JUDGE RULES MONDAY JUNE 2, 2008 Motion by Prosecutor Marietta Parker for Yellow House business owners Jailed for Public Blogging

Judge Waxse's Chambers
Start End Category Description
2
Jun
2008
10:00 AM 12:00 PM Court Mot. Hrg. (Doc. 65) 07-20124-01/02 Carrie and Guy Neighbors
...............................................................................................................................

We are on the docket for Monday, to hear the Judge rule on the motion by the Prosecutor Marietta Parker to have the Bond release revoked because of the Blogging.

Published author expresses interest in writing a novel about the Yellow House Case

A famous published author of more than 40 novels has expressed an interest in writing a book about the Yellow House case based on the blogs.

So for fun I thought I would design the cover and title! (LOL)

IRS Investigations Special Agent Rob Jackson shows Pattern of Conspiracy and ethics violations with Federal Prosecutor MARIETTA PARKER

The hardest thing to understand about a case like the Yellow House case, is how can a business that has always paid its taxes, Used A professional accounting firm to audit and maintain the business finances for more than 20 years, kept up on the necessary licenses, permits, maintained good records and followed the required Federal and State requirments, filings and guidlines for employees be charged with "Money Laundering?"
Carrie Neighbors asked IRS Agent Robert Jackson to please explain during a proffer session in Aug. 2006 how she could be charged with "money laundering" when there was no hidden money and no tax evasion.

IRS AGENT ROB JACKSONS DEFINTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING:

IRS Agent Rob Jacksons definition of money laundering was that if a second hand business buys merchandise (that might be stolen) from an individual with the business check, then sells that merchandise on ebay, then the buyer pays with paypal and then from paypal the money is deposited into the business owners bank account, then all the money in the bank account becomes dirty money and anything else the business owner buys or makes payments on is purchased with dirty money and that is the "Money laundering" that the Yellow House was being charged with.

It would appear this is more of a conspiracy by the Federal IRS Investigations Department to team up IRS Agents with greedy dirty prosecutors needing favors to go after business owners that own forfeitable property, and assets using outragous "Money Laundering" charges which under Federal Law entitles the Government to Seize the defendants property and assets! This is the ridiculous charge that through the assistance of IRS Agent ROB Jackson U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker used to place a lis pendens forfeiture allegation in anticipation of a money judgement against the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors business and residential properties before a conviction. This type of lis pendens has been ruled impermissible in the 10th circuit court and therefore unlawfully interfered with the sale of the defendants residential property!

IRS AGENT ROB JACKSON VIOLATES THE PRIVACY LAWS:

During a conversation between Carrie Neighbors and her attorney Aaron McKee about her inability to pay all his fees, IRS Agent Rob Jackson also casually walked up and unethically disclosed the exact dollar amount of the balance in the Commerce Bank Business account for that day held by Carrie Neighbors to her attorney Aaron McKee, then proceeded to make the statement to Mr. Mckee that Carrie had more than enough money to pay him for his services. This statement was made in total disregard for Carrie Neighbors right to Federally protected privacy afforded by the Federal Government to customers of the banking institution.

IRS AGENT ROB JACKSON SEARCHES DEFENDANTS HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT AND HEADS UP AN ARREST WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE DEFENDANTS CHARGES ARE:

IRS Agent Rob Jackson has continued through out the Yellow House Investigation to conspire and assist the Federal Prosecutors specifically Marietta Parker, and the Lawrence Police officers, aware the charges against the defendants were not substantiated by the numbers, were fabricated and false.
His conduct and lack of ethics has violated the defendants constitutional rights, including an unlawful search of the defendants home he executed without a search warrant, while serving an arrest warrant upon the defendants. Which at the time of the arrest, IRS Agent Rob Jackson was not even aware of what the charges were he was arresting the defendants for! None of the arresting officers could inform the defendants why they were being arrested or what the charges were.

DOES IRS AGENT ROB JACKSON HAVE A PATTERN OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS & CONSPIRACY TIED TO HIS INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST BUSINESS OWNERS?

IRS Agent Rob Jackson has violated other defendant business owners rights during other investigations. A Judge in another case, Senior U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright has ruled IRS Agent Rob Jackson is not credible and has lied on the stand while giving testimony in court. END.
----------------------------------------------
(Here is part of an interesting article we found that was written about Rob Jackson by his former collegue Charlotte Yee.)

Strange Federal Employees I Knew - Walking the Fine Line between Prisoner and Prison Guard
Posted in January 2nd, 2008 by C. Yee in Absurd,

Accountability, American Rights, Equity & Fairness, Personal Experiences

I’m dedicating this post to a former Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) colleague named Robert Jackson. Prior to becoming infamous outside of BLS, Rob (as we all knew him) was infamous within BLS. Rob would later become infamous outside of BLS for his role in a civil case that his new Agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would – gasp – lose. As the Dan Margolies of the Kansas City Star quoted one of the plaintiffs, “”This whole thing was very, very scary, this Clint Eastwood character breaking the rules. All the attorneys I’ve talked to about this said they’d never seen abuse like this. They were really shocked.”

Kansas City Star, July 28, 2005

“. . . a federal judge ordered the government to pay more than $250,000 to three taxpayers after finding that an IRS agent [Robert Jackson] had disclosed confidential information to witnesses in a criminal tax investigation.

Senior U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright assessed statutory and punitive damages after finding that special agent Robert Jackson of the IRS’ Criminal Investigative Division in Kansas City “knowingly, willfully and intentionally” made 78 illegal disclosures of taxpayer information.

I doubt that many of the BLS employees with whom Rob worked were shocked. Rob was a loose canon, and when we found out that he was transferring to the IRS and that they were giving him a gun, everyone panicked.

Me, I have two publishable recollections of Rob. My first recollection is from a business trip to Nevada, in which we helped the state install a new database system for their program. Smack in the middle of a phone conversation, Rob suggested to the Iowa programmer that I would be acting out a hard-core calendar spread for him and the two hard-working men surrounding the cubicle.

Feminists, hold your disdain, but I did not consider this to be sexual harassment. While his comment was unwanted, it was neither severe nor pervasive. Rob was a peer who would later be catching a plane back to Kansas City — in my opinion, none too soon. Secondly, he was a peer with no authority over my work or working conditions. Once my two other colleagues and I picked our jaws up off of the ground, we proceeded to ignore Rob. (I will mention here, however, that Rob Jackson did report to the Kansas City Office, which at the time was headed by Robert Gaddie — the man who thinks that women need to be inappropriately touched in order to be sexually harassed.)

My second recollection of Rob involves some poor traveler who made the untimely mistake of asking me about my plans for dinner just as a group of peers exited the elevator into the hotel lobby. Rob announced very loudly in front of us that if I wanted to have a private liaison with “Hamid,” they would go off on their own. Even if this traveler were Middle Eastern, Rob’s comments would be xenophobic and impolite. As you might have guessed, the traveler was not Middle Eastern, but rather, a darker-skinned East Indian.

There is a third recollection of Rob, but I’m not printing it here. Needless to say, Robert Jackson was “this very, very scary . . . character breaking the rules.”

I think at this point, I’ve ascertained that Rob was a bad apple. But, that still did not deter the Department of Justice from appealing the verdict against the IRS. Instead, they took the district court’s decision to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, where they managed to get the court to reduce the punitive damages from nearly $176,000 to $19,589. They also managed to get the district court’s award of expert witness fees thrown out.

All of this is despite the appeals court confirmation that “Jackson’s numerous disclosures of return information, including the fact that the Taxpayers were under grand jury investigation, were unauthorized and were not made in good faith.”

