PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT-GRAND JURY VIOLATION

Are the actions of the Prosecutors in USA v. Neighbors amounting to conduct which can defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts and/or the legal profession into disrepute?

BACKGROUND OF FACTS:

On October 24,2007, A letter was written to defendant Guy Neighbors by Dionne Scherff attorney for Guy Neighbors in United States V. Guy Neighbors case No. 07-20124.

Grand Jury Rule 6(e) functions to protect both the integrity of the investigative process and a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Because leaking by a prosecutor of a witnesses testimony before a grand Jury may constitute a felony under Title 18, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In the letter dated October 24, 2007 Ms. Sherff explains she has a conflict of interest and will not be proceeding as counsel on the case. The letter explains to Mr. Neighbors that a witness by the name of Patrick Nieder had testified adversely against him in a Grand Jury hearing. (In reality Mr. Neighbors has never even personally met Mr. Nieder.)

The letter goes on to explain that Ms. Sherff had traveled to the U.S. Attorney's office in order to review the Grand Jury testimony of Patrick Nieder. Ms Sherff then explains she discussed the conflict with the Government US Assistant Attorney Terra Morehead. And Morehead stated the she did not expect Mr. Nieder to be a witness in Case no. 07-20073.

In direct contrast to Ms. Moreheads statement, and rendering her credibility in the case questionable, during an evidence hearing in USA v. Guy Neighbors case no. 07-20073 before the Honorable Chief Judge John Lungstrum on November 5, 2007, Postal Inspector David Nitz; under the direction of AUSA Attorney Terra Morehead read the adverse testimony by Patrick Nieder, falsely claiming he had sold $30,000.00 in drugs and guns to the Yellow House Store and that Mr. Neighbors had met with him to buy the guns.


The disclosure of this witnesses false testimony before the Grand Jury was used to gain a tactical advantage over the defense, in order to force the defense attorney to have to withdraw from the case, create a conflict, and even possibly set the stage for a future mis-trial.


Any time a prosecutor purposely manipulates the Grand Jury's veil of secrecy rule by leaking evidence to gain a tactical advantage, for self-enrichment, to cause embarrassment, or out of shear malice, then she has willfully misused grand jury information in a manner no court or jury should excuse.

Because grand jury information is government property, its intentionally unauthorized use by a prosecutor abusing her power is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 which criminalizes the theft of any thing of value. United States grand jury transcripts constitute property covered by §641. More important, the intangible information presented to the grand jury reflected in those transcripts also constitute “any thing of value” under § 641.9.

As a direct result of the United States Assistant Attorney's disclosure of this Grand Jury Testimony, on the 29Th day of October 2007, Dionne Sherff was forced to file a motion to withdraw as Guy Neighbors defense attorney of record. According to the motion Assistant United States Attorney Marietta Parker had no objection to the motion.
Guy Neighbors was also forced to be a defendant in the evidence hearing in Judge Lungstrums court on November 5, 2007, while being represented by a defense attorney with a conflict of interest, who had already filed a motion to withdraw from the case.

In Furtherance of the misconduct, it appears all the discovery involving Patrick Nieder was removed from the Nieghbors file prior to the current defense attorneys being appointed to the case!

CONCLUSION:
Considering the fact that Federal Prosecutors wield an awesome power to investigate federal crimes with the aid of grand jury subpoenas, deals in exchange for testimony and many other tools of power at their fingertips, they must exercise their discretion in a sound, trustworthy and judicious manner.

When a prosecutor intentionally leaks protected Grand Jury testimony she engages in a form of prosecutorial misconduct that not only may compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial, but may also penalize the interests of the United States in a successful prosecution.

Get free hit counter code here.

VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, FEDERAL MOTION TO DISMISS PRO-SE

Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors, pro-se hereby moves the Honorable Court to Dismiss the above captioned matter for prosecutorial misconduct, to-wit, Vindictive prosecution and as grounds therefore states for the record:
Petitioners believes and therefore asserts that the above titled case has been brought before the
Honorable Court by FRAUD in a mis-construction of statutes, by perjured testimony, by deprivations of constitutionally secured due process, conspiracy and by the commencement of a
vindictive prosecution by a prosecutor.

Contained herein is only the facts and the case law surrounding vindictive prosecution.

The defense cannot, in good faith proceed by waiving any constitutionally secured rights and the Honorable court cannot rule on issues that are not properly before it. The Prosecution has deliberately failed to rise to minimal standards of professional performance and has knowingly and intentionally impeded and obstructed justice in order to gain an unfair advantage in the Prosecution of defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors USA v. Neighbors 07-20124-01-02 KHV/DJW. The petitioner has been repeatedly intentionally and selectively singled out for prosecution on matters that the STATE has shown no compelling interest in, and no probable cause for action.

A bad faith prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or discourage the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 743 F.Supp. 15.

It is exceedingly clear that the Government is presently engaged in an on-going and continuing malicious, vindictive and retaliatory prosecution of the petitioner in order to unlawfully gain an advantage in a sealed civil action of a third party that has resulted from the abuse of authority by officials and civil rights violations of a witness connected to this investigation.



----------------------------------------------
1. Vindictive prosecution” occurs when government penalizes a person merely because he has exercised a
protected statutory or constitutional right. U.S. v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928, appeal after remand 168 F.3d 503.
2. In determining whether an indictment posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was
whether the situation presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a possibility that the defendant might be deterred from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300.
3. To establish vindictive prosecution, defendant must show that prosecutor has some persona “stake” in
deterring defendant” exercise of his constitutional rights, and that prosecutor’s conduct was unreasonable. U.S. v. Wells, 211 F.3d 988, 2000 Fed.App. 161P.
4. Prosecutor’s charging decision does not impose improper “penalty” on defendant unless it results from
defendant’s exercise of protected legal right, as opposed to prosecutor’s normal assessment of social interests to be vindicated by prosecution. U.S. v. Taylor, 749 F.2d 1511.



The defendants believes, and therefore alleges, that AUSA Marietta Parker, has suborned various witnesses through harassment, the bribery of deals and offering payment up to $80, to commit perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 & 1622 before a Federal Grand Jury. Person’s known and unknown to the defendants; including but not limited to wit: testimony by Patrick Nieder Who stated under oath the defendant had trafficked $30,000 in Guns drugs for him, but did not know the defendant’s first name. And James P. Ludwig, who falsely testified that the defendants busy store Yellow House Appliances, while open to the public, openly displayed packaged drugs in the form of “green hairy balls” in full view behind the counter. Statement of facts given through the testimony of Postal Inspector David Nitz under oath during an evidentiary hearing 11-05-2007 before the Honorable Judge Lungstrum.


FATALLY FLAWED INDICTMENT
An indictment returned by a legally constituted grand jury may not
be challenged on the ground of inadequate or incompetent evidence,
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956), and may not be
dismissed for errors in the grand jury proceedings* which do not prej-
udice the defendant. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S.
250, 257 (1988). However, an indictment may be challenged on the
grounds of constitutional error and prosecutorial misconduct. United
States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 486 (4th Cir. 1993).

Perjured testimony and suppressed evidence constitute due process violations. The rights of the accused were violated when the prosecution offered perjured testimony and withheld evidence favorable to the accused. DeLuzio v. People, 177 Colo. 389, 494 P.2d 589 (1972)

5. Fifth Amendment prohibits Government from prosecuting defendant because of some specific animus or
ill will on prosecutor’s part or to punish defendant for exercising legally protected statutory or constitutional right.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, rehearing denied, mandate recalled and corrected 957 F.2d 301, appeal after remand 67 F.3d 641, opinion modified on denial of rehearing 74 F.3d. 152.

Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors believes, and therefore alleges, that in order to secure an Indictment in Federal Court on circumstantial evidence, absent of any compelling physical evidence beyond mere hearsay, AUSA Prosecutor Marietta Parker knowingly and intentionally conspired and colluded with Patrick Nieder and James P Ludwig to commit perjury under oath before the Federal Grand Jury, which therefore constitutes State and Federal Crimes, in conspiracy.

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. §371: makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a “conspiracy” is an agreement or a kind of “partnership” in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member); and prima facie intentional and malevolent violation of Ethical Rule 8.4 (c).

The Prosecutor AUSA Marietta Parker retaliated against the defendants with a superseding indictment that was filed 02-27-2008. Piling up additional charges to the fatally flawed Indictment, on top of the existing charges without any new incidents or additional evidence, in a vindictive move to Moot the defense’s motion to dismiss the Lis Pendens that had been placed against the defendants property .


6. “Vindictive prosecution” occurs when a prosecutor brings additional charges solely to punish the
defendant for exercising a constitutional or statutory right, such as a defendant’s right to a jury trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6 U.S. v. VanDoren, 182 F.3d 1077.

7. Prosecution is “”vindictive” and violates due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant because he has done something the law plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual vindictiveness require objective evidence of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274.




The defense alleges the prosecution has continually violated the right of due process of the law in retaliation for the defendants exercising their Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, requests for speedy trial, submission of formal complaints, and to “limit the liability” in the related Sealed Civil action by a witness.


LEGAL STATEMENT
The first step is the establishment of the “basic, primary, or historical facts: facts ‘in the sense of a recital
of external events and the credibility of their narrators. . . ‘” Townsend v. Sain 372 U.S. 293, 309 n. 6, 83 S.Ct.745,755 n.6, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) (quoting Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 506, 73 S.Ct. 397, 446, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953)(opinion of Frankfurter, J.)).

The second step is the selection of the applicable rule of law.

The third step – and the most troublesome for standard of review purposes – is the application of the law
to fact or, in other words, the determination “whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790 n. 19, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).

[2] The district court’s resolution of each of these inquires is, of course, subject to appellate review. The
appropriate standard of review for the first two of the district court’s determinations – its establishment of historical facts and its selection of the relevant legal principle – has long been settled. Questions of fact are reviewed under the deferential, clearly erroneous standard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Questions of law are reviewed under the nondeferential, de novo standard. See, e.g., U.S. v. One Twin Engine Been Airplane, 533 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.1976); Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F2d 104, 115 (9th Cir.1962). These established rules reflect the policy concerns that properly underlie standard of review jurisprudence generally. Thus, because the application of law to fact will generally require the consideration of legal principles, the concerns of judicial administration will usually favor the appellate court, and most mixed questions will be reviewed independently. This is particularly true when the mixed question involves constitutional rights.
Accordingly, I would be content to rest the debate that has for so long engaged this court upon a statement
made by the Supreme Court, to which we look for leadership in such matters:
“While this Court does not sit as in nisi prius to appraise contradictory factual questions, it will, where
necessary to the determination of constitutional rights, make an independent examination of the facts, the findings, and the record so that it can determine for itself whether in the decision as to reasonableness the fundamental – i.e.,
constitutional – criteria established by this Court have been respected. . .” Ker v. California, 374 U.S. at 34, 83 S.Ct. at 1630. [United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d. 1195 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).]
A defendant alleging vindictive prosecution has the burden of showing an appearance of vindictiveness. The appearance gives rise to a presumption of vindictiveness. Whether there is an appearance of vindictiveness is a question of fact reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Clay, 925 F.2d 299, 302 (9th Cir. 1991). Once that fact is established, whether the presumption arises is a question of law reviewed de novo.

The Prosecutor in this case, U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker has continued to pile on charges and Indictments followed by selectively abusive arrests, searches, civil rights violations, theft of defendants property, incarceration and violation of the Constitutional right of due process of law using statutes that the defendants charges due not qualify for and which the evidence would not merit a trial conviction, brought forth in retaliation for the defendants exercising of the constitutionally secured right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievance.

8. “Stalking Horse” Marietta Parker Prosecutor for the DISTRICT OF KANSAS US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE by and through abuse of power has
has been prevailed upon by conspiracy with law enforcement officers Jay Bialek, Micky Rantz, FBI Special Agent Walter Robert Schaefer “Bob Shaefer,” Postal Inspector David Nitz, IRS Agent Robert Jackson, KU Detective Michael Riner and Police Chief Ronald Olin, to convert the lawful statutes into purposes of commencing and conducting an unlawful retaliatory prosecution known in legal fiction as UNITED STATES V. GUY NEIGHBORS AND CARRIE NEIGHBORS CASE cr-20124-CM-JPO

9. Successful assertions of vindictive prosecution are most common where defendant advances some
procedural or constitutional right and is then punished for doing so. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 U.s. v. Lanoue, 137 F3d 656.

10. Prosecution is “vindictive” and violates due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant because he has
done something the law plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual vindictiveness requires objective evidence of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend 5 U.S. v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274.

11. Prosecution is “vindictive” and violation of due process if undertaken to punish person because he has
done what law plainly allows him to do; filing of indictment may in some instances be basis for such a claim. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Polland, 994 F.2d 1262.


MOTIVE

After executing the search of defendants Home and Business December 5, 2005, The search of the home located at 1104 Andover was executed without a valid search warrant at 9 am. After finding the room with the plants the officers got a “piggy back” warrant to cover-up for the fact no valid warrant was used to enter the property. This can be verified through an evidence hearing and a disclosure of documents. Valuable property was seized in violation of the search warrant, the seized property was improperly recorded, handled, some items never made it to the evidence custodian, and it was later disclosed to the defendants “three high-end laptops that the police agreed to return to the defendants were missing from the evidence room.”The seized property has been held indefinitely for nearly 4 years (since 2005), in violation of due process of law, affording the defendants a right to a hearing before a Judge to determine what property should be held as evidence and what property should have been returned to the defendants.

If the Lawrence Kansas Police officers under the direction of Police Chief Ronald Olin involved with the execution of the search was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated the Fourth Article in Amendment by an unlawful search and seizure, they would be criminally and civilly liable for $50,000 per day for theft of Petitioner’s lawful private registered property a standard administrative protocol commonly used by modern quasi-judicial tribunals and administrative agencies of the government to establish facts
prior to adjudication.

12. Although prosecutor’s discretion as to whom to charge is particularly ill-suited to judicial review, discretion
is not unfettered and decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon unjustifiable standards such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights, and prosecutor may not select individual for prosecution solely because of exercise of rights under the First Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Hunt v. Tucker, 875 F.Supp. 1487, affirmed 93 F.3d 735.

A prosecution based entirely upon an intentional and deliberate mis-construction and erroneous
application of the statutes creating a legal impossibility and having no remote chance of prosecutorial success before a jury is ipso facto “unreasonable” and constitutes a prima facie“ vindictive prosecution.” Such a wild, erratic departure from acceptable prosecutorial practice cannot possibly be normal or usual business. The vast resources and finances expended in this vindictive prosecution must also raise “red flags” in the mind of any reasonable person. What would a Prosecutor hope to gain, what great social evil would she strive to prevent? Before this case the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors were foster parents for 9 years to over 24 children, had been matched with a child through the Big Brother program for 10 years, had deep community involvement including working with the homeless, and ran their successful business in the community for 23 years. Had no prior history of criminal involvement of any kind. The simple answer is that this is a retaliatory prosecution.

The undeniable fact that the UNITED STATES US ATTORNEY MARIETTA PARKER is
prosecuting case #CR-20124-CM against the Petitioner and in doing so continues defending and conspiring with STATE actors in Federal Civil Rights violations against the defendants establishes a prima facie conflict of interest and a credible motive for a vindictive prosecution.

13. In determining whether an indictment posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was
whether the situation presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a possibility that the defendant might be deterred from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300.


REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

There is no doubt that numerous GOVERNMENT AGENCIES have a “vested
interest in the outcome” of this case. There is no doubt that the ACTING US ATTORNEY FOR THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Marietta Parker,
has a conflict of interest in continuing the prosecution of this case, based on the mere fact that the defense has been severely prejudiced by the fact all the formal complaints by the Neighbors and the witnesses that were turned into the Internal Affairs for color of law violations and civil rights violations involving all cases and actions in this investigation have been forwarded to Marietta Parkers office at the Department of Justice. Complaints that should have been investigated by a third disinterested party were instead being used by the Prosecutor against the defendants for retaliation and cover-up purposes.
The obvious conflict of interest cannot be ignored.
The open and unconcealed pernicious and egregious prosecutorial vindictiveness in this instant matter justifies the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice,

Defendants respectfully ask this Honorable court for the dismissal of the Indictment USA v. Neighbors 07-20124-01-02-khv, cr-20073-CM. “EBay case” including the superseding indictment.
A trial court may grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to CrR 8.3 (b) if there has been any arbitrary action or governmental misconduct resulting in prejudice to the rights of the accused which materially affect the accuser’s right to a fair trial. Or upon denial of the dismissal of the fatally flawed Indictment, the defense formally requests an evidentiary hearing and further request that all the transcripts and discovery presented to the Grand Jury by the Prosecutor be made available to the defense.

Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for considerations by Pro-se Defendant petitioners Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors.

Whenever any person is required to take an oath before
he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or
business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for
any person employed to administer the oath to administer
it in the following form: The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD

lACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT

MOTION TO DISMISS OR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
BASED UPON FOURTH AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS , LACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION

Comes now Guy Neighbors defendant pro-se in a hybrid motion, a Constitutional right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to respectfully ask this Honorable court to dismiss Indictment USA v. Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors case 07-20073-01/02-jwl/djw, or request an evidentiary based on Constitutional Civil Rights violations, and Lack of Agency Jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND:
On December 2rd, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts. Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Drug taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States Postal Service and IRS also executed a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104 Andover. (The warrantless illegal search allegation is securely supported by documentation which the defendants are prepared to provide through an evidentiary hearing)
Upon discovery at the residence of several small plants in a back room of the residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so called “piggy back” warrant signed by Judge Stephen Six, at 1:30 pm that afternoon. Legally A “Piggy back” warrant would not have been necessary since the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the searches.
Also seized from the residence and poorly documented were the defendants legal valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and under Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe.
(One year later) On December 7th, 2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service, and the IRS, headed by IRS Agent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from the IRS, for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges,( based on the original search and absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at 1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and attending police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC, Sec. 846.
On the 21st day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrum dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution.
Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to wit; KBI, DEA, FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in the investigation or arrests.


LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and Carrie Neighbors request that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice, and that the arrest for the Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law. In other cases involving the application of Kansas Statute, it was held that assistance by authorities possessing jurisdiction can serve to validate a search, even if the officers acting outside their jurisdiction also participate. See See United States v. Price , 75 F.3d 1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti , 998 F.2d 791, 798-99 (10th Cir. 1993). However that was not the case in Neighbors V USA because no officer or agent with jurisdiction over the statutes was present during the search or arrest.


The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The scope of this protection extends to any area in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the Fourth Amendment provides that all warrants shall be based upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:

The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C. fj 3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail"). That grant of authority is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal offenses" and the enforcement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(l)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
powers of Postal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and inspectors of the USPS-OIG, referring to both as "Postal Inspectors." Id. 5 233.1(a). While recognizing their common authority to enforce laws related to the mails, the section circumscribes the primary responsibility of the USPS-OIG and the USPIS:
(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph
(a) of this section shall be exercised only--
(1) In the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of
the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails,
and other postal offenses. With the exception of enforcing laws
related to the mails:
(i) The Office of Inspector General will investigate all
allegations of violations of postal laws or misconduct by postal
employees, including mail theft; and
(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of
violations of postal laws or misconduct by all other persons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST
9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
IRS Agent Authority to Arrest

The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 26 USC §7608.
This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States; to make arrests with or without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the Internal Revenue laws that is committed in his/her presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony
9.1.2.2 (01-16-2008)
General Authority to Enforce Internal Revenue Laws and Related Statutes
1. Title 26 United States Code (USC) §7608(b) provides the initial authority for investigating crimes arising under the Internal Revenue laws. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). The repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath, was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement. Therefore fruits from any searches should be suppressed see United States v. Pennington , 635 F.2d 1387, 1389-91 (10th Cir. 1980).
Constitutional rights are not amenable to compromise.
Jurisdictions, authority and codes of investigating agencies is set forth to protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the State officers and Federal Agents were acting outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation, any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241.
Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating within the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one’s oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore Guy Neighbors respectfully requests the termination of the case, the suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for considerations by Pro-se Defendant

petitioner Carrie Neighbors.
Signed_______________________dated___________________
Whenever any person is required to take an oath before
he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or
business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for
any person employed to administer the oath to administer
it in the following form: The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD

CORRUPTION AND COVER-UP IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE

According to the Federal Criminal Resource manual, A Federal investigation that leads to a Federal Indictment, should be handled by the Agency or Bureau that has Jurisdiction over the Statutes assigned by citation.

According to the Federal Criminal Resource manual, an investigation into Federal offenses involving money laundering, fencing, drug and gun charges, would fall under the Jurisdiction of the FBI. The FBI then delegates agencies with Jurisdiction over specific statutes to assist in the investigation. To wit; Postal Inspector for mail fraud and IRS for financial crimes.
The FBI begins the Federal level investigation by initially gathering the details of information from the police, decides if the details of the crime would merit a Federal level investigation and takes the information to the Attorney General. The Attorney General and the FBI present the Federal Prosecutor with the evidence and the Federal Prosecutor must determine if a case merits a Federal Prosecution, and what Federal statutes of law merits a Federal level prosecution.

BACKGROUND OF FACTS:
In the Yellow House case, the local Police department began the investigation November 2005 as a State level case with the assistance of the IRS and Postal Inspectors office.
After one month of investigation by two LKPD patrol officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz, on December 2, 2005 the local Police assisted by Sheriffs deputies, District Attorneys, Drug enforcement task force, Postal Inspectors, and IRS agents executed an illegal unwarranted search of the defendants home, violated the legal search warrant of the business, tried to cover-up for the lack of a search warrant at the residence by acquiring a "Piggy back warrant" midway through the search.

THE NEED FOR COVER-UP:
Dec. 3, the Lawrence Police Departments Internal Affairs Sgt. Dan Ward made defaming false allegations to the media about details of the case, allegations of wrong doing, estimated dollar amounts of the crime, the defendants presumed guilt and publicly labeled the defendants business as "the largest most sophisticated fencing organization ever in the history of Lawrence". All in violation of Departments Procedure and Policy. The local District Attorneys office declined to press State charges or be involved in the case.

LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY LEADS TO CORRUPTION:
There is no citizen review board in Lawrence for individuals to express grievances about the actions of the Police department. The City Manager, City Counsel and Internal Affairs do not handle complaints of police misconduct in connection to ongoing investigations. The complaints the Yellow House business owners turned in to LKPD Internal Affairs were forwarded to the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker.

THE SCHEME:
As a favor to the Police Chief Ron Olin, The Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker accepted the State case being investigated by two Patrol officers for Federal Prosecution. To cover-up for the fact the FBI was not involved in the investigation, documentation shows she allegedly had the two patrol officers stage the appearance of an FBI investigation by insinuating to various individuals that the FBI was involved in the investigation, telling witnesses they were being filmed by FBI surveillance, investigated or questioned by FBI agents.

