Shocking Confusion of going before a Judge in Federal Court

SHOCKING!!!


In the beginning of this case we were in Judge Murguia's court. (that is what we were told by our attorneys anyway) We were in his court several times following each arrest and some hearings.

Then the case was dropped by the prosecutor. After one month the prosecutor refiled the charges as a brand new case and we were in Judge Lungstrums court.
Then Judge Lungstrum held an evidence hearing, dismissed the gun charges with prejudice and labeled the case as egregious and withdrew himself from the case. Then the case was back in Judge Murguia's court.

The SHOCKING part is that the Judge Murguia who has been hearing our case now after we were in Judge Lungstrums court is not the same Judge Murguia who's court we were in before!!

...BUT Where the heck did the first Judge Murguia go???? What the heck happened here? I feel like I am in the Twilight zone......

Quote from U.S. AUSA Attorney Terra Morehead "YOUR HONOR THIS CASE IS ON THE VERGE OF RIDICULOUS"

The prosecutor's duty is "'to seek justice, not merely to convict and seize property.'"
A prosecutor is vested with a duty not merely to convict and take away the real property of the defendants for her own personal gain, but to see that the accused receives a fair and impartial trial!!!

The Federal prosecutor (AUSA) Assistant U.S. Attorney Terra Morehead in this case is taking the actions of the defendants personal.. crying in court and attempting to gain pity from the judge and defendants defense attorneys....

Then if the prosecutor is attempting to conspire with the defense attorneys Phil and Dionne to convince them to "misinform or lie" to their clients about the speedy trial in connection with motions to combine & continue, and tricking the clients into filing motions "for the prosecutor" to combine all cases, a move that would be detrimental to the integrity of the defense of each individual defendant.... And stop the speedy trial clock...again.

When in truth the defense attorneys and their investigators should be focused on filing motions to have the case dismissed because of the Governments violations, actions and misconduct.
Then the prosecutor has clearly obstructed the right of due process afforded to the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors.

Quote from Prosecuting Attorney Terra Morehead to the Judge during the latest status hearing..after going over her already busy schedule..

"Your honor there are four cases here between the two defendants, these defendants will next be wanting four separate trials for each separate case causing this entire case to be on the verge of the ridiculous!"

Although in the beginning the prosecution was the one that filed the cases in individual separate charges and insisted that the defendants have separate defense attorney's.
This is starting to look more like a ploy by the prosecutor from the beginning to run the defendants out of money and force them to take the plea!

The prosecutor Marietta Parker in this case has also threatened to withhold the files and names of witnesses from the defense on the basis that witnesses names and statements have been used in the defendant’s blogs.
The REAL problem here is that there are no real witnesses. Only fabricated stories, statements and evidence.. planted, forged and missing!

The so called witnesses listed in the Indictment by initials are nothing more than names gathered by the prosecution from the checks the defendants wrote to customers selling items to the store. Or people who were given a "get out of jail free card" for committing perjury before a Grand Jury.

One so called witness was banned from the business at least 7 months prior to the first search warrant being issued in 2005. Another so-called witness called to testify before the Grand Jury was actually a defendant in a prior case that involved the testimony of the defendants.

The Law and therefore the court, relies heavily upon the integrity, objectivity and independence of the prosecutor. The prosecutor must disclose her case against the defendant, with the evidence upon which she relies. She must disclose to the defendant any non-evidential material that weakens the prosecutor’s case or assists the defendant’s case.

Because an independent, impartial prosecutor is central to due process. It is well established, for example, that a prosecutor should not prosecute when the evidence does not support the State's charges. Further, the prosecutor should have the ability to amend the charges to conform to the proofs.

The prosecutor should not proceed with a case as a favor for someone she owes, or because she hates black & white couples, or because the defendants own property that she wants to gain through wrongful convictions!

If the prosecutor does not understand this and does not make the right decisions, then she clearly risks a miscarriage of justice and the innocent defendants in this case could be convicted and loose everything they own.

Just as the video below shows!

Superseding Indictment MOOTS original Lis Pendens Motion to dismiss

Get free hit counter code here.

Our attorney will file another motion to dismiss the Illegal Lis Pendens placed against our property again this weekend since the first one got mooted with the superseding indicment. Perhaps the Prosecutor will respond again with yet another Superseding Indictment, to Supersede the first Superseding indictment, to cover up for the original Fatally Flawed indictment that was obtained with purjured testimony. So she can have us MOOT again! Then we can just go on forever like this!

RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT AGAINST A PROSECUTOR THAT CONSPIRES WITH CORRUPT POLICE TO FABRICATE EVIDENCE

A prosecutor who conspires to fabricate evidence can be held liable for violating a defendant's constitutional rights, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Drawing a distinction between prosecutors' roles as advocates and investigators, the court held that prosecutors can be sued for fabricating evidence in the course of investigation, even though they are completely immune from civil rights suits for their acts as advocates.

The Second Circuit ruled that the prosecutor was on notice that using false evidence might subject him to liability.
"It has long been established that a prosecutor who knowingly uses false evidence at trial to obtain a conviction acts unconstitutionally," wrote Judge Jon O. Newman for the court.
"Any prosecutor aware of the case law would understand that fabricating evidence in his investigative role violates the standards of due process and that a resulting loss of liberty is a denial of a constitutional right."

Except in the Yellow House case, because Yellow House people have no constitutional rights, no due process rights, no civil rights, no property rights, no right to an impartial prosecutor in Federal court.

March 25 second superseding indictment arrainment carried over from March 19 (last minute) 1st Superseding arrainment without counsel representation

Get free hit counter code here.

Judge Rushfelt's Chambers
Start End Category Description
24
Mar
2008
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
25
Mar
2008
11:00 AM 12:00 PM court PTC(tx) - 06-2535-JWL - McBride v. Medicalodges (con'td from 1/29)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2:00 PM 2:15 PM Court Arr. on SuperS Indictment. 07-20124-02 Guy Madison Neighbors (Release) [R.5 on SuperS Indictment held 3/19 without counsel present]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
personal Comment:
I just have to say this is just another example of the disgraceful way that this case has been handled. To have a last minute arrainment on a superseding indictment against an unconstitutional indictment, that even counsel is not clearly made aware of, causing the defendant to have to go through the same arrainment process twice is nothing short of a travisty to the Justice System.