Ultimately, falsely accused taxpayers Leonard Snider and Theresa J. Turley won, but they did not win. Rob Jackson spread lies about their character and business in 2001, and on November 8, 2006 while simultaneously confirming wrongdoing by Robert Jackson on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, the court of appeals took away award money that had been granted by the district court. And that money was small in comparison with what it did to the falsely accused. One of the falsely accused taxpayers, Leonard Snider, lost his business. The other, Theresa Turley, not only lost her business, but had tried to commit suicide three times during Rob Jackson’s untruthful investigation of her. And these were entrepreneurs just trying to eke out a living and live the American dream.

(To read the entire article click on the title to get the link I pulled this story from.)
--------------------------------------------
follow-up:
C. Yee said,in May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am I was actually excited because I had hoped that Rob Jackson was finally indicted. But, in typical federal government logic, I see he is still working and stealing our our hard-earned taxpayer dollars, while harassing taxpayers, no less.

Have you tried contacting DAN MARGOLIES of the Kansas City Star? You might remind him of several articles he wrote about Mr. Jackson, the first dated 7/28/05 and the second, 11/10/06. That Jackson has already had his credibility ripped in court makes it a public interest story. It is as if what Mr. Turley went through had no impact on the overall functioning of the Treasury. It only goes to make my case that Rob Jackson represents what the IRS wants, soldiers to do its bidding, whatever that may be. I continue to mourn for good, honest hard-working Americans everywhere.

P.S. Continue the fight. I am hoping for the dawn of a new era — an era of integrity.

Still no defense attorney

Just a few months away from the most corrupt case trial in the history of the Kansas U.S. Department of Justice, and the defendant has no defense attorney, no subpoena's sent out, no motions filed, no one wants this dirty case.

I am Feeling like a little helpless bunny rabbit sitting out in the middle of a field surrounded by hungry wolves!

FATALLY FLAWED FEDERAL 19 COUNT INDICTMENT WIRE, MAIL FRAUD, STOLEN GOODS, MONEY LAUNDERING IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE

THIS IS THE 19 COUNT FEDERAL INDICTMENT (as it appears in the DOJ press release) PENDING AGAINST THE NEIGHBORS. THIS PAGE ALSO INCLUDES THE NEIGHBORS ANSWERS TO THE CHARGES!
------------------
------------------
KANSAS CITY, KAN. – Carrie Marie Neighbors, ??, ??, and Guy Madison Neighbors, ??, ??, are charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering in connection with the alleged sale of stolen goods.

---------ANSWER BY YELLOW HOUSE:
But there has been no victims called to pick up a single stolen item, there was no income tax evasion, and there are no known conspirators!
-----------------------------------------
INDICTMENT SAYS:

The indictment alleges the Neighbors knowingly purchased stolen goods and resold them, conducting some of the transactions on E-bay.

---------ANSWER BY YELLOW HOUSE:
To knowingly prove somebody is doing something wrong, don't you first have to prove with the evidence there was a crime? Apparently "NOT" in the Kansas Federal Court!
-----------------------------------------
INDICTMENT SAYS:

The crimes are alleged to have occurred at various times from Jan. 5, 2005, to Nov. 30, 2005 in Lawrence, Kan.


---------ANSWER BY YELLOW HOUSE:
These dates keep getting changed! The Government can't decide if they want to claim it was two years, four years or 11 months! But maybe we should give the Government a break, because these kinds of inconsistancy are expected when a lie is being told! The truth is the only thing that never changes!
------------------------------------------

THE INDICTMENT SAYS:
The 19-count indictment includes the following charges against each of the Neighbors:– One count of conspiracy– 14 counts of wire fraud– 4 counts of money laundering
According to the indictment:– Carrie Neighbors owned Yellow House Quality Appliance, Inc., at 1904 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, Kan., and Guy Neighbors owned Yellow House at 1835 NW Topeka Boulevard, #131, in Topeka, Kan.


------------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
True, however the store in Topeka was never under investigation! Guy Neighbors never met a single witness nor purchased a single item from the witnesses named on the indictment, no sting operations or videos were made in the Topeka store. So apparently the Prosecutor mentions the store in Topeka because she hates black people and she can't let him get away.
----------------------------------------
INDICTMENT SAYS:
– Both stores bought and sold power tools, clothing, appliances, electronics and other personal property. Some of the items were resold over the Internet on e-Bay.


----------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
True, but buying and selling merchandise is not a crime. Selling on e-Bay is not a crime. That is what second hand stores do!
---------------------------------------

INDICTMENT SAYS:
– The Neighbors had bank accounts at Commerce Bank and Intrust Bank in Lawrence.


-------------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
True the Neighbors had legitimate business bank accounts!


INDICTMENT SAYS:
– The neighbors purchased items, some of which were stolen, for resale. Some of the items were “new-in-the-box” and cost the Neighbors about 50 percent of their retail value.

--------------------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
Yes the Neighbors purchased items from individuals for resale. Sometimes new and sometimes used, from people representing themselves as the legal owners of the property. Paying 50-80% of the retail value, because the sellers claimed to be purchasing the items and needed to make a profit also. It would be ridiculous for someone to believe the Neighbors were paying such high prices for things they knew were stolen!
-------------------------------------------------

INDICTMENT SAYS:
The Neighbors knowingly purchased stolen items from individuals identified in the indictment as L.P., N.P., J.L., M.A., P.N., S.B.C, T.K., N.B., and others.


--------------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
This list of initials that represent so called witnesses is a joke. One person on the list was banned from the store at least 7 months prior to the first search warrant even being served on the business in 2005. It was already established during pretrial hearings (One before a Federal Judge) that three of the names have given perjured testimony to a grand Jury, and at least one person on the list made a documented false police report. Others have been racially profiled, threatened, and harassed at their jobs by officers involved in the Yellow House investigation attempting to intimidate witnesses into giving a false testimony.
-------------------------------------------

INDICTMENT SAYS:
Checks paying for the stolen items carried notations including “tools,” “toothbrushes,” “mixer,” “computer monitor,” “drill sharpener,” “vacuum,” “Compaq Computer,” “fish finder,” and so on. Items purchased include a Trutech DVD system, a 2-gigabyte IPOD Nano, a portable DVD Player, a Garmin eTrex GPS Receiver and so on.– The Neighbors transferred money and checks drawn on their bank accounts to purchase stolen property.


------------------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
Yes the Neighbors paid with checks for everything, drawn from the businesses bank accounts, that money from the business was deposited in.. Purchasing goods from individuals at fair market prices. Notations were made on the checks to document what was purchased.. But there are absolutely no notations that any item was "stolen property" on the checks!
------------------------------------------------

INDICTMENT SAYS:

The indictment seeks a $525,000 money judgement, representing the proceeds from the alleged crimes.

--------------------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
This amount has gone from $36 million, to $30 million, to $1.6 million to $1 million, to "tens of thousands" to $600,000. down to $300,00. Now back up to $525,00 for the indictment. (Here again the Government just needs to get their lie straight!)
However in the latest Department of Justice press release the Government claims two people (conspirators) sold stolen property to the Yellow House! One mans amount was $30,000, and the other guy's number was $100,000, in one year.

However during preliminary dicussions, before these witnesses took the plea, these amounts for these two individuals were only estimated amounts over a 5 year period. Still those two amounts do not total $525,000. Seems to me Somebody in the Federal Government needs to go back to grade school and take a math class!
-------------------------------------

INDICTMENT SAYS:
Upon conviction, the alleged crimes carry the following penalties:– Conspiracy: A maximum penalty of 5 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.– Wire fraud: A maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.– Money laundering: A maximum penalty of 20 years and a fine up to $500,000.
The Lawrence Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation worked on the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker is prosecuting.