In response to the formal complaint by the defendants that LKPD officers were posing as FBI agents. The Prosecutor Marietta Parker sent down Kansas City FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer ie: "Walter Robert Schaefer" to stage an investigation and clear the Police Department of any wrong doing. Even though the Topeka FBI is the resident agency with Jurisdiction over Lawrence matters.

The same day the police are cleared by Kansas City FBI Agent "Bob Shaefer" in retaliation for the defendants complaints, the Prosecutor Marietta Parker had local police officers assisted by the Postal Inspectors and the IRS execute two more search warrants on the defendants business and home, which entailed the seizure of more merchandise, the seizure of the copies of the same business records the police had given the business 6 month prior,(since the originals were still being detained from the original search warrant in 2005) and personal computers,and ipods of the entire family.

In October 2006 LKPD officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz violated the Constitutional right of the defendants to have counsel during questioning and violated the chain of evidence rule by returning seized evidence without proper procedure.

In response to the defendants filing a complaint that was forwarded to the Prosecutor Marietta Parker, the US Attorney's office had the Postal Inspector David Nitz and IRS Agent Robert Jackson arrest the Neighbors for for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .

Arrests by the Postal inspector who according to Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations only has jurisdiction over cases involving the mails, and IRS Agent whose general authority is enforcement relating to the Internal Revenue laws and statutes, was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law.

IN CONCLUSION:
The Neighbors allege that the entire Yellow House case is a corrupt State level investigation involving a Federal level Conspiracy that has been ongoing since 2005. This State investigation has resulted in four separate flawed Federal Indictments, absent of an FBI investigation, both defendants being falsely arrested and incarcerated in a Federal Prison for a State case. All four indictments (Two for the same Federal drug and gun charges, one for Ebay case, and one for Obstruction of Justice) were the result of corrupt State level investigations by patrol level police officers, and the Federal arrests were carried out by the Postal Inspector, assisted by the IRS and uniformed officers in conspiracy with the Federal Prosecutor All lacking agency Jurisdiction over the Statutes and codes being enforced.

MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON
FOURTH AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS , LACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION


Comes now Guy Neighbors defendant pro-se in a hybrid motion, a right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to respectfully ask this Honorable court to dismiss Indictment USA v. Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors case 07-20073-01/02-jwl/djw, or request an evidentiary based on Constitutional Civil Rights violations, and Lack of Agency Jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND:
On December 2rd, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts. Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Drug taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States Postal Service and IRS also executed a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104 Andover. (The warrantless search allegation is securely supported by documentation which the defendants are prepared to make available through an evidentiary hearing)
Upon discovery at the residence of several plants in a back room of the residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so called “piggy back” warrant signed by Judge Stephen Six, at 1:30 pm that afternoon. Legally A “Piggy back” warrant would not have been necessary since the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the searches.
Also seized from the residence and poorly documented was the defendants legal valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and under Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe.

(One year later) On December 7th, 2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service, and the IRS, headed by IRS Agent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from the IRS, for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges,( based on the original search and absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at 1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and attending police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC, Sec. 846.
On the 21st day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrum dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution.
Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to wit; KBI, DEA, FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in the investigation or arrests.


LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and Carrie Neighbors request that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice, and that the arrest for the Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law.


The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The scope of this protection extends to any area in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the Fourth Amendment provides that all warrants shall be based upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:

The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C. fj 3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail"). That grant of authority is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal offenses" and the enforcement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(l)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
powers of Postal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and inspectors of the USPS-OIG, referring to both as "Postal Inspectors." Id. 5 233.1(a). While recognizing their common authority to enforce laws related to the mails, the section circumscribes the primary responsibility of the USPS-OIG and the USPIS:

(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph
(a) of this section shall be exercised only--
(1) In the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of
the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails,
and other postal offenses. With the exception of enforcing laws
related to the mails:
(i) The Office of Inspector General will investigate all
allegations of violations of postal laws or misconduct by postal
employees, including mail theft; and
(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of
violations of postal laws or misconduct by all other persons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST
9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
IRS Agent Authority to Arrest
The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 26 USC §7608.
This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States; to make arrests with or without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the Internal Revenue laws that is committed in his/her presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony
9.1.2.2 (01-16-2008)
General Authority to Enforce Internal Revenue Laws and Related Statutes
1. Title 26 United States Code (USC) §7608(b) provides the initial authority for investigating crimes arising under the Internal Revenue laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). The repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath, was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement.
Constitutional rights are not amenable to compromise.
Jurisdictions, authority and codes of investigating agencies is set forth to protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the officers and agents were acting outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation, any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241.
Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating within the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one’s oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore the Neighbors respectfully request the termination of the case, the suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice.

Green argues that incriminating evidence from the November and December searches of his house 5 should be suppressed because the WPD officers who investigated him, obtained warrants to search his residence, and executed that warrant were acting outside their jurisdiction. It is evident, and indeed the government does not contest, Appellee's Br. at 11, that the WPD officers were acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law, which provides that


(2) Law enforcement officers employed by any city may exercise their powers as law enforcement officers:


(a) Anywhere within the city limits of the city employing them and outside of such city when on property owned or under the control of such city; and


(a)in any other place when a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from that place or when in fresh pursuit of a person.


Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2401a(2) (West 1995); see State v. Sodders , 872 P.2d 736, 738-40 (Kan. 1994).
Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1990)
"It is, however, well established in this circuit that `in federal prosecutions the test of reasonableness in relation to the Fourth Amendment protected rights must be determined by Federal law even though the police actions are those of state police officers.'" United States v. Le , -- F. 3d --, --, 1999 WL 176192, at *4 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1999) (quoting United States v. Miller , 452 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir. 1971)). This is because "`the exclusionary rule is only concerned with deterring [federal] Constitutional violations.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Wright , 16 F.3d 1429, 1437 (6th Cir. 1994)). Thus, "the fact that the arrest, search, or seizure may have violated state law is irrelevant as long as the standards developed under the Federal Constitution were not offended." Id. (citation omitted).

Green argues that we have applied state law in past cases where we have considered whether a search was lawful, citing United States v. Richardson , 86 F.3d 1537 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Price , 75 F.3d 1440 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti , 998 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1993); and United States v. Ibarra , 955 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1992). Indeed, in Price and Occhipinti , Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2401a was the state statute at issue. Green, however, misinterprets our cases. In Price , we explained that our discussion regarding whether the Kansas statute was complied with in that case was secondary to the federal constitutional inquiry mandated by the Fourth Amendment. We stated that, in that case, the defendant's argument that the Kansas statute was violated failed in any event, because the officers had not acted in violation of the statute. Price , 75 F.3d at 1443; see also Richardson , 86 F.3d at 1544; Occhipinti , 998 F.2d at 798-99. However, we were careful to point out that even if the Kansas statute had been violated, that would not have ended the inquiry, because "[t]he authority in a federal case for suppressing evidence due to an unlawful search is the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. A violation of state law may or may not form the basis for suppression on Fourth Amendment grounds." Price , 75 F.3d at 1443-44 (citations omitted); cf. Ibarra , 955 F.2d at 1409-10 (conducting a Fourth Amendment inquiry even after finding that the state statute was violated).

In an effort to link the WPD officers' violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Green cites Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, we held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54. That case, however, is distinguishable from the case at hand in one major respect: Ross involved a warrantless arrest outside the arresting officer's jurisdiction. Id. at 1354 (stating that "[a] warrantless arrest outside the arresting officer's jurisdiction is analogous to a warrantless arrest without probable cause" and that "[a]bsent exigent circumstances, such an arrest is presumptively unreasonable"). A warrantless arrest is vastly different from a warranted search. In the case before us, there is no dispute that the WPD officers obtained search warrants from magistrates of the relevant jurisdiction. We decline to extend Ross to the context of warranted searches.