U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker OBTAINED Fatally FLAWED Federal Indictment through perjured testimony by convicted Felons IN Yellow House case

The defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors have used voice recorders, web cams and video camera’s kept at the front counter to document all the transactions of the business.

All transactions of buying merchandise are conducted at the front counter in front of these recording devises. People named as witnesses in the indictment are documented in these recordings selling items to the store.

These hours of videos and voice recordings contradict the indictments claims, and clearly show these transactions were not conducted in a way the business owners would have had any knowledge that the items being purchased from these individuals had a possibility of being stolen.

Even the Government made multiple covert exculpatory recordings inside the business wearing hidden cameras and recorders. Then made even more recordings and several failed sting operations that involved informants getting paid as much as $200 (some of which the police have failed to turn over to the defense as part of the discovery) this video evidence clearly shows the vulnerability and honesty of the defendants, the later taken during at least 2 months of surveliance from the empty firestation accross the street. Together this collection of electronic evidence would clearly leave a reasonable person to doubt the guilt of the defendants.

During a proffer session conducted in August 2006,(early in the investigation,) some of these exculpatory voice recordings made at the front counter of the business by the defendants (which included the voices of people named in the indictment as witnesses) were presented and played for the investigators by the defendant Carrie Neighbors. Present during the proffer and presentation of the recordings were Police Officers Jay Bialek and Mickey Rantz, IRS Agent Rob Jackson, and Postal Inspector David Nitz, and defense Attorney Aaron McKee.

Not only do the defendants have voice recordings and videos of some of the witnesses listed on the indictment, that clearly shows the indictment fails to assert facts supporting every element of a criminal offense, the defendants also have a saved voice recording of a questionable person or possible FBI impersonator claiming to be FBI Agent Bob Shaefer from the Kansas City FBI, yet calling from a number showing on the caller I.D. as a Department of Justice phone number.




Not only was the testimony before the Grand Jury in the Yellow House case acts of perjury, fictitious, fraudulent statements by non-credible witnesses for the purpose of indictment. The entire indictment is filled with repetitive false writings and impossible speculation as to the defendants state of mind and extent of knowledge pertaining to the actions of the individuals bringing items into the business to sell.

Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Court dismiss the indictment due to the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false, misleading, and material testimony before the grand jury.

Not only has the prosecutor presented the courts with false information, it is confusing why this purchased hearsay evidence by convicted felons needing a deal was allowed when it typically would be considered inadmissable in most Federal Court proceedings and even borders on bribary status.

How can the Federal court allow a superseding indictment to be added to an existing indictment that was established through an earlier evidence hearing before a Federal Judge to be egregeous and riddled with false accusations, and the evidence fails to establish any crimes have been committed by the defendants? Therefore rendering that the original indictment itself is not constitutionally valid. To be constitutionally valid, an indictment “must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged.” State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 327, 77 S.E.2d 917, 919 (1953).

The purpose of the evidence presented before a Grand Jury is to determine if a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Parr, supra at 463-64; see also, United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (5th Cir. 1981).

To comport with our Criminal Procedure Act, an indictment must “assert facts supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant's commission thereof with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defendant . . . of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924(a)(5)(2006).
------------------------------------------------------
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1976) provides:
Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

-------------------------------------------------------
Giving testimony to the grand jury that was "patently false and misleading in material respects and undoubtedly led to the erroneous indictment

The use of false and perjurious testimony cannot be reasonably explained or justified, and the use of such evidence is an affront to our justice system and a deprivation of the most basic and inalienable rights due each of us!

Defendants Carrie and Guy Neighbors therefore move, pursuant to Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Court should dismiss the indictment due to the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false, misleading, and material testimony before the grand jury.

As stated previously, the Government has failed to investigate and indicted this case by making deals and failing to responsibly and carefully examine each individual’s actions and each individual’s words.

While the law of conspiracy may be broad in scope, its breadth is not limitless, and the Government must show each individual’s willful and knowing involvement in an unlawful agreement with convincing, reliable and honest evidence beyond mere hearsay and speculation.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that prosecutorial misconduct can
justify the dismissal of an indictment “‘if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict,’ or if there is ‘grave doubt’ that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such violations.”
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United
States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 2374 (1988) (quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475
U.S. 66, 78, 106 S. Ct. 928, 945-46 (1986)).5 See also United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46
& n.6, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 1741 & n.6 (1992)

(district court’s supervisory power can be used to dismiss indictment because of misconduct before grand jury, at least where that misconduct amounts to violation of one of those few, clear rules which were promulgated by Supreme Court and Congress to ensure integrity of grand jury’s functions, such as prohibitions against false declarations before grand jury and subornation of perjury)

(citing, inter alia, Bank of Nova
Scotia); United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2000)

(“An indictment cannot be based on perjured testimony, and the government may not use perjured testimony at trial if there is a reasonable chance that it would affect the jury’s judgment[.]”) (citations omitted).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors hope the Defense attorney's in this case will soon respectfully request through a motion filed on behalf of their innocent clients that the Court should in the name of Justice and respect for the integrity of the courts and Justice system as a whole dismiss the Indictments based on the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Get free hit counter code here.

"Only The Guilty Go QuietlyTo The Gallows!"

FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS VIOLATION IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE

Claimant’s right to possession of seized property

We contend that the government's retention of seized property without commencing some sort of proceeding would violate the Constitution if the delay took on "unreasonable proportions."

Property was seized during the execution of several search warrants. However the Dec. 2005 warrant specifically named 20 items to be seized. Officers executing the warrant seized over 100 pieces of merchandise and property from the business. Clearly violating the limits of the search warrant.

No proceedings ever took place to determine through the court whether the retention reasonably related to the government's interests in the property.

Criminal proceedings and Indictments only took place after requests and formal complaints were turned in alleging the Lawrence Kansas police department officers involved in the investigation were guilty of police misconduct, had violated the chain of evidence rules, violated the search warrants, took property without probable cause and valuable seized property from the execution of the warrants was officially missing from the LKPD evidence room.

Continued retention of this enormous amount of property lacking evidentiary value without the right of due process has violated the defendants Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Because much of the property seized, such as but not limited to; laptops and desktop computers, electronics and video games and important business financial records has lost a considerable amount of its core value, in accordance with the number of years it has been held, the defendants have been greatly prejudiced by the loss of ownership.