--------------------------YELLOW HOUSE ANSWER:
The indictment claims the Federal Bureau of Investigation worked the case, however the FBI in Topeka and Kansas City claimed that was false. Both agencies claimed they had never heard of the Yellow House, and no investigation involving the Yellow House businesses ever took place by either agency!
IN CONCLUSION-
YELLOW HOUSE PERSONAL STATEMENT:
The TRUTH never changes!
It will always take you down the same path!
There can be no Justice in a case when the Government only seeks to lie, conspire, destroy and plant evidence and even go to great lengths to coverup the truth at all costs in order to get a conviction in Federal court and attempt to send innocent defendants to prison on false charges.





“Sincere forgiveness carries no expectations from the forgiven. Life always feeds back truth to people in its own way and time”
Because truth is stronger than a lie I know the truth will prevail, I pray God will have mercy on the ones who have chosen to travel down this road of deceipt.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTUAL DOJ PRESS RELEASE OF INDICTMENT:
LAWRENCE COUPLE CHARGED
WITH CONSPIRACY, WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD
AND MONEY LAUNDERING

KANSAS CITY, KAN. – Carrie Marie Neighbors, ??, ??, and Guy Madison Neighbors, ??, ??, are charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering in connection with the alleged sale of stolen goods.

The indictment alleges the Neighbors knowingly purchased stolen goods and resold them, conducting some of the transactions on E-bay. The crimes are alleged to have occurred at various times from Jan. 5, 2005, to Nov. 30, 2005 in Lawrence, Kan.

The 19-count indictment includes the following charges against each of the Neighbors:
– One count of conspiracy
– 14 counts of wire fraud
– 4 counts of money laundering


According to the indictment:
– Carrie Neighbors owned Yellow House Quality Appliance, Inc., at 1904 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, Kan., and Guy Neighbors owned Yellow House at 1835 NW Topeka Boulevard, #131, in Topeka, Kan.
– Both stores bought and sold power tools, clothing, appliances, electronics and other personal property. Some of the items were resold over the Internet on e-Bay.
– The Neighbors had bank accounts at Commerce Bank and Intrust Bank in Lawrence.
– The neighbors purchased items, some of which were stolen, for resale. Some of the items were “new-in-the-box” and cost the Neighbors about 50 percent of their retail value.
– The Neighbors knowingly purchased stolen items from individuals identified in the indictment as L.P., N.P., J.L., M.A., P.N., S.B.C, T.K., N.B., and others. Checks paying for the stolen items carried notations including “tools,” “toothbrushes,” “mixer,” “computer monitor,” “drill sharpener,” “vacuum,” “Compaq Computer,” “fish finder,” and so on. Items purchased include a Trutech DVD system, a 2-gigabyte IPOD Nano, a portable DVD Player, a Garmin eTrex GPS Receiver and so on.
– The Neighbors transferred money and checks drawn on their bank accounts to purchase stolen property.

The indictment seeks a $525,000 money judgement, representing the proceeds from the alleged crimes.

Upon conviction, the alleged crimes carry the following penalties:
– Conspiracy: A maximum penalty of 5 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.
– Wire fraud: A maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.
– Money laundering: A maximum penalty of 20 years and a fine up to $500,000.

The Lawrence Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation worked on the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker is prosecuting.

Why the Government has risked so much to bring down a Store like Yellow House

Get free hit counter code here.

Many people ask “But why would all these officials risk their careers and reputations to go after a little second hand store like the Yellow House? They argue that the whole thing sounds very unbelievable.”

So here is my answer:

To start out with the Yellow House Business has been in Lawrence for more than 20 years.

This town is run on the “Good Ole Boy” mentality. It has no elected Mayor, no police review board, no City Manager or Attorney that provides Police oversight. A City commission that is run from people that are on the inside and have close ties and refuse to provide oversight when complaints are filed.

Its already been shown through the evidence that The Pawn shops and the Police officers in Lawrence Kansas have their little “gig” going on, and the Pawn shops feel that the Yellow House is in the way.

So the Police officers decide to put the pressure on the Yellow House and help their buddies at the Pawn shop out.

They decide to set up the Yellow House. They figured if they could get a search warrant, they would be able to take down the Yellow House, do away with the Pawn Shops competition, and get to seize the assets, the merchandise, personal belongings (which they could sell to the Pawn Shops) home and business property of the owners. It seemed like a win win situation!

So they make an altered sting video, sell a few things to the Yellow House donated by the Target Corporation, and then serve a search warrant on the business and the residence of the owners with very little preliminary investigation. They Seize thousands of dollars worth of expensive desktop and laptop computers, Ipods, Tools, cameras, video games, MP3 players, jewelry, and home appliances. They seize a high end gun collection locked in a safe at the residence, one rare heirloom gun alone in the collection had an estimated low value of $16,000.00.

The next day before looking into any of the evidence, the Lawrence Kansas Police Department call a press conference. In the press conference they make accusatory statements as facts, they label the defendants as Fencers, and even put dollar amounts on the crime without any charges filed and no arrests made. After that horrific press conference there was no going back!

The case becomes a problem, when the defendants refuse to plead guilty, realize their seized expensive belongings are missing from the Police departments property room, ask for investigations, and start demanding some Constitutional rights!

From there it is just a long chain of Government colleagues of 20 years in high up positions pulling favors for each other to get this situtation handled.

Colleagues scratching each others back, in exchange for kickbacks, favors, forfeitures, and whatever! The police, the Kansas Department of Justice prosecutors, the FBI, the KBI, the Postal Service, the IRS, City leaders, the press, various attorneys. It is just mind boggling to see how deep the chain of buddies willing to cover-up for each other and railroad innocent citizens that get in their way goes!

WITH THAT SAID:
I want to reinterate that along the way there have been many Officers, Detectives, agents, Judges, reporters and members of the press, and various other officials, customers and friends that do not approve of what has been done to the Yellow House business owners. Most are powerless to do anything but privately voice their opionion, advice or support. To them I dedicate this video below.

Finding a good defense attorney can be a challenge when the case is corrupt

Friday , May 23, 2008

No Public Defender Has Been Appointed For Mrs. Neighbors In The Yellow House Case because of Conflict Of Interest Issues

Our court date for 5-21-08 was canceled.

There still has not been an attorney found available to represent Carrie that does not have a conflict of interest. It appears to me the Department of Justice In Kansas is run on a conspiracy of kickbacks and colleagues doing favors for each other, in order to railroad clients straight to jail.

The defendants have not had a single attorney file a motion to dismiss the case, and one attorney hurried up and filed a motion to stop the speedy trial clock so the case would not be dismissed! The reason behind this motion was because the prosecutor wanted us to believe that she had sent the defendants files to the wrong attorneys. (the same attorneys the DOJ had hired to represent the defendants!)

There have been 12 attorney's that have represented the defendants in this case since 2005.

Here is a list of what our attorneys some hired and some Public defenders have done for us so far, and what we hope to get or not to get in the next attorney.
While representing us, our other attorneys have done all these things while claiming to be defending us.

We have had one attorney that has really went to bat for us and she is Cheryl A. Pilate from MorganPilate LLC out of Olathe her office is at 142 North Cherry Olathe,Ks, 66061. If you need a honest attorney give her a call. She Rocks in court!

What we need in a new attorney is

1. An attorney that is honest and willing to represent the client without conspiring with the prosecution.

2. An attorney unlike Aaron McKee, one that would not Force the client into a ridiculous 6 day proffer with police that results in absolutlely nothing in return for the defendant.

3. An attorney that will not tell the defendant that a deal was made with the prosecutor, that if we cooperate in the proffers, the drug and gun charges will be put down to a state level, and there could also be special considerations in the case. But fails to get the deal in writing or protect the interests of his client. So after the client does everything asked of them all they get is the prosecutor having them arrested and starved in a cell for 8 hours with both legs shackeled together while people in the cell next to us were fed twice.
(Now that was a deal to die for!)