The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires only that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). These requirements were clearly met in this case. Green does not contest that probable cause, albeit allegedly tainted by the violation of the Kansas statute, 6 existed to support each of the three challenged searches, including the December search of the van discussed below, see Appellant's Br. at 19, 24, and he has not attempted to argue, either on appeal or before the district court, that the warrants were not sufficiently particular.

In sum, there was no federal constitutional violation in this case. The Fourth Amendment is satisfied where, as here, officers obtain a warrant, grounded in probable cause and phrased with sufficient particularity, from a magistrate of the relevant jurisdiction 7 authorizing them




These issues are not amenable to compromise. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.


Any attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act is almost certainly a violation of someone's civil rights, and is, therefore, itself a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241. Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, and those who enforce them are criminals. Failure to prosecute such crimes is a violation of one's oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. It may also itself be a criminal act in violation of 18 USC 241.


They state that "The Constitution gave Congress jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.". That's four crimes, not three. "Piracy (and felonies) on the high seas" is a distinct category from "offenses against the laws of nations". The distinction is important, and needs to be better understood.

They neglect to mention that the Fourteenth Amendment added a fifth category: deprivation of civil rights by the State, that is, by agents of government. Although the amendment is not explicit about whether criminal powers were included, the legislative history of the debates on the amendment make it clear that that was intended. The most important federal criminal statutes under this amendment are 18 USC 241, Conspiracy Against Rights, and 18 USC 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and they are constitutional. The amendment does not provide authority to impose criminal sanctions against deprivation of rights by parties who are not government agents.

pro-se right to hyrid defense

6) If the Court decides that it has the right to deny the Respondent
due process by refusing to consider his post trial motions, then the
Judge is refusing to do the work of the Court. If the Judge refuses
to do the work of the Court then he lacks the authority and
immunities of the Court. If the Judge can not or will not perform his
duties as Judge then he is obligated under Law to recuse himself and
get out of the way of justice.


A Judge who stands in the way of justice and the law is acting
outside of all judicial authority and thereby waives his rights to
immunity from civil liability. The 14th Amendment guarantees the
fundamental rights of citizens to due process and such rights require
strict scrutiny of the Court. The Respondent therefore puts the Court
on notice that the Respondent intends to defend his rights and to
hold the Court liable for acts the Court takes against the Respondent
that are done in the absence of judicial authority.

“An expression of opinion on the merits of the case prior to hearing the evidence
is indicative of bias.” State v. Alley, 882 S.W.2d at 822.


On a motion to dismiss the court will construe the complaint liberally and assume all factual allegations to be true. (Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997). The court will not grant the motion to dismiss "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim[s] which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson.

Because the Plaintiff is pro se, the court has a higher standard when faced with a motion to dismiss. White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 makes this point clear and states:

A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 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. 2d 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)).

Thus, if this court were to entertain any motion to dismiss, this court would have to apply the standards of White v. Bloom. That means if this court can figure out a legal theory that the Plaintiff hasn't thought of, this court must deny a motion to dismiss on the court's legal theory. And considering that the Plaintiff is suing lawyers and judges who are part of the "brotherhood", this court has an obligation to try hard to come up with that legal theory to avoid the appearance of bias.

Plaintiff 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. Ms. Stringfellow need not have had personal contact with Judge Syler nor had a meeting of the minds with Judge Syler herself. Ms. Stringfellow employed Mr. Sharp as her agent who did the dirty work in her behalf with her full knowledge and approval. Likewise, The Bar Plan is fully liable under the allegation that their lawyer, Mr. Duncan, who represented them did violate the laws with The Bar Plan's full knowledge and approval. So even if Respondent Superior fails, The Bar Plan was an active participant in the conspiracy.





UNDER THE BIFURCATED MODEL, A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT EITHER MAY DELEGATE TO HIS ATTORNEY FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING HIS TRIAL OR MAY APPEAR PRO SE, I.E., ACT AS HIS OWN ATTORNEY. COURTS HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AND TO DEFENSE PRO SE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. UNDER THE HYBRID MODEL, THE DEFENDANT HAS THE ACTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BUT MAY ALSO PARTICIPATE IN HIS OWN DEFENSE AS CO-COUNSEL. THE HYBRID MODEL FOCUSES ON THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERSON WHO CONTROLS THE MODE OF HIS REPRESENTATION AND THE CONDUCT OF HIS DEFENSE. JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELEVANT TO THE BIFURCATED MODEL OF REPRESENTATION RIGHTS ARE REVIEWED, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO HYBRID REPRESENTATION IS ANALYZED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, UNLIKE THE BIFURCATED MODEL, THE HYBRID MODEL ACCOMMODATES THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES UNDERLYING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS THE 'CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPELLED APPROACH', FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

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. Indeed, many jurisdictions have refused to recognize a right of counseled defendants to act in their own defense, leaving it 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 [2d Cir], cert denied 493 US 1081; United States v LaChance, 817 F2d 1491, 1498 [11th 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 [9th Cir]; State v Frye, 224 Conn 253, 256, 617 A2d 1382, 1384-1385; State v Long, 216 NJ Super 269 275-276, 523 A2d 672, 675-676).

Nevertheless, defendant maintains that a court confronted with a pro se motion should, at minimum, inquire into whether "the defense attorney is aware of the existence of the motion and has discussed its contents with his or her client" (People v Renaud, 145 AD2d 367, 369-370, appeal dismissed , 74 NY2d 734; see also, People v Costas, 248 AD2d 482, 483, lv denied , 91 NY2d 971). While such inquiries may be the better practice, we will not compel courts to engage in any particular catechism before deciding whether to entertain a pro se motion. Neither our Constitution nor our precedent requires it. Rather, the decision to allow hybrid representation implicates the trial court's function in ensuring the orderly administration of the proceedings (see, People v Mirenda, supra, 57 NY2d, at 266). As such, it is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge.

letter to 60 minutes requesting a story

As the belt on the economy tightens we believe there are sure to be more cases like the Yellow House second hand stores outrageous case that has drug on since 2005. Laws and policies need to be changed to offer more protection to both the Second-Hand store dealers and their customers!
The Yellow House Store investigation started out simple. Police all across America assume if a second hand store is buying and selling products from the public and is not regulated like the Pawn Shops then they must be a Fencer.

With the new Rico acts the Government gives large amounts of grant money to Police Departments and Cities to do Money Laundering and Fencing investigations. This would be a big incentive for a Police Department with financial woes to attack a small business like the Yellow House!
A Prosecutor that is able to prosecute a Second-Hand store for Stolen Property and Money Laundering can Seize everything the business owners own. From the beginning the goal in the Yellow House case was to seize the Business property and home of the Neighbors. At one point the Prosecutor even put a Lis Pendens on both properties without giving the required 60 day notification to the defendants. Even thought it has been ruled that Lis Pendens are not allowed in the 10th circuit court.

Acting on assumptions and retaliation the Lawrence Police served a search warrant on the Neighbors business and Home December 2005. The search of the home started at 9am but the time of the warrant states 1:30pm. Hundreds of expensive undocumented items including expensive collector Guns from a locked safe were seized.
The police had a messy case, with no evidence and the local DA was not interested in prosecuting.
The next day they made accusations to the media they could not support with the evidence.

As a favor to the Chief of Police Ron Olin, Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, took the Yellow House Case for Prosecution.
The prosecution of this case (since 2005) has included 3 strong armed arrests, (even thought the defendants had counsel), the same case being dropped and brought back 3 times, the case has been through 5 Federal Judges, the Defendants have had 7 attorneys, had their property searched with and without search warrants at least 8 times, a staged FBI investigation was launched in 2006 by an FBI agency outside the Lawrence Jurisdiction as a favor for the prosecutor Marietta Parker.
On Friday Aug. 8th the defendants Guy and Carrie were arrested for “Obstruction of Justice” after requesting their attorneys be notified before they make statements or hand over paperwork to police in a stolen property investigation they were cooperating with.