In Lowther v. United States, 480 F.2d 1031 (10th Cir. 1973), the court based such a holding on the premise that continued retention of evidence would constitute a taking without just compensation. In United States v. Moore, 423 F.Supp. 858 (S.D.W.Va.1976), the court relied on its supervisory power to govern the scope of the government's subpoena power, but also noted possible constitutional underpinnings to the limitation on retention of property seized.

In Shea v. Gabriel, supra, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit indicated that, in evaluating the retention of seized property, a court must weigh the interests of the government in holding the property against the owner's rights to use the property. As a part of this balance, the court noted that the government should not be permitted to hold the property for an unreasonable amount of time before prosecuting or bringing other dispositive action. 520 F.2d at 882. The length of time the property has been held in this case, without regards to its evidentiary value has clearly imposed an impermissible burden upon the defendants. Thus resulting to a forfeiture without the procedures required by statute and by due process of law.

IN CONCLUSION
The government has failed to uphold the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors right to an evidentiary hearing; in so doing the court has failed to balance these citizen's interest in use of their property against the wide-ranging governmental interests of the U.S. Attorney and in law enforcement. Due to the continued unreasonable retention of the enormous amount of seized property that holds no evidence or prosecutorial value, the defendants in this case have been deprived their Fifth Amendment right of property ownership without due process of law.

FREAK LAST MINUTE 5TH FEDERAL ARRAINMENT SPRUNG ON DEFENDANTS IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE

Get free hit counter code here.

Well just got back from our 5th arrainment today in Federal court.

That will be our 5th for the same lame case from 2005.

You see each time you make a federal prosecutor mad, she feels she must file another charge against you, threaten you, have you maliciously arrested and torchured, and then smear your reputation and name all over the media.

If the charge is lame then after the time runs out it simply gets dropped then refiled! So we have had the same charges filed, dropped, refiled so the prosecutor could have us vindictively rearrested and starved for the day, then dropped again in Federal court.

Then after some more public posting, more charges are filed, then after the illegal lis pendens order was discovered and made public the prosecutor felt more charges based on the same old crap in a superseding indictment was necessary.

This case has nothing to do with a crime being committed. It is simply a case of vindictive retaliatory indictments by pissed off prosecutors that dont like their dirty laundery continuously blogged about!

We pissed off the prosecutor when we found out an illegal lis pendens was placed against our property and went public with the information. So 2 days later she added a superseding indictment against us so she could cover-up for the violation.

That is what brought us to court today. What a lovely justice system we have.

We get a call at 1:00 today letting us know we needed to be in court at 2:00 in Kansas City 45 min. away!..

We are the first defendants in the history of the courts who have been in pre-trial status for 2 1/2 years!
Most pre-trial defendants are under the order for 6 months, then they go to trial. We are like the Energizer Bunny...we go on and on...just beating our little drum.

LETTER TO Federal ATTORNEY PHIL GIBSON ABOUT CONTINUED POLICE INTIMIDATION, corruption & QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS When dealing with the YELLOW HOUSE STORE

Phil,

Yesterday March 17, 2008 Lawrence Police Officer Jay Rozell came into our business. He claimed to be investigating a burglary and wanted to question me and find out if any of the stolen property had been sold to the Yellow House. Guy had been at the business all day and had just left to go do a delivery. Guy's friend Mike Coffman had stopped by to hang out with me while Guy was out.

Officer Rozell pulled up in his police cruiser in Uniform and entered the store.
I was very nervous about dealing with this officer in light of the fact he has violated my rights in the past
The first time was when he entered my store in 2005 and attempted to search my property without a search warrant. At that time he confiscated a roadmaster bicycle without even checking the serial numbers that he claimed had been stolen from the State Of Florida. The next time I had contact with officer Rozell was after a customer by the name of Ray Williams came into my store and questioned me about a $30 Champion air compressor he had noticed was missing from his garage. He described it as a small blue tank. I remembered buying one like that 3 months earlier and I looked up the paperwork for him. After I showed him the paperwork he informed me that the person that had filled out the sellers form was his son-in law. I made copies of the sellers form for him and told him to make a police report. Officer Rozell came in the next day and questioned me about the air compressor. I gave the officer my statement and informed him the air compressor had been sold several months ago and I did not have the identity of the buyer. The following Monday officer Rozell led a team of five officers executing a search warrant against me. This search warrant was a violation of police department procedure and policy and there is a possibility the Judge's name (Stephen Six) was forged
Considering this officer has executed illegal searches against the business, Lawrence Police officer Mickey Rantz has planted evidence in connection with the ongoing investigation. And we have turned in several formal complaints to the Lawrence Police Departments Internal affairs unit in regards to this officer’s conduct and the misconduct of others that have been involved in this ongoing violation of our basic Civil rights.
I am not sure why this officer would believe at this point it would be feasible to work with him, or give him any information.
I believe it was just a ploy of intimidation by the Lawrence Kansas Police department along with an attempt to get information they could use to get another search warrant on the business.
I called guy and handed the phone to the officer. Guy informed the officer that while we are involved in this ongoing violation of our rights that he is involved in; he is not welcome on our property and asked him to leave. Guy then called the officers Supervisor Sgt. Warren and informed him the same thing.


Carrie.
Lawrence Kansas Police Department is very aware of the fact we have attorney representation and should be respecting the fact we have a right to counsel when being questioned about any stolen property during this ongoing investigation.

PS. I do plan to file a formal complaint with Lawrence Kansas Police Departments Internal Affairs. In light of the pending charges against our business, and the allegation of police misconduct, in order to protect everyones interest and rights in this case, we feel any contact with the police regarding stolen property should be carried out in the presense of counsel.

LAWRENCE Kansas POLICE Deceive OR CONSPIRE WITH Federal Prosecutor with false incomplete reports AGAINST YELLOW HOUSE DEFENDANTS

The truth only has one path and it never changes!!

Like the report about Nicole Beach (NB in the indictment) selling stuff to the store, the last paragraph of the police report totally left out the fact her boyfriend was there, and he was the one actually selling the business the arc welder!

Why would the police leave this person TOTALLY out of the story (report)? That is important exculpatory evidence! Are they trying to cover-up for him? Or does the fact he was selling the item present exculpatory evidence for the defendants they do not want in the report, so they simply delete that person off the face of the earth that day! Is this conspiracy or were they just not honest about this fact with the prosecutor?

Then you have the story of the musical instruments sold by (SBC) as stated on the indictment claiming they were stolen and Carrie knew it! (What a crock of crap!!)