4. We need a attorney an that won't try to get the defendant to get a paypal account in someone elses name to be paid with.

5. We need a attorney that will not ask the client's to tell him anytime witnesses contact them, so he can run and tell the police! (Yep really)

6. We need a attorney that won't help the prosecutor altar and switch out an evidence lists from the clients file in her office. Or at best makes copies of things that are allowed to be taken from the office by third parties.

7. We need a attorney that won't destroy affidavits and statements by witnesses because that attorney decides she doesn't want her other client (who happens to be a witness) she is also defending involved in the Yellow House case.

8. We need a attorney that will file motions that benefits the defendant and not the prosecutor. Before the client threatens, begs and finally tries to do it themself!

9. We need a attorney un-like Alex McCauley who got this case with speedy trial issues and the time runs out in seven days. So he hurry's and files a motion behind the clients back to STOP the speedy trial time so the case won't get thrown out! Wow what injustice! Then meets with the client for four hours going over most of the case files, making notes and highlighting the issues the defendant points out in the case, then the next day files a motion to withdraw because of conflict of interest and hands the files with all the notes and highlights back over to the Federal prosecutor Terra D. Morehead!

10. We need a attorney that will take action when the defendant tells you that there are guns and evidence missing in the case, the response will not be quote "Well they only need one gun to convict you.." or "altered evidence lists are not a problem if there is no discrepencies in the numbers of guns...Oh wait there is... 10 guns photographed as evidence, 12 guns taken without serial numbers, make or models documented, out of a locked safe without a search warrant, and only 11 guns listed in the switched out forged evidence list and indictment!"

11. We need a attorney that will file the motions the client is promised to have filed. Then not cancel the court date to avoid filing the motions, or lie & say the motion is getting filed when it never was filed hoping to give the prosecutor time to make a counter move.

12. We need a attorney that will not share attorney client privaledged information with the prosecutor. So she can react to the defendants every move.

13. We need a attorney that will not tell you flat out lies about the speedy trial clock or try to trick the clients into combining these 2 weak cases together because the prosecutor doesn't have a chance in hell of getting a conviction with the weak circumstantial evidence. When the defendants refuse to go along with this conspiracy between the prosecutor and the defendants attorneys, the Prosecutor has a melt down in court and starts crying!

14. We need a attorney that believes in the defendant and won't treat the defendant like a total putz that should take a plea deal because you can never win a case in A Federal court that has a 98% conviction rate even if you are innocent!

Fact is I still have a 2% chance and the truth which we are willing to fight for and not back down from on our side! Now all we need is an attorney, Judge, or jury to see this case for what it is and end this gross miscarriage of justice!

Are we expecting too much from an attorney?

We had our business raided and searched 3-times our home raided and searched 2-times with a search warrant and twice without a search warrant. The first charges came 12-months after the searches. Some of the search warrants used in the searches do not have matching judges signatures on them and violated Lawrence Kansas Police procedures and policy.
Now its going on 3-yrs. and the prosecutor has filed a motion to have our bond revoked because of our blogging site.
Do I have the same rights as other people?

Thank-you To all our friends and supporters. We have another court appearance tomorrow, on Wednesday the 21st.
We will be going before the Judge so he can rule on whether we need to be locked up in Federal Prison for blogging and exposing all the people that keep trying to stomp on our heads!

Say a little prayer for us tonight. And hopefully we will be back soon.

Corruption & Coverup for Lawrence Police by FBI Agents in Yellow House store Kansas case?

Kansas City FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer is a very illusive agent that cannot be easily reached in Kansas City.
However when the defendant Carrie Neighbors called the Kansas City FBI, asked to speak to Bob Shaefer she was told that was not possible, when she asked about the records of the investigation he did in regards to a complaint that was filed during the summer of 2006, she was told the Kansas City FBI does not have Jurisdiction over Lawrence Ks., there was no investigation, and she needs to call the FBI in Topeka.

So Carrie Neighbors calls the Topeka FBI and during the phone call questions FBI Agent Denton Murray why an FBI Agent from Kansas City by the name of Bob Shaefer only appeared to be staging an investigation. And due to the illusive behavior of the agent even questions if he really exists!

THE BACKGROUND THAT BROUGHT US HERE:
The Yellow House business owners had customers calling and comming into the store claiming that the FBI was pulling them over when they left the store. The business began taking down names and statements and getting signed affidavits through a private investigator hired through the defendants attorney Sarah Swain.
It was determined that Lawrence Ks. police officers were pulling over customers leaving the Yellow House store while posing as FBI agents, and in some cases following them home and even taking them to the LKPD police department for questioning, all while posing as FBI agents, a complaint was turned into internal affairs. Even though the Kansas City FBI claimed to have investigated and cleared the Police, not a single person was interviewed and not a single affidavit was looked at or investigated.

Sending out a press release through Jeff Lanza that the Kansas City FBI had cleared the Lawrence Kansas Police Department after claiming to have investigated.
Even though the Kansas City FBI makes it clear when the defendant calls down there multiple times, to discuss the investigation with an agent; that they do not EVER investigate complaints from Lawrence Kansas, and there is no record of the investigation, and there is no one available to talk too!

So the day the defendant is in court all day and will not be able to take a phone call, the FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer from Kansas City FBI calls and leaves a message.

I am not sure why he would leave a message with the FBI in Kansas city's phone number because he is never there to meet with anybody that shows up at the FBI to talk to him, he has no business cards available for a person, he never responds to e-mails or faxes, and he is never available to take phone calls even if you call him SIX times in one day and leave a lot of messages!

Could it be? A Federal U.S. Prosecutor gets passwords, Logs into defendants blog,Uses Edit tools and uses exhibits as evidence to convict/ revoke bond

This is just a sample. click on each picture to see a closeup of the blogs exhibits turned over to the courts to revoke the bond by Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker. Could these have been copied while the prosecutor was logged into the defendants blog site and after the prosecutor had used the edit features?

link to the actual blog:

http://yellowhousestore.blogspot.com/

COULD FEDERAL PROSECUTOR MARIETTA PARKER BE PRACTICING CORRUPT ETHICS VIOLATIONS TO GET CONVICTIONS & Bond revoked on innocent defendants before trial

Exhibits Prosecuting attorney Marietta Parker uses to support her motion to revoke the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors bond.

The above exhibit are copies of the Blog that the Prosecutor possibly copied from the defendants blogging site? These copied blogs with the edit tools appearing as shown were turned into A Federal Judge In Federal court as evidence!

Notice at the bottom of the Profile the little wrench and screwdriver icon. Those two icons only appear when one is logged into the blog site as the poster with the password!

Could it be the prosecutor has served a warrant on the internet provider for the defendant and gotten all the passwords for his I.P. address?

This warrant also would allow the prosecutor access to the passwords to log into the email of the defendant and read the attorney client email communication! And passwords in relation to any other site the defendant may use!
How many search warrants, subpoenas, Arrests, false charges and violations of privacy is a Prosecutor with no supporting evidence in a case entitiled too?

SINCE 2005:
The defendants in this case have been subjected to 3 search warrants executed against the Business, 2 search warrants on their residence, 2 searches by police and an agent absent of a search warrant on the residence, One unwarranted search of the defendants personal property, Subpoenas have been issued on the defendants internet provider, several Financial banking institutions, Financial and business documents going back 5 years, Paypal, ebay, and Lawrence Journal worlds public forum user identities. And not a single warrant since 2005 has resulted in credible evidence of wrong doing.

This goes against everything our Soldiers fight and die for, and what our Constitution is suppose to protect us from!