The Postal Inspector David Nitz got a Federal Obstruction of Justice arrest warrant, (even though the case did not involve the post office or mail) and search warrant, during the search the surveillance video from the stores security system was taken and replaced with a blank tape. The Neighbors were put in the Douglas county Jail from Friday until Monday when they were transferred to Leavenworth Federal Maximum Security detention center Prison, and held there until the Judge had them released on Aug. 18th. On Aug. 19th the case was Terminated. On Aug. 20th the Prosecutor Got a third Federal Indictment against the Neighbors for Obstruction of Justice.

The Neighbors have stood by their innocence and chose not to be bullied into a plea agreement by the Federal Government!

D. An Order requiring defendants:

Procedures should be in place to protect a defendants right of due process in regards to seized property. Policy should be in place to insure a defendants Fifth Amendment right to Property ownership. This would include the defendants right to a hearing before a Judge to determine what property should be held by Police as evidence to a crime and what property should be returned to the defendant.

C. An Order requiring defendats

Procedures need to be put in place within the Lawrence Police Department regarding video evidence. Stricter protocol should require sting operation videos to be entered into evidence in an unaltered state. More effort should be made when documenting seized evidence, especially guns and Jewelry valued over $100 to include descriptions and serial numbers of itemized items seized in a way the defendant or reasonable person would know what property was seized.

B. An order requiring defendants

FBI Special Agents should only be allowed to do investigations within their own jurisdiction. Investigations into formal complaints against "Color of Law" violations should only be done by an impartial investigator.
To avoid a conflict of interest, protocol should be in place to prevent a Federal Prosecutor prosecuting a case; to send down the FBI Agent of her choosing to investigate the Formal Complaints against Police officers involved in the investigation, accused of civil rights violations against a defendant she is prosecuting.

A. AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO:

Create a program that would allow second- hand businesses and Police an opportunity to work together to deter crime.
In order for this type of action to be successful the police must provide lists of stolen property to businesses that have signed up to a code of practice.

This would include the business agreeing to keep written records of the items they buy and checking property offered to them for possible problems. It could also include photographing or fingerprinting sellers of items valued at over $100.

There would also need to be a protocol agreement for handling stolen property that does end up in the business.
Like requiring the alleged victim to positively identify the item with serial numbers before it is confiscated. Limiting searches of businesses cooperating with an investigation. Giving the business a property receipt and case number for items seized, And possible means of providing restitution to a business that becomes a victim themselves once stolen property is identified.

Police should also provide details of prolific offenders with the shops that join the program, so that they are aware of people who steal and who will be looking for outlets for that stolen property. When these people attempt to sell things to the business, the business will be in a position to acquire information for police without risking becoming a victim themselves.

Criminals who steal need to sell that property and police, by working with secondhand outlets, would be able to make it more difficult for criminals to dispose of stolen goods this would lead to the recovery of more stolen property.

Due Process definition

Due process means prison officials are not
supposed to restrict your access to courts or
lawyers, or punish you (take away your property or
your liberty, even within prison) without fair
procedures.
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are
known as the “Bill of Rights.” Technically, these
amendments apply only to actions by the federal
government, not to actions by state officials. However,
the courts have ruled that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” most of the Bill
of Rights. This means when a state or local official
does something that is prohibited by one of the first ten
amendments, it is a violation of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Letter head: Tom Noyes Assistant POSTAL Inspector

Assistant Inspector Tom Noyes
6201 College Blvd. 400
Overland Park Kansas
66211-2435

Assistant Inspector Tom Noyes,

This is a copy of our formal complaint. We will also be forwarding this complaint.
We feel we have been subjected to continued harassment, discriminatory and unjustified treatment, thus violating our Constitutional rights by the Postal Inspector. Holding our property from August until October without just cause. These continued acts are a violation under the color of the law, are not to enforce justice but are acts intended to bring hardship and aid in the vindictive ongoing prosecution against us.

Thank-you for your time

Guy and Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence Kansas
66047

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE US POSTAL INSPECTOR

Formal Complaint Sept. 30th, 2008.
Violation of Constitutional Fifth Amendment right of due process by Postal Inspector David Nitz.
Case# 08-MJ-8077-01-JPO

Yellow House Business owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested by the Postal Inspector David Nitz Friday August 8th. 2008. For “Federal Obstruction of Justice” in a property theft case.

Just one month prior to this incident the Postal Inspector David Nitz was listed as a witness by the Prosecutor Marietta Parker and Court ordered by Federal Magistrate Judge James P O'Hara to have no contact with the defendants.

Background of the complaint:
After the Neighbors turned over the Dell XPS laptop and allowed the officer to copy the information the seller of the laptop provided to the business, Guy Neighbors told Kansas University Police officer Mike Riner investigating the theft that they would need to go through their attorney on Monday before turning over paperwork that had been filled out by a man that had allegedly stolen the laptop and sold it the second hand business.

Appx. 4 hours later they were arrested by Postal Inspector David Nitz and placed in the Douglas County Jail August 8th, then transferred August 11th to the Leavenworth Maximum Security Detention Prison until Aug. 18th.
The Neighbors were not picked up by the US Marshalls (as called for by procedure.)Instead the Postal Inspector himself picked the Neighbors up from the Douglas county Jail and personally Transported them to the department of Justice in Kansas City without presence of counsel. At that time all of the Neighbors personal property was in the possession of the Postal Inspector.

Upon release the personal property being held that the Neighbors were in possession of when arrested were not returned. This included Keys, purse contents including but not limited to; medication, wallet, cell phones, Drivers license and various bank cards. Upon release Aug. 18th, the Neighbors requested the return of their personal property as required by law, which requires all property not being held as evidence should be returned upon release.


A formal request was again made to the Postal Inspector David Nitz for the prompt return of the property on Aug. 25th,2008. By defense attorney John Duma.

As of Sept. 30th, 2008. The personal property has continuously been held by the Postal Inspector David Nitz.

Postal Inspector David Nitz’s failure to return the personal property in a timely manner constitutes the continued personal harassment that the Neighbors have been forced to endure during this long ongoing egregious case, and has violated the Neighbors Constitutional right of due process and the Fifth Amendment which clearly states no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Carrie & Guy Neighbors
Yellow House Store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence Kansas, 66047
785-842-2785

footnote added October 1, 2008, the personal property was dropped off at John Duma's office. However the checkbook and bankcard taken from Carrie's purse were not returned. In response to the failure to return all the personal property a theft report was made at the Peoples bank by Carrie Neighbors.

Detective Mike Riner has had an obvious vendetta against the Yellow House business for many years.
Detective Mike Riner confiscated a KU band Uniform that a dumpster diver sold the Yellow House approximately 12 years ago. The owner of the business Carrie Neighbors at the time called KU and they informed her that the Uniforms are turned in by the students at the end of the year. If a student fails to return the uniform they are charged for it.