These instruments were sold to the store by several different people, not one person as stated on the indictment. Some even had receipts for them. At the time the store purchased the instruments the business owners were assured by the sellers it was a legal transaction.

During the time these transactions took place the business was making voice and video recordings during the buying process detailing what was asked of the sellers and what was stated by each seller about the property. Some of those exculpatory voice recordings were made available during the proffer for the police to listen to, and the videos and voice recording are still available should a jury or judge request to hear them.

Obviously the officers did not share this information or a lot of other exculpatory information with the prosecutor Marietta parker. If it was shared then obviously the prosecutor was conspiring with the Lawrence police department to bring charges and forfeitures against the defendants anyway!

Email correspondence concerning illegal lis pendens and court dates

Get free hit counter code here. Motion to consolidate at 10:30 on the 24th. Lis pendens motion will be specially set.

From Jane Stepp:

We will hear the motion to consolidate (Doc. 45) on March 24, at 10:30 a.m. but not the MOTION to Require United States to Release Notice of Lis Pendens. We will need to special set that since it might take a little longer than a normal criminal calendar setting.

Jane SteppCourtroom

Deputy for Judge Carlos Murguia

500 State Avenue, Room 537Kansas City, KS 66101Phone: (913) 551-5817Fax: (913) 551-5831

from: Parker, Marietta (USAKS)"

03/04/2008 03:27 PM
To

cc
Subject
RE: 07-20124, Neighbors

I’m not sure we need a hearing at all because the superseding indictment should have mooted the defendant’s claim, so it shouldn’t take long to argue; 15 or 20 minutes should do it

LAWRENCE POLICE OFFICER MICKEY RANTZ PLANTS EVIDENCE IN THE YELLOW HOUSE CASE TRASH

Through this entire corrupt case we have said at least the Lawrence Police have not planted evidence on us. That was until our last court date!

On Feb. 25th, 2008 it was presented to the Federal Judge in Federal court that Lawrence Police officer Mickey Rantz had clearly filed a false statement and committed the crime of planting evidence in the defendants trash!

The report claiming to have found contraband evidence in the Neighbors trash pull that was clearly non-existent, fabricated and if the described evidence does truly exist then clearly it was planted and would not have any fingerprints or DNA connected to the defendants.

Not only is planting evidence by a police officer a crime, it clearly establishes yet another link in the unjust police and Government abuse that the defendants have been forced to endure during this very egregious case.

These innocent defendants have been forced to endure the fact that customers patronizing the store have been unjustly harassed, the chain of evidence rules have clearly been violated, They have been forced to endure smear campaigns by the Government presented to the media, unconstitutional treatment during arrests, retaliatory indictments that clearly press the limits of what should even be able to be presented as a case in Federal court, and now the planting of evidence!

UNLAWFUL USER WITH FIREARM IS OBSCURE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHARGE FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTORS TO USE

Get free hit counter code here.

Unlawful user with firearm, A production charge of Prosecutorial misconduct with malice.

It would be constitutionally challenging for a federal court to convict the Neighbors of being an unlawful user in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 922(g)(3). Based upon the constitutionality of the definition. And the prosecutorial misconduct associated with the case.

A conviction would be a violation of due process because the definition of "unlawful user is too vague to supply the defendants with adequate notice that their conduct was prohibited. United States v. Cooper, 173 F.3d 1192, 1202 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no evidence to establish grounds that Guy and Carrie Neighbors have had a "consistent use of drugs".

Specifically noted, In determination of the definition of the term "unlawful user" should be supported by "the statutory history," Which indicated that § 922 was enacted "to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of ...their criminal background" Id. at 1365-66. Specifically, it is noted that § 922 explicitly included unlawful drug users as an individual having a "criminal background".

We believe that the prosecution of Guy and Carrie Neighbors under this vague law is unconstitutional and vindictive, and the facts have failed to establish any sufficient evidence beyond a doubt, that the defendants took or used drugs on any regular basis, within the statutory definition of "unlawful user" over an extended period of time.

Both defendants having had no criminal background, or drug histories would not fall under the vague definition of "unlawful user".
Continuing to prosecute under this statute would fall under the definition of "malicious prosecution" and abuse of process. This can be implied in this case, resulting from a lack of probable cause, and from inadequate investigation, research and malice on the part of the prosecution.

With indictment under District Court for the District of Kansas case number 06-2071-01/02-CM/JPO. Initiated in conjunction with misuse of the legal process, in retaliation for the defendants filing a complaint alleging police misconduct, violations of the chain of custody rule, and sending out E-mails and public internet postings along with blog sites, All fall within an exercise of The First Amendment assuring the Fundamental Right to Free Speech.

Making the circumstances of the indictment and arrest a case of Prosecutorial Misconduct. The fact both defendants were denied food while being held in a cell for 8 hours December 8th, 2006. Clearly was an act of retaliation by the prosecution, and a violation of Guy and Carrie Neighbors protected Fourteenth Amendment constitutional and civil rights. In violation of the Eighth Amendment. Forbidding “cruel and unusual punishments" clearly this shows "deliberate indifference" by the responsible officials.

Attorney Jim George was informed by prosecution team member Terra Moorehead that the arrest and Indictment was handled in this cruel manner to quote “Show Guy and Carrie Neighbors who is boss”. (Clearly this establishes retaliation and Malice by the prosecution.) Genito v. Rabinowitz, 92 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1966).

In conclusion with the Judicial system having a responsibility of full accountability, why would a Federal Judge be presented such a vague case that has been riddled with police misconduct, corruption, documented harassment and intimidation of both witnesses and defendants. Violations in the chain of custody rule, prosecutorial misconduct with deception, malice, and slander? When allowing this unconstitutional case to continue, would compromise the precious integrity of the courts procedural process.

In continuation, to further the vindictiveness of the prosecution, the original charge of unlawful user with firearms was dismissed by the prosecutor, then refiled under the disguise of a brand new case with added enhancements in order to cover up the speedy trial violations. A federal Judge as a result of this vindicitive refiling of the same charges dismissed the unlawful user with firearms charge against the defendants with Prejudice.



.