SEE FOR YOURSELF:

Go down to the bottom of the blog exhibit.
Notice the pencil icon just below the little envelope at the very bottom of each post, This icon does NOT automatically appear when the poster logs in. This icon ONLY appears when one goes to the edit page and then goes back to the blogging page.

Why would the prosecutor be logging into the defendants blog site and clicking on the edit features?

One might question if the exhibits turned into the courts are original?

Could this be the prosecutor attempting to find the source; then cover up for the fact that a source revealed through an annonymous email through the Google blogger to the defendants that the Prosecutor Marietta Parker was in her office mad, and heard by co-workers yelling the "N" word before the defendants were to appear in court?

How can all the corrupted evidence in this case ever be considered authentic in FEDERAL COURT?

IN CONCLUSION:

Since the defendants in this case are innocent and have nothing to hide, we can guarantee this violation of privacy has not been of any benefit to the prosecution!

It is just sad that the Government has so little respect for a defendants privacy and so much power to challenge the line of investigatory needs over to crossing the line of ethics and entering into the realm of obstructing justice, falsifying, forging and corrupting evidence in an effort to frame the innocent defendants in Federal court.

POLICE COMPLAINT CENTER DETECTIVES INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION & FILMING DOCUMENTARY IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE

We are happy to inform our supporters that Detective Rico West and Joshua Antonelli from the Policeabuse.org Police Complaint center in Washington D.C have been investigating our case and they said we have been subjected to quote "horrific injustice."

The police complaint center is filming a documentary about our case for their new policeabusetv.com internet site and TV show and they will have dvd copies available for all of our supporters, if you would like to own your own personal copy just let us know.

We are very grateful these detectives from Washington D.C. have worked so hard gathering evidence and investigating our corruption allegations.

The investigation of our case includes locating evidence supporting our allegations of misconduct/abuse by local law enforcement officials.

The investigators assist with organizing evidence, and presenting the case to appropriate authorities with oversight concerning law enforcement operations in the state of Kansas and also contacting the media to promote the documentary. Media links include MSNBC, Dateline, CBS and NBC news.

Police Complaint centers Mission Statement:
Using available technology, the Police Complaint Center documents and investigates alleged incidents of police abuse. Our staff are students, researchers, attorneys, former police officers and licensed private investigators. We believe that many police organizations have done a poor job of protecting the public from abusive officers. Our primary service is assisting victims of misconduct with reporting complaints to appropriate enforcement agencies. We also investigate police and sheriffs deputies that are accused of abusive behavior.

State of Kansas Federal Prosecutors Motion to revoke Bond is Vindictive

Get free hit counter code here.

According to the motion filed by U.S. prosecuting Attorney Marietta Parker, The State of Kansas has its own set Federal laws that define a crime punishable by a "revoke of bond" and Federal Prison time.

The motion below contends that the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors need to have their bond revoked and thrown in Federal prison, not for committing a crime, but rather because they dare to publicly (through the internet) hold the Government (Both law enforcement and Prosecutors) accountable for their actions.

During a hearing on Tuesday May 6th, 2008, in Federal Court, when the defense attorney stated that a motion would be filed to obtain the Police officers personel files as part of the discovery to show that the defendants are not committing slander with their allegations, the Prosecutor U.S. Assistant Attorney Scott Rask who replaced Marietta Parker {because she was unavailable for the hearing} objected and told the Judge that quote "the defendants should not get any discovery and they should just be thrown in Jail!"

But wait if its true then its not slander!

According to the motion, it is a Federal offense punishable by imprisonment for a defendant to e-mail information as it is posted on a blog site as part of the evidence to an investigator of the case...ie-Postal Inspector Agent David E Nitz.

It is also a Federal offense punishable by imprisonment (according to the motion} for a defendant who is a delivery driver, to happen to drive on a public street that happens to go past a police officers house.

according to the motion, it is a Federal offense, and the defendants need to go to Federal Prison for blogging the fact that people who lie in Federal court can be charged with perjury!
Could this have caused witnesses who had planned on telling lies during the trial to have second thoughts? Could officers who had planned to testify be having second thoughts because they fear civil litigation or extended sentences for perjury?
Why would these witnesses (according to the motion) fear these things if they were telling the truth and had sufficient evidence to back up what they plan to testify about? How can this be considered tampering with a witness?

According to the motion to revoke the bond, it is also a Federal offense for a defendant to post on the internet the facts pointing out that the police investigating the case have planted evidence, violated chain of custody laws, violated the defendants constitutional rights and the prosecutor has knowingly obstructed justice!

According to the motion, an African American defendant who asks the public to call or write their Government officials or boss'es and ask them to explain "why this vindictive case has not been dropped, or why these defendants continue to be racially profiled!" Should have his bond revoked and he and his wife should go straight to Federal prison. Because the Government does not need to answer to; or have the oversight of the public.

MAY 2008 FEDERAL MOTION TO REVOKE DEFENDANTS BOND FOR INTERNET BLOGGING, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FILED BY MARIETTA PARKER AGAINST GUY & CARRIE NEIGHBORS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(Kansas City Docket)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS )
and )
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendants. )

Case No. 07-20124-01/02-CM

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO REVOKE BOND

COMES NOW, the United States of America by and through the undersigned
Assistant United States Attorney and hereby moves the Court to revoke the defendants’
pretrial release bond on the grounds that they are a danger to the community and are
not amenable to supervision. In support of this motion, the government offers the
following:

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2007, the defendants were granted pretrial release under the
terms of an Order Setting Conditions of Release and both signed the Order
acknowledging that he/she was aware of the conditions of release. (Documents [Docs.]
5 and 9). The conditions of the defendants’ release included a provision that stated that
the “defendant shall not commit any offense in violation of federal, state or local law
2
while on release in this case.” (Id. at 1) The defendants have failed to comply with that
condition. The Order also contained a condition that required that the defendants “avoid
all contact, directly or indirectly, with any persons who are or who may become a victim
or potential witness in the subject investigation or prosecution....” (Id. at 2) The
defendants have failed to comply with that provision as well.

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Bond revocations are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3148 which states in pertinent
part:
(a) Available sanctions.– A person who has been released under
section 3142 of this title, and who has violated a condition of his release, is
subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention and a prosecution for
contempt of court.
(b) Revocation of release .– The attorney for the Government may initiate a
proceeding for revocation of an order of release by filing a motion with the district
court. A judicial officer may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged
with violating a condition of release, and the person shall be brought before a
judicial officer in the district in which such person’s arrest was ordered for a
proceeding in accordance with this section. To the extent practicable, a person
charged with violating the condition of release that such person not commit a
Federal, State or local crime during the period of release, shall be brought before
the judicial officer who ordered the release and whose order is alleged to have
been violated. The judicial officer shall enter an order of revocation and
detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer–
` The judicial officer shall enter an order of
revocation and detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer-
(1) finds that there is-
(A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a
Federal, State, or local crime while on release; or
(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any
other condition of release; and
(2) finds that-
(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title,
there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will
assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any
other person or the community; or
(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination
of conditions of release.
If there is probable cause to believe that, while on release, the person committed
a Federal, State or local felony, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition
of combination of conditions will assure the person will not pose a danger to the
safety of any other person in the community.
Id. “[A] district’s court’s finding that a defendant will not abide by any conditions of
release may be established by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v.
Aron, 904 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1990) (Section 3148(b) clearly provides that these
findings alone are sufficient to justify revocation and detention and court need not also find the defendant will flee or pose danger to the community).

As the following discussion will establish, the defendants’ conduct has
established that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will assure the safety of other persons in the community and that the defendant is unlikely to abide by the conditions of his release.

VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL STATUTES
A. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512, Tampering with a Witness
In this case, the United States submits that there is sufficient evidence to
establish probable cause to believe that the defendants have committed violations of
criminal statutes. Specifically, the government alleges that the defendants have
violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512, a federal felony, which provides in
pertinent part:
(c) Whoever corruptly –
* * *
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or
attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both,
4
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders,
delays, prevents or dissuades any person from –
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
* * *
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3
years.
Id.
The mens rea for § 1512 is a knowing use of corrupt persuasion with an intent to
interfere with official proceedings. See United States v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338, 348 (6th
Cir. 1984), United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365, 1369 (6th Cir. 1994). In the context of
§ 1512(c), the term “corruptly” is defined as “acting ‘with the purpose of wrongfully
impeding the due administration of justice.’” United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698,
706 (7th Cir. 2007) (Instruction using term “wrongfully” in definition of “corruptly” properly directed jury to convict only those who have no legal right to impede justice.) To establish violations of §1512, the government need not prove that the defendant successfully prevented, hindered or dissuaded a witness from testifying. “The totality of the evidence must also be considered in light of Fed. R.Crim. Proc. 31(c), which provides that a defendant may be found guilty of an attempt to commit an offense if the attempt is, as here, itself an offense.” United States v. Brown, 217 F.3d 247, 256 (5th Cir. 2000) (Sending of harassing letter to witness sufficient to establish violation of § 1512(c) where jury concluded from wording of the letter that defendant meant a not-soveiled threat against the witness).

For over a year, these defendants have engaged in conduct amounting to corrupt
attempts to influence an official proceeding and intentional harassment of another
person intending to prevent or dissuade witnesses from attending or testifying in an
official proceeding by publishing false and libelous allegations of illegal activity and misconduct against several of the government’s witnesses.

For example on April 11, 2008, the defendants published a message on the
yellowhousestore blog falsely accusing Det. Michael McAtee, of various felonies and
misdemeanors.
Detective McAtee of the Lawrence, Kansas, Police Department is a
potential witness in this case because he participated in this investigation.

Among the false accusations in the posting are claims that McAtee was suspended from the police department “for drugs missing from the police evidence room; that he was hired for the police dept. in KC but was let go because his UA [urine analysis] came in dirty;” that cases had been “thrown out of court because officer McAtee failed to turn in all of the evidence; that he “has been served a federal subpoena and can not testify in any of his pending cases” and that he “has failed 30 drug test [sic].” (Exhibit 1a, p. 1-2). The posting goes on to concede that the author does not know whether these allegations are true, but urges readers to call McAtee and ask him about the allegations and provides McAtee’s contact numbers. Id. at 2. (See also, Exhibit 1b, p. 2)

(defendants acknowledge that they do not know whether allegations of wrongdoing against Det. McAtee made by others are true.)

Other potential government witnesses have also been targeted for harassment.

For example, Officer Micky Rantz has been falsely accused of, among other things,
planting evidence in the Yellow House Trash (Exhibit 2a, p. 1), of stealing money and
guns from a person arrested in an unrelated case (Exhibit 2b); and, along with Officer Jay Bialek, of impersonating F.B.I. agents and stealing computers. (Exhibit 2c, p. 2); (Exhibit 2d, p. 1).

Even more pernicious are the defendants’ attempts to dissuade other witnesses
from testifying in this case by falsely claiming that if they do so, they will be subjected to additional punishment.

On April 22, 2008, after the entry of guilty pleas by two cooperating co-conspirators, the defendants on their corruptioninjusticedepartment blog state that if the two witnesses testify at the trial of this case, they “could both be slapped with Federal Perjury charges and have 5 more years added to their sentences! Then if they get 5 years for the perjured testimony they already gave before the Grand Jury, then is prosecutor [Parker] setting them up for an additional 10 years added to their sentence.” (Exhibit 3, p. 2).

These unfounded threats against the cooperating conspirators constitute harassment corruptly designed by the defendants to dissuade the witnesses from attending and testifying at the trial of this case for fear that they will be subjected to additional prison time if they testify contrary to the defendants’ version
of the facts.

Unquestionably, the defendants are corruptly endeavoring and attempting to
dissuade Det. McAtee, Officers Rantz and Bialek and other law enforcement personnel
and cooperating witnesses from providing testimony for fear that their reputations will be unjustly and falsely impugned, that they will be named in civil lawsuits under § 1983,(See Exhibit 4, p. 1-2) or that their sentences will be increased if they testify in ways the defendants find objectionable.

The defendants’ harassing conduct in relation to the witnesses expected to testify
for the government constitutes a violation of federal felony statute 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and is sufficient ground for revoking defendants’ pretrial release bond.
1“Actual malice” occurs when a defendant makes a false publication with a “high
degree of awareness of ...probable falsity,” (citation omitted) or must have “entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667; 109 S. Ct. 2678, 2686 (1989).

B. Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.), § 21-4004, Criminal Defamation
The United States further submits that the defendants have violated at least one
state misdemeanor statute, K.S.A. § 21-4004, Criminal Defamation, which provides in
pertinent part:

(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in
writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be
false and with actual malice1, tending to expose another living person to
public hatred, contempt or ridicule; intending to deprive such person of the
benefits of public confidence and social acceptance....

This statute has been challenged on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth and
in each instance, its constitutionality has been upheld. In Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1995), the court construed a prior version of the statute that required that a defendant act “maliciously” to violate the statute as constitutional on the ground that it required “actual malice.” In State v. Carson, 95 P.3d 1042, 2004 WL 1878312 (Kan.Appl. Aug. 20, 2004) the Kansas Appellate Court determined that the use of the word “tending” in the statute did not lower the government’s burden of proof to less than beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
Most recently, the Hon. John W. Lungstrum in How v. City of Baxter Springs, Kansas, 369 F.Supp. 1300, 1309 (D. Kan. 2005) rejected claims that the state criminal defamation statute was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

The defendants’ persistent defamatory allegations made against Det. Michael
McAtee, made in spite of the fact that they have been informed, that the allegations are false. On February 22, 2007, the defendant, Guy Neighbors, sent an e-mail message to various persons alleging that Det. McAtee had been suspended for stealing drugs from the evidence room and “had to go to rehab.” (Exhibit 5a, p. 2). In response to these false allegations, an attorney representing Det. McAtee sent letters to Guy Neighbors informing him that “[a]ll of these allegations ... are outrageous and false and you know it.” (Exhibit 5b).

In spite of having actual knowledge of the falsity of the allegations
against Det. McAtee, the defendant has continued to publish the defamatory statements
concerning alleged wrongdoing by Det. McAtee.

On July 29, 2007, the defendants posted allegations that Det. McAtee
misappropriated seized items for his personal use.

(Exhibit 1b, p. 2).

Again on April 11, 2008, the defendants made the following false and defamatory claims:
The word on the street is Officer Mcatee [sic] was suspended from the
Lawrence police dept. for drugs missing from the police evidence room.
Sources in K.C. stated Mr. Mcatee [sic] was hired for the police dept. in
K.C. but was let go because his UA came in dirty. We have had several
customers tell us that they had cases thrown out of court because officer
Mcatee [sic] failed to turn in all of the evidence (drugs) and when it was
time for trial some of the evidence was missing.... We have had
numerous people tell us that officer Mcatee [sic] dose [sic] traffic stops
and takes people’s drugs and allows them to go with out a ticket and he
keeps the drug (for what ever reason). We have 2 different people tell us
they was [sic] in rehab.... [W]e have heard that office [sic] Mcatee[sic] has
failed 30 drug test [sic], could this be true? (Exhibit 1a, p. 1-2).

On both July 29, 2007 and April 11, 2008, the defendants
themselves acknowledged in their postings that they do not know if the allegations are true. (Exhibit 1a & 1b).

These false accusations against Det. McAtee were clearly published with a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity when the defendants admit that they had serious doubts as to the truth the postings.