With this information Carrie told detective Riner that obviously the student had already paid for it and since it was found in a trash dumpster the Uniform obviously did not qualify as stolen property and therefore the University's band department should reimburse her the $40 she had paid for it.
This angered Detective Riner,he did not agree the University should have to reimburse the business and he confiscated the Uniform. Judging by Detective Riners public statements using the name MichaelJ Detective Riner has held a grudge against the business ever since. Blogging under the user name MichaelJ on public forums Lawrence Journal World and larryville.com to demoralize the business and its owners, make fun of them and make reference to this case in blogs dating back to 2006.
Detective Riner under the user name MichaelJ refers to the business owner as "Bitchy" in one of his posts in reference to the band uniform incident. And in another post refers to the business as "the felon house"

We believe that detective Mike Riners Grudge towards the business owners has interfered with his ability to be impartial as a witness and investigator and clearly sets the path for his motivation to be dishonest while giving testimony under oath during the detention hearing, in United States Of America vs. Guy Neighbors & Carrie Neighbors case no. 08-MJ-8077-01/02-JPO. Falsely claiming under oath and contrary to his report to not have been shown the paperwork in question and claiming the notes associated with the paperwork were shredded. But then the prosecutor Terra Morehead later testified that Riner had found the shredded notes and she had seen them. Claiming the sellers form was concealed and participating in the arrest of Guy and Carrie Neighbors on Friday Aug. 8Th, then on Monday August 11Th using the information provided to him by Carrie and Guy Neighbors from the paperwork he testified was concealed, he arrested Robert Samples.

We are requesting an FBI investigation into the actions of the officials presiding over this case. For constitutional rights violations against Guy and Carrie Neighbors including but not limited to color of law violations, oath of office violations and selective vindictive prosecution.

MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

I'm glad I'm retiring from KU soon. I'm embarassed to say that I work there. $3000 per year for the whistle? gimme a frigging break. They pay much more than that in b.s. frivolous crap. They can afford to keep this! It's just someone's attempt to say "we're doing something to cut costs!"
Give me a break Steeples! You apparently don't know as much as you think you do about KU
-------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Whast shall we talk about tonight? All the dirty cops in Lawrence? The fact that Olin isn't a Police Officer? A new topic?
---------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

You see Olin's name on your list? Oh yeah, he got arrested by the FBI didn't he......well, that's what you or your family were alleging on Larryville.
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Well now..to all the obama_sucks, evolve, smitty, YH and whoever else this applies to......all the HONEST cops that I know, and that is the vast majority of them, agree that cops who ARE corrupt, and dishonest shouldn't be cops. They SHOULD be fired. HOWEVER, every swingin' dick who got busted or caught and doesn't have the stones to admit it, whines and complains how (all) the cops are dirty and dishonest. yet they offer no proof. just their whiny complaints in a forum where they don't have to "put up or shut up".

Anyone who really believes that the 1) damn near entire LPD, 2) FBI (the "real ones" and the "fake ones" 3) most Judges 4) numerous Lawyers and 5) anyone else they can bring into this, is out to conspire against Yellow House...and anyone else who got caught dirty....well, I'd like to sell you some swamp land.

Are there dishonest cops? You bet there are. In LA, in New York, in KC, and probably a couple in Lawrence, Kansas. Does that mean that MOST of them are corrupt? No way in hell. No more than all gays are child molesters, or all African Americans are criminals or any other stereotype you want to throw into the mix. But for some reason, it seems to be okay to stereotype all cops as dirty.
I don't know if there are leadership problems within the LPD, cause I don't work for the LPD. (remember, obama, I'm a "something"......not an LPD) But I can tell you that 99% of the LPD folks I know are the most honest, caring people there are. Period. And I'd put their character and morals above the "average" person any day.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

"Now MichaelJ,

You know that all he has to do is agree to participate in an undercover operational sting to bring down the Yellow house and he will get off, and maybe even get paid $50. Now who could turn down a deal like that!"

Gawd, when you talk like that it makes me so HOT!!!. KISS ME DAMMIT...RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

On Teen gets probation for auto burglaries
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Wow, this is an interesting twist on things isn't it.
I wonder how many undercover FBI agents are lurking here, just waiting to assist in the massive conspiracy against YH.
"Mr. Ludwig perjured himself during testimony , and will be held accountable for his lies." my gosh, who HASN'T lied to frame poor YH? Anyone? If you haven't lied to hurt YH, please raise your hand. Anyone??????????????

On 2 plead guilty to selling stolen goods
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

I heard they once bought a KU Band Uniform from someone....would that be a tipoff that it might not be a kosher purchase? When did KU ever sell that kind of stuff? Someone told me they were kinda bitchy when they had to give the uniform back too! sheesh....

On Police swear in 5 officers
17 February 2008 at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Yellow House wrote: "The real FBI from Topeka is currently investigating the Yellow House complaints!"

I'll be the Kansas City FBI would be interested to know they aren't "real"!

On Police swear in 5 officers

23 September 2007 at 4 p.m.

Suggest removal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Wasn't it an undercover Coyote that LPD sent in to sell stolen property to Yellow House?

On Pet owners fear coyotes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Yellow House wrote: "The wonderful people at KLWN graciously gave us a copy of our indictment paper…And we are very thankful for everything they have done for us! And for thier support."

That is a quite different statement from: "So when the radio station called and asked us for a statement they told us they had a copy of the charges! But they would only let us see them if we agreed to give them an interview. How messed up is that? the corruption is so bad it smells like a dead skunk!"

On Authorities file new charges in Yellow House investigation

14 September 2007 at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

------------------------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Yellow House said
"...So when the radio station called and asked us for a statement they told us they had a copy of the charges! But they would only let us see them if we agreed to give them an interview. How messed up is that? the corruption is so bad it smells like a dead skunk!

We have to give an interview to the press to have a copy of our own indictment! So we went down and did the interview so we could get a copy of our charges! At the end of the interview we told the reporter ” Please let us know if there are any more charges we need to know about!”"

I was listening to KLWN, the Voice of Merrill, and they basically said Yellow House was full of it in the above post!

On Authorities file new charges in Yellow House investigation

7 July 2006 at 1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

--------------------------------------------------------------------
MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

I remember going into Yellow House one time and saw a complete official KU Band Uniform hanging from the shelves. I really doubt KU sells those uniforms

On Officers seen removing items from Yellow House

Mistakes in life,

like bad decisions,

most often are very small,

Yet the smallest mistakes in life,

determine the biggest parts of our life!

Formal complaint.
Formal request for an investigation into the actions of the Kansas University's police department. The Arrest and search of the Yellow House Store owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors headed by Detective Michael Riner.

Allegations:
Federal Perjury, Theft during the execution of a search warrant, Constitutional rights violations, Violation of 5th Amendment rights, Conspiracy, Execution of a Federal arrest in a State case Investigation, selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution,unconstitutional discrimination in the administration of a penal statute. Color of Law violations. Denial of equal protection of the law. Violation of due process.

On Thursday August 8th Detective Mike Riner came into the The Yellow House store, 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence Kansas. (A business that buys and sells second=hand goods.) Because a Laptop computer that was sold on Ebay had been reported stolen by an employee of the University of Kansas.

Owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors turned over the Laptop and showed Detective Riner the sellers form that the customer "Robert Samples" had filled out. Detective Riner was shown two sellers forms, including the one that Mr. Samples signed when selling the Laptop in question. He took notes from both the sellers forms. While taking the notes Detective Riner verbally questioned the fact that 3 laptops were listed on the sellers form and when shown the second sellers form commented "that there was a pattern here." Considering the false allegations in a pending case Carrie Neighbors did not want to make any statements without her attorney.

On Friday at appx. 10:30AM August 9th Detective Riner returned to the Yellow House Store with a reciept for the siezed laptop and requested copies of the sellers forms that Mr. Samples had signed.

At that time Mr. Neighbors Attorney Cheryl Pilate had not yet been notified of her clients contact with the police, or the situation and due to a pending indictment and bond involving another case Mr. Neighbors felt it would be best to have representation of counsel.

At that point Mr. Neighbors invoked his Fifth Amendment right and requested that he be allowed to wait until Monday when he could go through his attorney to turn over the paperwork or answer any more questions involving the case.
A few hours later at appx. 4pm the Postal Inspector David Nitz obtained a Federal arrest warrant. Execution of the arrest warrant was assisted by police Officer Jay Bialek, Detective Riner and other officers from KU Police and LKPD showed up at the business. The Federal arrest warrant was for Obstruction of Justice, concealing a record, and impairment of an official proceeding in violation of Title 18, United States Code $1512(c) and search warrant.