Chris Tomlin - Amazing Grace (My Chains are Gone)

POLICE CORRUPTION LINKS Gregory Sevier & INDIAN DEATHS AND YELLOW HOUSE CASE TOGETHER THROUGH PUBLIC FORUM COMMENTS

smitty (Anonymous) says…

In our town it's the police chief that co-writes the racist statements.
former detective files claim against the city
Ric Anderson, J-W Staff Writer
February 10, 1993
A former Lawrence police detective who believes he was fired in retaliation for bringing allegations of racial insensitivity against department supervisors has filed a claim against the city seeking reinstatement or a $1.5 million settlement.
In a seven-page claim filed Tuesday, David Davis said supervisors committed a breach of contract when they suspended and fired him after he had spent 15 years on the force.
The claim largely mirrors a motion Davis filed in mid-January in Douglas County District Court seeking a court order that would force the city to turn over documents related to his firing.
davis said he needed the documents to defend himself in grievances he filed against the city after his suspension and firing.
Although most information in the claim already has been publicized, the claim contains some new details.
Among them, Davis alleges that Lawrence Police Chief Ron Olin helped write a story for the state Fraternal Order of Police magazine that enraged local Native Americans because of references about the deaths of several Indian men.
In the story, former police department spokesman Chris Mulvenon responded to media reports hinting that a serial killer was involved by writing “the only evidence pointing to a serial in the case was cereal malt beverage.”
When the story was published in March 1991, Olin said he hadn't read it. In response to complaints about the article, Mulvenon was reassigned…….

6 May 2007 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

Harry Oliver…hit and run death on Mass..never solved

Sandoval found floating the Kaw…never solved

Dawes..found floating in the Kaw…never solved

Bread…hit and run on east 15th….suspest arrested in the last 2 hours before statute of limitaions were up….the woman in the van the night of the hit and run had reported to the father of her child and several other people that she was the one driving but she was not arrested. KBI notified but…questionable resolution to the death and not solved at the time of the article.

Hispanic woman found in a culvert by Stull and thought to be confused for a native…never solved.

These are the majority of the deaths that had the native community fearful of the serial killer.

This is the way Olin, our police chief handeled the public realtions of their expressed fear. This is the attitude Olin cultivated with in his police force that led to the irrational actions of Bordman in Sevier's death that soon followed.
Olin's racism has yet to be addressed by our city.
9 March 2007 at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink

adky (Anonymous) says…
What a joke! LPD should spend time training its own officers interviewing and evidence-collection techniques, homicide and drug investigations, vehicle stops and hostage negotiations. It would do far more to convince us that we have a department that protects and serves than this public relations stunt.

9 March 2007 at 10:24 a.m.


Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
I took the class more than 5 years ago, and I thought it was great. I was in a class with several well-known (non-police) Lawrence personalities, and I can see why the city is such a mess. Other than that, the police department provided a very informative course.

9 March 2007 at 11:14 a.m.


smitty (Anonymous) says…

This program was created in the after math of the LPD killing of Gregg Sevier. The Peer Review Panel recommended community policing so this academy was Olin's response along with the bicycle patrol. Only this year did the Olin start a community policing program with “two” officers(recently in the news). Take note that the citizen's police academy program was createed after the 1991 killing and ran every few months at first but the public lost interest in it or was it trust?
To believe that the public is well informed about the LPD is ignorance.

9 March 2007 at 1:26 p.m.

smitty (Anonymous) says…

But you will not learn how a police chief and his staff can cover up the circumstances of a police killing.

9 March 2007 at 5:24 p.m.


frwent (Anonymous) says…

How about hiring and retention policies??? Keeping officers that have shown personal irresponsibility and moral terpitude lack?? You cannot get a job with most government agencies with personal irresponsibility like bankrupcy, why is there an officer on the LPD with this striike against him????? Huh, Chief Olin??????
3 February 2006 at 7:07 a.m.

31 January 2006 at 8:49 a.m.

smitty (Anonymous) says…

Believe it if you must.
Here is the first portion of the resignation story on Jim Flory when he left the DA's office in 1991:
***
district attorney resigns

Ric Anderson, J-W Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 21, 1991
Douglas County Dist. Atty. Jim Flory announced today that he is leaving his job as the county's chief prosecutor effective June 17 to become an assistant U.S. attorney.
Flory said he decided to resign on April 16, when he accepted an appointment as an assistant U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Kan. Flory, 42, has been Douglas County district attorney since 1985, and his current term was to expire in January 1993.
“As is customary in such appointments, the offer was conditioned upon approval by the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and that final approval was received by the United States attorney just last week,” Flory said.
Flory said his resignation had “absolutely nothing to do with” controversy surrounding the April 21 shooting death of 22-year-old Gregory Sevier, a Native American man, by Lawrence police.

Critics alleged that Flory was biased in favor of the police officers involved and have called for his resignation. After a coroner's jury ruled that the officers were justified, Flory ended his investigation.
flory said the timing of his decision indicates the resignation was not related to the Sevier shooting.
“Any critics that believe they have something to do with it are welcome to that opinion,” he said. “It's inaccurate.”
He said he has “lived in controversy for the past six years” and could have dealt with the current situation.
A statement released today from the office of U.S. Atty. Lee Thompson says that steps have been taken to remove the U.S. attorney's office from a Federal Bureau of Investigation civil rights investigation into the Sevier shooting. Thompson announced the investigation several days after the shooting.
“Although Mr. Flory's duties will not be even remotely related to the Sevier case, under the circumstances I decided to request that the Department of Justice take charge of the case, and that request has been approved,” the statement quotes Thompson as saying.
The statement says Assistant U.S. Atty. Gen. John R. Dunne, chief of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, has assigned the case to Dan Bell, deputy chief of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division….***
And now he leaves the federal office to go on to “pursue new adventures”???
smitty (Anonymous) says…
I realize it is easier to act the ignorant fools than actually take the time to research the facts. But facts seldom are required to post on the forum. Here are a few facts, researched and substantiated with transcripts and official documents on file now at the court house. Or at least most of the documents are still there. Some are missing. Wonder what happened to the missing data?
At the time of the inquest there was a drawing of the six bullet paths summited as evidence. This drawing was from the autopsy. Only the drawing was summitted as evidence not the entire autopsy of even parts of it.
Today, if you were to go to the court house and ask to see the autopsy and inquest transcript you will find the complete autopsy filed with the transcript as if it had been part of the evidence all along.
When the autopsy was filed at the county clerk's office a few days after the trial there was a time stamp to show when filed. However the time stamp didn't match with the filing date so I stood there while the county clerk made a hand written note correcting the data.
That cover page is now missing from the autopsy. The autopsy is filed with the inquest transcript as if it were part of the evidence all along.
If for any reason the inquest was investigated or studied, the correct information about the trial and the autopsy would be offically misreprestented. There needs to be an outside investigation into the inquest and autopsy to answer the many discrepancies.
The autopsy diagram drawn by ex-DA Moddrell from the written report by ME Kriss Speary, grossly misdiagrams the paths of the bullets. Perjury and obstruction of justice by Moddrell with the knowledge and guidance from Flory?
Ex-DA Flory was the first person Olin summoned to the death scene even though the law required for the coroner to be called immediately. Flory and Olin were at the scene for over two hours before Moddrell was even called. Flory participated in this break in legal procedures.
Flory ran the inquest knowing there had been several breaks in the law through his own sight and participation. Flory participated in obstruction of justice before the inquest and at the inquest.
Conspiracy therory and suicide by police are a couple of buzz phrases to come out of the abuse of powers.