This conduct constitutes violations of the Kansas State statute prohibiting criminal defamation which violates the terms of the defendants’ pretrial release.

Additionally, the defendants have made unfounded defamatory allegations
against other members of the Lawrence Police Department.
For instance, on March 14, 2008, the defendants allege that Officer Micky Rantz planted evidence in connection with the ongoing investigation. (Exhibit 2a, p. 2).

These postings containing false allegations against government witnesses also constitute violations of state law, specifically of K.S.A. § 21-4004, triggering the presumption that the defendants will not abide by the conditions of their bond.

C. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503, Influencing an Officer
The government also alleges that the defendant has violated Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1503, which provides in pertinent part:
(a) Whoever corruptly ... endeavors to influence, intimidate
or impede any ... officer in or of any court of the United States, ... in the discharge of his duties ... or corruptly ... influences, obstructs or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is –
***
(3) in another case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under
this title, or both.

“The main body of the obstruction of justice statute specifically targets conduct that interferes with the duties of a juror or court officer. The omnibus clause is essentially a catch-all provision which generally prohibits conduct that interferes with the due administration of justice.” United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 650 n. 3 (11th Cir 1990); United States v. Partin 555 F2d 621, 631 (5th Cir. 1977)(“[S]pecific wording of 10 section 1503 was intended to forbid certain means of obstructing justice, while the omnibus clause aims at obstruction of justice itself, regardless of the means used to reach that result.”)

Assistant United States Attorneys engaged in the prosecution of criminal cases in
United States District Courts are “officers” within the meaning of this statute. See
United States v. Mahasin, 442 F. 3d 687 (8th Cir. 2006) (prosecution for assault on
Assistant United States Attorney engaged in official duties under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a)
affirmed); see also, United States v. Joiner, 418 F.3d 863, 868 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant convicted of violation of § 1503(a) where false UCC filing was made in connection with discharge of prosecutor’s officials); United States v. Fernandez, 837 F.2d 1031 (11th Cir.1988) (conviction under § 1503 appropriate where prosecutor threatened by defendant’s brother immediately after defendant sentenced).

As used in the context of section 1503, the term “corruptly” “means acting
illegally or unlawfully.” United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233, 242 (10th Cir. 1979)
(Defendant’s conviction affirmed where jury found he attempted to influence juror in
another case by providing her with document entitled “A Handbook for Jurors” which
advocated juror nullification and taught that tax crimes not true crimes.) By the inclusion of the qualifying term “corrupt,” the statute does not proscribe lawful or constitutionally protected speech. See United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, (2d. Cir. 1996)(analogizing “corrupt” mens rea contained in §1503 with that term as found in §1512(b).)

The obstruction of justice statute possess a limited standard of
culpability that confines its coverage to constitutionally unprotected
activity, which stems from its explicit mens rea requirement that a person
must “corruptly” endeavor to interfere with the due administration of
justice. Thus one must impede the due administration of justice with the general intent of knowledge as well as the specific intent of purpose to obstruct.

United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 670 (6th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added); see also
United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 1981) (“corruptly” as used in §
1503 requires that act in question be done ”with the purpose of obstructing justice.”)

A defendant’s actions need not be successful to sustain a conviction under
§1503. An “endeavor” having the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice will suffice. The government must, however, establish that the accused acted “with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings; it is not enough that there be an intent to influence an ancillary proceeding such as an investigation independent of the court’s or grand jury’s authority.” United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 599, 115 S. Ct. 2357, 2362 (1995). “Interference can occur despite the absence of any personal contact with a juror, witness or official.” United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1334 (5th Cir. 1978)(Attempt to sell grand jury transcripts constituted obstruction of justice under the omnibus clause of § 1503)

In this case, the defendants’ conduct has clearly established that they have
published false and libelous accusations against the government’s attorney in this case, an officer of the court, with the express purpose of endeavoring to influence, intimidate and impede counsel in the performance of her official duties.

For example, on April 22,2008, the defendants falsely asserted in their internet site, yellowhousestore.blogspot, that counsel for the government had used racial epithets in her office three times.

The defendants next posed a series of rhetorical questions including:
Could these words be directed at me because I happened to be a black man?

2 By this admission, the author clearly acknowledged that he is Guy N.
Neighbors, one of the defendants in this case.

The defendants currently stand charged in two cases in this court, the second
involving allegations of manufacturing marijuana which is being prosecuted by a
different Assistant United States Attorney, Terra Morehead. The text of this blog establishes that both defendants participated in drafting this message. The photo attached to the posting is that of defendant Guy N. Neighbors and the caption reads “Picture show [sic] the new hat my family sent me for standing up for
my rights and refusing the so-called deal.” (Exhibit 7, p. 1-2).

Later in the body of the message, the author refers to “my attorney, Phil Gibson,” the attorney for defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors.

Could this be because I am a black man and a pain in her side because I have been posting the laws she has broken trying to get me in jail.
Who would leave such a [sic] email on my blog site?
Could it be someone who is sick of watching her violate people’s civil
rights and would like to see her in jail some place where she would not be
able to continue to making [sic] a mockery out of the U.S. Justice system?
(Exhibit 6, p. 2). At the end of the posting, the blog included the following statement:
P.S. The prosecutors3 could make it easy on them self’s [sic] and do the
right thing by dropping the charges because we are NEVER going to
take the plea and give up NOT in a million years.

Id. (Emphasis added). This admission clearly and unequivocally establishes that the
defendants allegations against counsel for the government are made corruptly with the
intent to coerce counsel for the United States to dismiss the charges in this case to stopthe false accusations. This posting alone would be sufficient grounds to revoke the defendants’ bond for the commission of a federal felony crime, but the defendants’ illegal behavior is not confined to this single instance.

On April 24, 2008, on another internet site, corruptioninjusticedepartment, the
defendants again endeavored to interfere with the administration of justice by
threatening to issue subpoenas for the testimony of the government attorneys

5 The defendants’ statements in their various postings (attached as Exhibits 8a
through 8g) leave no doubt as to their intent. Those postings show a persistent and
systematic attempt to harass government counsel to induce the dismissal of the
charges in this case, actions that constitute violations of § 1503. (See Exhibit 8a, p. 2),

November, 2007: “To permit Marietta N. Parker and Terra D. Morehead to continue to
fumble along with this case would make a MOCKERY of our criminal justice system;”
(Exhibit 8b, p. 2),

November 14, 2007: “Therefore U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker should be held accountable for her actions and removed from the Yellow House Store
Prosecution; (Exhibit 8c, p. 2),

December 25, 2007: “... so please help us the little GUY
get the job done by calling, emailing or writing any or all of these government officials involved in our case. Please ask ‘Why is This Case Not Dropped....”; (Exhibit 8d, p.3),

December 29, 2007: “Or just call her [Parker’s] Boss Mr. Eric F. Melgren U.S. Attorney District of Kansas ... Please ask him why he allows her to screw up so bad in a case and not drop the charges? If more citizens could stand up against the government’s ILLEGAL actions just think what a difference we could make standing together.... [S]o please help us the little GUY get the job done by calling, emailing or writing any or all of these government officials involved in our case. Please ask ‘Why is this Case Not Dropped’....”; (Exhibit 8e),

December 25, 2007: ”the Yellow House Business owners alleged Vindictive prosecution by Federal Prosecutors Marietta Parker and Terra D. Morehead # 12759 in the Yellow House Investigation and request dismissal of all charges and further request sanctions be placed against the prosecutor’s office.... (p. 1);
[S]o please help us the little GUY get the job done by calling, emailing or writing any or all of these government officials involved in our case. Please ask ‘Why is this Case Not Dropped’....” (p. 2) ; (Exhibit 8f, p. 4), February 6, 2008: “... write to: [list of officials}

prosecuting the two criminal cases currently pending against them. They go on to state that under those circumstances “the courts would have no choice but to dismiss this case with prejudice and end this gross miscarriage of Justice that has been allowed to continue for too long.” (Exhibit 7, p. 6).