During the execution of the search warrant the store surveillance tape was stolen by the police and a blank tape that was a brand not used by the business was put in its place.

On August 13, 2008 Detective Riner testified in a hearing before Federal Judge James O'Hara on behalf of the Government. Mr. Riner falsely testified that he had not seen the sellers form that was presented in court. He also testified that he had destroyed, and shredded his field notes in the ongoing Federal Investigation prior to the hearing. His testimony was in contrast to the "Warrant for arrest" case number 08-MJ-8077-01-JPO" Page 4 paragraph 10. Which clearly states that detective Riner was shown documents pertaining to the seller Robert Samples. Terra Morehead then testified in court on Monday Aug. 18th that Detective Riner had found the notes, that he earlier had testified on Aug. 13th were shredded and that she had seen them.

The Neighbors were accused of and falsley arrested for concealing the documents, and obstructing the investigation on Friday Aug. 8th.
Yet on Monday August 11th, 2008 Using the information provided to the Detective by the Neighbors, Robert Samples was arrested by University Detective Mike Riner in connection to the stolen laptops.
The arrest of Robert Samples was made based on the information provided on the sellers forms that was shown to Detective Riner by the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors. Again a contradiction to Detective Riner's testimony in Federal court on Aug. 13th, 2008 he had not seen the sellers form, and the concealment of the forms had impaired the investigation and warranted the arrest and imprisonment of the defendants.

This arrest has denied and punished the Neighbors for demanding their Constitutional right to have counsel present when being questioned by police. This resulted in both Guy and Carrie Neighbors being locked up for a total of 12 days. Starting in Douglas County Jail, and transferred to the CCA Leavenworth maximum security prison Detention Center. Guys attorney was not even notified until after the arrest.

In Conclusion

This case clearly shows a conspiracy to decieve the courts and selective prosecution. The fact that Lawrence Police officers Jay Bialek, Mickey Rantz, and Postal Inspector David Nitz participated in the execution of an arrest and search involving A University police department Investigation involving a theft at the University shows prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

Search warrants obtained with false information.
Unwarranted searches.
Deprivation of food while in custody.
cruel and unusual punishment
Violation of due process to a speedy trial.
Violation of due process for the return of seized property and business records.
Multiple violations in the Chain of Evidence Rules.
Harassment.
Officers offering money to people in attempted sting operations.
Department procedure and policy violations.
Defamation of Character.
Search warrant in violation of LPD policy.
Stalking.
Documentation of Police intimidating people by posing as FBI agents.
Continued police Surveillance without a court order.
Entrapment.
Racial profiling.
Discrimination.
Malicious prosecution.
False arrest.
Interference with the defendant's ability to do business.
Interference with licensing and Internet trading abilities.
Altered video evidence submitted to the courts
Perjured testimony presented in Federal Court
False Imprisonment
malicious prosecution
5th Amendment violation
Prosecutors illegal disclosure of Grand Jury information. A class E felony

Formal complaint. Sept. 3, 2008.
Conspiracy, Harassment, false arrest, Multiple Civil Rights violations, violation of due process, color of law violation, vindictive prosecution, false imprisonment,malicious prosecuton.

Under federal law, the United States Postal Service has authority "to investigate postal offenses and civil matters relating to the Postal Service." 39 U.S.C. ? 404(a)(7).

This authority is primarily exercised through the Postal Inspection Service, which is charged with "enforcing laws related to the Postal Service, the mails, other postal offenses and other laws of the United States." 39 C.F.R. ? 224.3(b)(2).

The federal arrest powers of postal inspectors, however, are limited and specifically defined, including the authority to "serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States" Postal inspectors are not authorized under federal law to execute a warrant or make an arrest for a state law offense. See United States v. Univerzagt, 424 F.2d 396, 398 n.1 (8th Cir. 1970) ("Postal inspectors under 18 U.S.C.A. 3061 are given power to make arrests for postal offenses upon probable cause but are given no power to make arrests for state offenses by either state or federal statute.").

On August 7th, 2008 at appx. 3pm, Carrie Neighbors was notified by her attorney John Duma, that a State investigation was underway in regards to a laptop the Yellow House business had advertised for sale on Ebay had been reported stolen from the University of Kansas, and the theft was being investigated by the University Police. Specifically KU Police Detective Mike Riner.

The Yellow House owners Carrie and Guy Neighbors fully cooperated with the Detective by turning over the laptop in question, and allowing Detective Riner to copy the information from the sellers form. The Neighbors also voluntarily presented the Detective with a second sellers form from 2007 signed by the same seller.

The Next day at 10:30am University Detective Riner returned to the business because he had forgotten to leave the business owners a receipt for the seized computer. At that time the Detective requested a physical copy of the sellers forms. The business owner Guy Neighbors informed Detective Riner his attorney had not been contacted about the situation, and that he wanted to wait until Monday, so he could go through his attorney before turning over any physical paperwork or making any statements to police.

About 4:00pm that afternoon, Postal Inspector David Nitz working in conspiracy with the US Attorneys office, accompanied by KU police, and Lawrence Police officers including Jay Bialek and Mickey Rantz, served a Federal Arrest and District Search Warrant upon the business and the owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors stating Federal Obstruction of Justice Charges. (see exhibit #1).
During the execution of the search warrant the business surveillance tape was taken from the recorder and replaced with a blank tape that is not a brand the business uses. (see photo)

Postal inspectors' federal authority to enforce postal criminal laws does not authorize them to enforce state criminal laws. See Santoni v. Potter, 369 F.3d 594,599 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that "Postal inspectors are not authorized under federal law to execute a warrant or make an arrest for a state law offense").

The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C. fj 3061 (2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail)
This case however did not involve the Postal service, or the Mail. In fact the owners of the business were notified through an email at the end of the auction (Aug. 7, 2008) by the victim, and informed the business he was local and there would be no shipping involved with this item, and that a local pickup would be arranged. (See exhibit #2)

During the hearing before Judge O'Hara Detective Riner testified that the owner of the Laptop in question contacted the police and he was told by the police to bid on the laptop and win it. Officer Rantz testified the police had been aware for at least 6 months that the Yellow House was using this Ebay account. Postal Inspector David Nitz testified he went to the UPS Store connected to the ebay account and verified the owners of the Yellow House had their names and personal information properly placed on the Personal mail box, and no fraudulent activity was taking place in connection with the mailing address provided in the Ebay account.

Authority of the Postal Inspector is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal offenses" and the enforcement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id. 6 3061(b)(l)-(2).
Therefore Postal Inspector David E. Nitz falsely Federally arrested and imprisoned Guy and Carrie Neighbors, during the execution of a State Investigation that the Neighbors were fully cooperating with, an investigation that did not involve the Postal Service and clearly through his own investigation prior to the arrest did not constitute any fraudulent activity, and did not meet the statutes for a Federal Investigation or arrest August 8, 2008 and through that arrest had the Neighbors placed in Leavenworth Maximum Security Federal Prison Detention center until August 18, 2008.

Upon release the harassment by the Postal Inspector has continued.
Upon release from the Prison neither Guy no Carrie Neighbors personal property was returned.
The Postal Inspector David Nitz has retained custody of the personal belongings and has continuously failed to return them in a timely manner. A request was made on 8/25/08, that the personal items including a purse with Identification, keys, cell phones and medication belonging to the defendants be returned to the Attorneys office for pick-up. (see exhibit #3)

Failure to return these items has further violated the rights of due process, deprivation of property and constitutes harassment. The United States Declaration of Independence inalienable rights afforded to every American to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, which include but are not limited to:
The Right to acquire, possess, and protect personal and real property;
The Right to be secure from intrusion; and
The Right to privacy