3 February 2006 at 12:10 p.m.


smitty (Anonymous) says…
correction>>>The autopsy diagram drawn by ex-coroner (not DA) Moddrell from the written report by ME Kriss Speary, grossly misdiagrams the paths of the bullets. Perjury and obstruction of justice by Moddrell with the knowledge and guidance from Flory?
One of those paths is describled by Sperry as entering the 5th intercostal and grazing the right lobe of the liver, then passing through the hepatic flexure before stopping in the peronial cavity. Sperry's description is a line from just under the armpit and downward sharply through the flexure, the large colon's turn just under the liver. Of course grazing of the right lobe of the liver is the bullet passing between the rib inner side of the cage and the liver.
Moddrell's drawing is a path from the lower right armpit to a spot just above the lowest pint on the sternum. Almost a 90 angle difference from autopsy report and no ways near the hepatic flexure described by Sperry.
The path that Moddrell feloniosuly drew is parallel to the floor if the victim was standing upright.
A second bullet is described by Sperry as entering the sternum at the 4th rib, passing through the heart and stopping against the left posterior area of the 10th rib. That is a line sharply downward from high center chest to the rear side area of the last long rib.
Moddrell drew that bullet path from the sternum at the 4th rib to a stopping point in the axilia area which is the left armpit.
Again another felony by Moddrell in the drawn line parallel to the floor if a person was standing upright.
The jury only had the diagram of Moddrell's and the evidence that Flory allowed at the inquest but no onther autopsy data.
And now information linking the location and entery dates of the autopsy are missing in the court documents. Fifteen years ago this April 21st this death happened at the hands of the LPD. We still don't have an honest review of the circumstances surounding the death. Only the perjuried data that Olin, Moddrell, and the retiring Flory allowed.
---------------------------------------------
CONNECTING THE YELLOW HOUSE CASE TO THE SEVIER CASE ..SAME JUDGE, SAME FAKE FBI AGENT, SAME PEOPLE INVOLVED IN COVER-UP AND CORRUPTION????

Yes Casey, you sparked our interest and we started to research some things.
We found there are some interesting similarities between the Sevier case and the Yellow House case.

One we found interesting was that Judge Ralph King was the Judge that presided over the hearing of the two officers that shot Sevier.

Our first question is why was this not in Federal court?

Why did no one question the conflict of interest in having a Judge these officers work with on a daily basis right here in Lawrence? Oversee such an important issue involving police officers and possible murder?

Why was everything handled without any oversight from an outside agency and why was that never questioned?

Judge King was the same Judge that heard the Yellow House Toy Star case in 1993.

Why would that judge allow such a charge to waist the courts time trying the Yellow House owners? Why was the corrupt Yellow House Toy case not dismissed by Judge King?
Before the case went to trial the D.A. had already publicly admitted the stars did not even meet the qualifications of being illegal. Yet the Yellow House owners were tried and convicted in Judge Kings Court for selling TOY STARS!
(Proving the stars were only illegal inside the Yellow House, But according to the Sheriff Anderson not illegal at the Douglas County fair the day after the trial)

It appears kind of comical and naïve how the attorney for the Seviers felt because the FBI was investigating things were going to be straight up.

Did anybody ever check to see if the right resident FBI agency for Lawrence was investigating the case?

Were any FBI agents or Judges from outside of the area called in to oversee the investigation and make sure there were no conflicts of interest?

AHH yes and the Police Review Board issues even back then!

Commissioners arguing if one is needed or not. What is a couple of dead Indians and a few civil rights violations? Why would the police need a review board?

In the Yellow House case Sue Hack strongly apposed a review board because she does not feel officials need oversight, or the public can understand these types of jobs. We are a very stupid public indeed..

The Prosecuting D.A. That prosecuted the Yellow House in the tOY Star Case was Frank Deal.

In the Latest Yellow House case the Yellow House filed a complaint with the Bar Association against a defense attorney, alleging he was in coercion with the prosecution. The complaint was not investigated and dismissed as unfounded and the head of the Bar association that investigates complaints is ....Frank Deal! (Conflict of interest?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Casey:
That shooting 16+ years ago, MJ, where it concerned the FBI was about the civil rights end. No where has anyone except thru straw arguments by police has named the FBI was part of a conspiracy to cover up the killing.

The FBI did not find any civil rights infractions but they were never asked to investigate the circumstances of the murder, only civil rights.

However the FBI will not explain how an officer arrives at the home then initiates a call to dispatch that put all transmissions on emergency hold. Bordman declared it an emergency when he visually, no other means, recognized the Seviers as natives. The FBI found no civil rights infractions even when an emergency is declared based solely on racial recognition that resulted in the shooting death of a citizen forced from a locked room.


I also think that the FBI agent that did the CR investigation has the same name as the agent that the YH has named it their comments. Not positive though unless I do some digging. The name was published in the JW but I've looked hard and can not find it in the archives. Some of the of these JW articles about that murder are found under commas or unrelated headings that make the search for facts very difficult.

Of course, after the above comment MJ may jump in and declare conspiracy theory again while NEVER addressing facts. When facts about the Sevier murder are presented it sure has made the local cops defensive and nervous for years. Hopefully, if the YH is successful, they will be remembered by LE for years

Get free hit counter code here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008
WWW.USDOJ.GOVCRT
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

WASHINGTON-“Most law enforcement officers perform their difficult duties with honor and professionalism,” stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker. “The Department of Justice will hold accountable any prosecutor who steps over the line and engages in this sort of misconduct.

