be because the "big paper" case is the exception rather than the rule in criminal cases. Be that as it may, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speakspecijica/ly to theform of production. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their present form are the product of nearly 70 years of use and have been consistently amended by advisory committees consisting of judges, practitioners, and distinguished academics to meet
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 6
perceived deficiencies. It isfoolish to disregard them merely because this is a criminal case, particularly where, as is the case here, it isfar better to use these rules than to reinvent the wheel when the production of documents in criminal and civil cases raises the same
problems."
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, due to the vague affidavits, as well as, failure to comply with the unalterable Bates-numbering System and PRA YS the court Dismiss any and all evidence for the chain of custody being broken, and failing to document the evidence properly, as Federal Law Mandates.
Respectfully submitted,
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
LL~
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 5
Case 2:01-cr-200/3-CIVI
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
Carrie ei hbors Defendant [1]/ Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants
Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 1 of 6
Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1} / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20124-CM OS-20t05-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDNAT [IrS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [IJ'S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE COMES NOW on this 6th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [I]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence. The Reply is as follows: 1). The Defendant [1] requests that the court take judicial notice that the Plaintiff had failed to specifically raise any objections in reference to the allegations by Defendant [1] as to police mishandling of evidence, destruction of evidence, failure to follow police procedures as to record a true and accurate document ofthe events during the investigation, or perjury, the affidavits were too vague for a warrant to be issued, as shown in the Defendant [1]'s Motion to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 2 of 6
dismiss evidence, whereby the Defendant [1] has proven by the undisputed facts that any and all evidence should be dismissed by order of this court. 2). In [Doc 257, , 3] the Plaintiff admits that the Plaintiff does not have a chain of custody, and did not have enough evidence to pursue an affidavit for a warrant, but will show at trial enough proof. First this presents a post facto (after the fact) situation, and second it violates the constitution and due process rights of the accused prior to the warrant being served. a.) The Affidavit for the warrant was improper, it failed to show any direct connection of criminal activity to the defendant [1] or her property, or others who were allegedly committing crimes outside of the defendant's knowledge or control. b.) The affidavit provides voluminous details of the alleged criminal activities of other individuals but fails to show why the criminal activity of others would justify a warrant to be served upon Defendant [1], and some of the incidents cited by affiant in the affidavit were in actuality exculpatory in nature. c.) Whereby it was insufficient grounds to apply for a proper search warrant. Therefore the Affidavit fails to meet the criteria or elements needed to secure a proper search warrant. 3.) "The Government submits that at the time of the trial it will establish, through officers who executed the search warrants and inventoried the items, the foundation for the admissibility of each exhibit, including chain of custody for each .... " As prior testimony by the Officers has already established, the evidence seized from the defendant [were] mishandled, not properly documented or logged into evidence, or destroyed by the same officers the Government makes reference to. The evidence logs have been altered with handwritten notes and additions, the Federal evidence the Government wants to present in this case before this court was not properly
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 3 of 6
documented with serial numbers or identification through the Bates system, items appearing in photo affidavits as [stolen] property returned to [rightful owner] cannot be found in evidence logs or photos. The Plaintiff states: ''Although the defendant seems to assert that in order to properly establish the chain of custody the items should be Bates stamped, she fails to cite to and the government cannot locate any legal authority for that claim. " In contrast to the Governments claim see referenced case in which the Judge required the Bates-numerical system be used. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)J "A piece of paper or electronically stored
information, without any indication of its creator, source, or custodian may not be authenticated
under Federal Rule of Evidence. " Federal evidence being held pending a Federal investigation by the Lawrence Police Dept., has been randomly given away to "alleged" victims, by the LKPD police officers who originally seized the items, (not Federal agents as mandated by law) absent any kind of hearing before a judge to establish rightful ownership, absent prior theft reports, without verification the item did indeed belong to the alleged victim, missing the mandatory photo affidavits or Identification documentation of the alleged victims, as required by LKPD policy and procedures for return of evidence. Whereby there is no way to verify the items seized from the business or home, are the same items referenced to in the evidence logs, are the same items in the evidence locker today, would be the same items brought before this court as evidence. The Plaintiff states, that although there is no proper chain of custody to protect the integrity of the evidence or this case, [Doc 257 ~ 3] "Through the testimony of the seizing officers, the government will establish the foundation necessary for the admission of these non-fungible exhibits. " 4). The requirement of authentication or identification is a condition precedent to admissibility. "If proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 4 of 6
change, the foundation need only consist of testimony confirming its relevance. It is when the evidence is susceptible to alteration that the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody of the item and sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or has been subjected to tampering or contamination"] US v. Cardenas 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (ldh Cir. 1989)]
5). Due to the (2) officers testimony the evidence was susceptible to alteration, in which the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody, in which also during the Federal Case, in which law requires any and all evidence be documented by the bates system, in which was not done in this cause of action, " ... the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate to the court that it is reasonably probably or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred "[See ref
us v. Ortiz, 966 F 2d 707(rt
Cir. 1992)].
Since the evidence was not properly documented, evidence logs have been altered, serial numbers were not documented and or changed, procedures were not followed, the Government will not be able to meet the burden of proof in this case before this court. Whereby the chain of custody has been broken, may not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence, which requires the Defendant [1] now must pray the court order dismissal of any and all evidence for the above referenced reasons. [US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)] JOHN M FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge: "In criminal cases, there is unfortunately no rule to which the courts can look for guidance in determining whether the production of documents by the government has been in aform or format that is appropriate. This may be because the "big paper" case is the exception rather than the rule in criminal cases. Be that as it may, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speakspecijica/ly to theform of production. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their present form are the product of nearly 70 years of use and have been consistently amended by advisory committees consisting of judges, practitioners, and distinguished academics to meet
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 5 of 6
perceived deficiencies. It isfoolish to disregard them merely because this is a criminal case, particularly where, as is the case here, it isfar better to use these rules than to reinvent the wheel when the production of documents in criminal and civil cases raises the same
problems."
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence, due to the vague affidavits, as well as, failure to comply with the unalterable Bates-numbering System and PRA YS the court Dismiss any and all evidence for the chain of custody being broken, and failing to document the evidence properly, as Federal Law Mandates.
Respectfully submitted,
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
LL~
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 5
Case 2:01-cr-200/3-CIVI
Document 173
Filed 07/06/10
Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2J counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061
Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101 On this6th day of July 2010. Respectfully submitted,
Carrie ei hbors Defendant [1]/ Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785
Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants
Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence
Page 6
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Eric H. Holder Jr. was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States
Eric H. Holder Jr. was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States. If he was to discover what was being done in the state of Kansas by Lanny D. Welch and former state of Kansas attorney Marietta Parker I think a few federal employees including some state employees would be in deep trouble. This could be the largest corruption scandal in the history of Kansas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