The Civil Rights Division is committed to the vigorous enforcement of every federal criminal civil rights statute, such as the laws that prohibit the willful use of excessive force or other acts of misconduct by law enforcement officials. The Division has compiled a significant record on criminal civil rights law enforcement prosecutions. In Fiscal Year 2007, the Criminal Section convicted the highest number of defendants in its history, surpassing the record previously set in Fiscal Year 2006. During the last seven years, the Criminal Section obtained convictions of 53 percent more defendants (391 v. 256) in law enforcement prosecutions than the previous seven years.

YELLOW HOUSE VINDICTIVELY TARGETED TO LOOK LIKE BIG TIME STOLEN PROPERTY DEALERS

$15 worth of stolen yard tools in the Yellow House makes the news!

Just one week after the Fake FBI agent Bob (Walter) Shaefer clears the Lawrence Police of any wrong doing in the fake FBI investigation.

Two weeks prior to that LKPD executed an alleged forged search warrant with Judge Six's signature on it. Because the Yellow House had told a customer to file charges against a relative that had stolen his $30 air compressor and sold it to the Yellow House 3 months prior.

The same week thousands of dollars worth of Stolen property from a string of burglaries in North Lawrence was found at the JayHawk Pawn Shop on sixth street. However that was not considered news worthy. (Even though the burglaries themselves made front page news)

YELLOW HOUSE OWNERS ARRESTED ON OBSCURE CHARGES IN RETALIATION FOR TURNING IN FORMAL COMPLAINT

Yellow House owners are arrested and charged in Federal Court for being unlawful users with a firearms, Even though the firearms were clearly a high end collection and with no prior history the defendants did not even qualify to be charged under this statute.

Clearly this was a vindictive charge that was only executed for retaliation, after the defendants filed a formal complaint that officers were posing as FBI agents and harassing customers leaving the business.

These charges were later dropped by the prosecutor, and then vindictively refiled after the defendants turned in more formal complaints.

CORRUPT FEDERAL INDICTMENT OF YELLOW HOUSE STORE

ERRONEOUS information provided by the Justice Department to the News media to further destroy the reputation of the defendants.

The Justice Department maliciously released a false press release claiming that the Yellow House owners were charged with 2 counts of distribution, AND that they had been committing crimes since 2002!

This erroneous press release was part of the conspiracy and was carefully calculated by the Kansas Department of Justice to cover-up the fact the indictment was actually a vindictive refiling of the same charges that had just been dismissed.

FEDERAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT IS A VINDICTIVE CORRUPTION COVER UP IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE LAWRENCE KANSAS

This latest superseding indictment is an obvious attempt by the prosecutor for more cover-ups.

What is most sad is what kind of injustice the witnesses only listed by initials on the Yellow House indictment the Government claims are known to the Grand Jury have had to endure since 2005.

How much intimidation and harassment has been forced upon them to bring them to the point we are at now?

These people who as the indictment indicates are known to the Grand Jury should in reality be listed as victims of the Government.

These individuals who the Government are using as pawns in this case have been harassed at their workplace, intimidated, searched, followed, pulled over without being ticketed, illegally taken into custody to be interrogated about the Yellow House, lied to, had their families thrown to the floor and concussion grenades thrown into their homes by Lawrence Police officers, scared to death then been given plea deals and even released from prison early in exchange for their perjured non credible testimony.

Several customers victimized during the investigation of this business have filed formal complaints, and one customer is in the litigation process of a huge lawsuit against the city of Lawrence Kansas and its Police department for the harassment that was endured because of this corrupt investigation.

The question is where is the evidence of a crime?
Where are the police reports?
Where is the evidence that the owners of the Yellow House business ever participated in any property crimes, thefts, or fencing schemes when hearsay evidence is not admissible in federal court?
Why has not one thief or booster been arrested in connection with the Yellow House business or the investigation that has spanned over nearly three years?
How can the Government continue to put lis pendens and Forfeitures against the defendants property when there are no convictions?

Because someone scared out their wits that has been harassed and intimidated by the police and Government officials over a period of nearly three years are known to the Grand Jury to have sold something to the business because the Government saw their name on a check the business wrote them, does not constitute a Federal crime or a money laundering scheme.

This new superseding indictment, which is now the fourth indictment based upon one original indictment from 2005 with no new incidents of wrong doing is a disgrace to the Justice System.

The indictment calls for a forfeiture of property listed as a substitute asset. This is clearly not admissible in the 10th circuit court. There are no fruits of any crime here because there is no crime that has been proven to have been committed; only hearsay evidence has been presented by people with questionable credibility, and there have been no convictions in this case.

It makes no sense that the Government would charge defendants with no criminal history of being unlawful users with a firearm, and then dismiss the charges.
Then bring back the same charges with added enhancements execute a second arrest without new incidents on the same charges.

Then file yet another indictment of money laundering and mail fraud based on circumstantial evidence, false written statements and perjury. Then 5 months later, file a vindictive superseding indictment on top of the original questionable indictment two days after the defendants file a motion to dismiss an illegal forfeiture allegation on their property.

How many times between 2005 and 2008 can a couple of pissed off Federal prosecutors charge and arrest the same defendants on the same charges in a corrupt vindictive prosecution?

Is this case really being prosecuted by impartial prosecutors?

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S Guy & Carrie Neighbors MOTION TO RELEASE LIS PENDENS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(Kansas City Docket) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
Plaintiff, )

v.

CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, )

Defendant.

Case No. 07-20124-01-CM
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO RELEASE LIS PENDENS

Comes now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned
Assistant United States Attorney, and in response to the defendant’s Motion to Release
Lis Pendens, states the following.

1. In the Indictment, the United States included a forfeiture allegation which
gave notice to the defendants that the United States intended to seek forfeiture of any
property involved in money laundering and any property constituting proceeds of wire
fraud as alleged in the Indictment.
(Doc. 1). The United States identified 1904
Massachusetts, Lawrence, Kansas, as a piece of real property for which the United
States sought forfeiture.

2. The United States also included language which gave notice to the
defendants that it would seek forfeiture of substitute assets and listed the property
located at 1104 Andover, Lawrence, Kansas (Andover property). Thereafter, the United
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM Document 43 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 5
2
States filed a lis pendens with the Douglas County Register of Deeds against both the
1904 Massachusetts property and the Andover property.

3. On February 25, 2007, the defendant Carrie Neighbors filed her Motion To
Release Lis Pendens in which defendant claims that the filing of lis pendens is
prohibited by the Tenth Circuit Court’s ruling in United States v. Jarvis, 499 F.3d 1196
(10th Cir. 2007). (To avoid confusion, the United States would point out that the August
27, 2007, date listed in defendant’s motion as the date upon which the subject lis
pendens was filed is incorrect and that the indictment was not filed in this matter until
September 13, 2007.)

4. On February 27, 2007, the Grand Jury returned a Superseding Indictment
in this case. (Doc. 38). The Superseding Indictment also contains a revised forfeiture
allegation in which seeks the Grand Jury seeks forfeiture of the Andover property as
directly forfeitable property that was involved in the money laundering offenses (Counts
One and Sixteen through Twenty), and as directly forfeitable property that constitutes
proceeds from the wire fraud offenses (Counts One through Fifteen). The Andover
property is still listed as a substitute asset.

5. Directly forfeitable property refers to property that is connected to the
defendant’s criminal conduct and for which the applicable forfeiture statute provides for
mandatory forfeiture. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 982 (a)(1) provides, “The court, in
imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense in violation of section 1956 . . .
shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal,
involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such offense.” In this case, the
Andover property is alleged to be traceable to the offense of money laundering. (See,
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM Document 43 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 2 of 5


3
e.g., Counts One and Twenty) Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(8) provides in pertinent
part that:
[the court, in sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense under
section ... 1343 ... shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United Sates
any real or personal property –

(A) used or intended to be used to commit to facilitate or to
promote the commission of such offense; and

(B) constituting, derived from or traceable to the gross proceeds
that the defendant obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the
offense.

Here, the Andover property is alleged to have been derived from the proceeds of the
wire fraud. (See Counts One through Fifteen) Substitute assets refers to property that
is not directly forfeitable but may be forfeited in lieu of directly forfeitable property when
the conditions set out in 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) are met.

6. As a result of the Superseding Indictment, defendant’s Motion To Release
Lis Pendens is moot. Defendant had sought release of the lis pendens against the
Andover property because the Andover property was only named as a substitute asset
in the Indictment. However, now that forfeiture of the Andover property is sought as a
result of the property’s direct connection to the crimes charged and the proceeds from
those crimes, defendant’s argument is no longer factually applicable.

7. Should the Court find that defendant’s motion is not moot, the United
States asserts that Jarvis, the case cited by defendant, is not applicable to the present
proceeding. In Jarvis, the Tenth Circuit held that the filing of lis pendens was improper
under New Mexico state law. 499 F.3d at 1205. The New Mexico lis pendens statute
and the Kansas lis pendens statute are markedly different and accordingly Jarvis is not
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM Document 43 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 3 of 5

4
applicable in this instance.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the United States respectfully asks
the Court to deny defendant’s motion as moot or in the alternative, find that Jarvis does
not apply.

Respectfully submitted,
Eric F. Melgren
United States Attorney s/ Marietta Parker, #77807

MARIETTA PARKER
Assistant United States Attorney
500 State Avenue; Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Telephone: 913-551-6730
Facsimile: 913-551-6541
E-mail: marietta.parker@usdoj.gov

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 4th day of March, 2008, the foregoing was
electronically filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will
send a notice of electronic filing to the following:

Phillip R. Gibson
Thomason & Gibson LLC
2400 S. Lee's Summit Rd., Suite #200
Independence, MO 64055
Counsel for Carrie Neighbors

Cheryl A. Pilate
Morgan Pilate LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061
Counsel for Guy Neighbors

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM Document 43 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 4 of 5
5
I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice of
electronic filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
None

s/ Marietta Parker, #77807
MARIETTA PARKER
Assistant United States Attorney
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM Document 43 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 5 of 5

Yellow house Store Lawrence Kansas

More corrupt indictments and corruption cover-ups. And More Indictments to cover up the cover ups and corruption. WHere does it end?

Yellow house Store in the News Lawrence Kansas Police

Repeated lies and corruption revealed in the news

Yellow house Store Lawrence Kansas

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES ON GAG ORDER FOR INTERNET BLOGGING IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE

The Yellow House owners were back in court on Feb. 25th, 2008. A federal Judge heard emotional arguments regarding the AUSA Prosecutor Terra Moreheads motion to have Guy and Carrie Neighbors gagged.

The gag order was directed towards the right of the defendants to publicly blog information regarding their case on the internet.

Tearfully Prosecutor Terra Morehead pleaded with the Judge explaining that because of the Defendants blogs her cases are being investigated 5 years back. If her cases are straight-up then what would she have to worry about?

She was very upset because the defendants had used a public photo of her that originally had been posted on the internet in association with the “Scruffy the Dog Case” in their blogs. The photo was removed from the blog site but still remains available for public access on the internet.

http://pitch.com/photoGallery/?s=news&id=139275&p=1&v=thumb&g=88

Out of respect the defendants agreed that the photo would be removed from the blog site.

The innocent defendants in this case have been served multiple search warrants, have had every aspect of their lives exposed and scrutinized publicly, have been lied about to the media and even had every financial document seized, scrutinized, audited, and held indefinitely going back as far as 5 years also. The defendants have had their lives torn apart by an investigation that has gone on since 2005, an investigation that has ruined their reputation, financial stability and business. An investigation that has led to children that depended on the defendants having their lives ripped apart also.

“On a personal note we feel abused by the system. We felt very offended that the prosecutor would cry for herself in court. What about the foster child that after living with us for two years was unmercifully ripped from our home because of this case?

What about the injustice that our family and the children in our lives have had to endure for nearly three years?”

The Prosecutor also motioned to have a Chief Federal Judge's dismissal of two counts reinstated.
The Federal Judge hearing the case denied the motion for the Gag order and also denied the motion for reversal of the dismissed charges.

Also on a future docket was the motion by the defendants to reverse the recently discovered illegal lis pendens order the U.S. Federal prosecuting attorney Marietta Parker illegally placed on the defendants home and business real property.

It would appear the Prosecutor is very angry and taking things personal in this case.
What is next? Perhaps she will file a fourth vindictive indictment and fourth arrest warrant adding more counts to the original unjust indictment.
Perhaps this will be done in an attempt to cover-up her continued illegal activity and attempts at forfeitures before a conviction in this case.

Do defendants in Federal Court really have a right to be prosecuted by impartial prosecutors?

We will wait and see.