These statements, taken in the context of this case, clearly establish that the
defendants are engaged in a campaign, waged on the internet and by e-mail, to
corruptly influence and impede the government attorneys in the discharge of their
duties, the prosecution of the charges filed in this case. The defendants regularly make false allegations of legal and ethical wrongdoing against the government’s attorneys endeavoring to corruptly influence, obstruct and impede the prosecution of their cases. 5omitted]. Tell them Marietta Parker and Terra D. Morehead should be FIRED.”; (Exhibit 8g, p. 3),

March 5, 2008: If you would like to help the Yellow business Owners please
call Parker’s Office and ask why these charges have not been dropped....”; (Exhibit 8h, p. 1), January 17, 2008 entitled “Why the prosecutor Marietta Parker should be removed from Yellow House case:”

6 The defendants go on to state “Rev. Stat. 1979 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1983
Clearly suggests liability of ‘every person’ who, acting under color of state law, commits the prohibited acts. Therefore U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker should be held
accountable for her actions and removed from the Yellow House Store Prosecution.” Id.

The reference to this statute is a direct threat to file a civil law suit against counsel for the government for civil rights violations, a tactic analogous to that used in United States v. Joiner, 481 F.3d at 868 where the defendant was convicted of violation of § 1503(a) for a false UCC filing that was made in connection with discharge of prosecutor’s official duties. This is yet another iteration of the defendants’ persistent harassment of government counsel as they endeavor to obtain an wrongful result, the dismissal of the charges in this case.

By the consistent harassment of the government’s attorney, the defendants are
corruptly attempting to have the charges dismissed or to have government counsel
removed from the case or fired from her position. Under any of these scenarios, the
prosecution of this case would be obstructed or impeded.

In support of their demands for the dismissal of the charges or the removal of
government counsel from the prosecution of this case, the defendants make blatantly
false accusations of misconduct and illegal actions against counsel for the government.

These allegations include claims that government counsel
conspired with Lawrence Police officers, delaying and creating
obstructions of justice from the judicial process, conspired with police to
commence a surveillance operation absent of [sic] a court order, ordered a
fraudulent FBI investigation using the non resident agency for Douglas
County, conspired with police to falsify documents, and conspired with a
four time convicted felon ... to present PURJURY [sic] evidence to a grand
jury in order to shield herself from liability fo any constitutional wrong
against innocent citizens by ensuring that they go to trial.6
(Exhibit 8h, p. 5); see also, (Exhibit 8a, p. 2)
(government counsel has fabricated and tampered with evidence).

These false allegations against government counsel are
attempts by the defendants to interfere with and impede the due administration of
justice and constitute the violation of a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503.
Consequently, the defendants have violated the terms and conditions of their bond by
engaging in this illegal conduct.

VIOLATIONS OF CONDITION 7(j) OF ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

As stated previously, among the conditions of the defendant’s bond is the
condition that requires that they “avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any persons who are or who may become a victim or potential witness in the subject investigation or prosecution....” (Docs. 5 and 9, at 2) The defendant Guy N. Neighbors, has on several occasions violated that condition by having direct and indirect contact with several of members of the Lawrence, Kansas, Police Department who they know are potential witnesses in this case.

On Monday, April 14, 2008, the defendant, Guy Neighbors contacted
Det. McAtee by telephone. The defendants’ posting of April 11, 2008, had falsely
reported that McAtee had failed thirty (30) drug tests and had provided contact numbers for the detective. (Exhibit 4a, p. 1-2).
During the phone conversation, the defendant posed as an anonymous member of the public and demanded that he be given the results of McAtee’s drug tests. The telephone call was placed from a telephone number associated with the Yellow House and McAtee recognized the defendant’s voice and speech pattern from numerous prior instances when he had heard the defendant speak.

On Monday evening, April 14, 2008, the defendant was observed driving by Officer Jay Bialek’s residence. He was observed again on Tuesday morning, April 15, 2008, again driving past Officer Bialek’s home. Because Bialek does not live on a through street, the reasonable inference from the defendant’s conduct on those days is
that the defendant was in that area stalking Bialek.

Between March 22, 2008 and April 25, 2008, Postal Inspector David Nitz
received eleven (11) e-mail messages on his business e-mail account, consisting of
some of the defendants’ postings. (Exhibit 9). The defendants have repeatedly
acknowledged in their internet postings Inspector Nitz’s participation in this investigation and hence, their knowledge of his status as a potential witness in this case, yet they have repeatedly instigated contact with him in violation of the conditions of their bond.

The defendants have made it clear on their internet postings that they know
these law enforcement officers were involved in the investigation of the Yellow House
fencing operations and that they are potential witnesses in the trial of this case.
Consequently, these numerous contacts with the witnesses clearly violates condition
7(j) of the court’s Order Setting Conditions of Release.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests
that the defendant’s bond be revoked on the grounds that they have violated the
conditions of their pretrial release by committing additional state and federal crimes, including violations of federal felony statutes, and has violated condition 7(j) of the Order Setting Conditions, thereby raising the presumption that they will not abide by the conditions previously imposed by this Court.
Respectfully submitted,

Eric F. Melgren
United States Attorney
s/ Marietta Parker, KS Dist. Ct. #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 1st day of May, 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, L.L.C
2400 S. Lee’s Summit Rd., Suite 200
Independence, MO 64055
eMail: Phil0704@aol.com
Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors
Cheryl A. Pilate
Morgan Pilate LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061

Attorney for Guy Madison Neighbors

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, KS Dist. Ct. #77807
MARIETTA PARKER
Assistant United States Attorney

On a personal note

As I sit here contemplating yet another court date tomorrow I begin to feel numb.
It is almost impossible to explain how an event like this impacts on one’s life. I often wonder when will this end. Going through this ordeal over and over for nearly three years has made our family stronger, has opened my eyes up to how many true and caring friends I have. I have seen how easy it can be for the Government to ruin a persons reputation and life and how easy it is to be framed by a powerful Government.

There is nothing more heart breaking than to be a parent and have your children have to explain to their teachers, classmates and church friends why their parents were arrested.
Then to have this compounded by witnesses that the Government has made deals with lie and tell people our kids were involved with drugs or have police officers take their personal ipods and computers from their rooms during searches, (never to get them back) and have police officer Jay Bialek stick a video camera in my sons face to intimidate him while video taping the search. As a parent you feel like "I am an adult, I can take this, but leave my kids alone".

It has gave me and my husband the chance to illustrate to our children how to face prejudice in the most adverse events without bitterness and anger. Admittedly, it is a daily struggle to put on a happy face and then reassure them that all be well in the end. It definitely hurts a parent to see our children worrying and hurting.

This personal trauma has stressed my emotions and finances to the limits. Three years is a long time to worry about whether you will be going to jail on a false charge. It is horrific to have ones reputation and Character continuously attacked through the Governments smear campain spreading erroneous information to the media. It is also a long time to be worrying about what is going to happen to your children if you get convicted. To know that everything you have worked for and struggled to get your entire life could be taken away by corrupt officials looking to make a quota for the month.

The humiliation and dread that one experiences when being arrested, handcuffed, shackeled and placed into a cell is devastating, especially, when one has spent the past 15 years working with children and being involved in a church and in the public eye where people look up to you as a business owner and leader in the community. I would not wish this experience on anyone.

CONSPIRACY BETWEEN LAWRENCE KANSAS POLICE CHIEF RON OLIN, US CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY MARIETTA PARKER AND THE KEVIN EJ REGAN LAW FIRM

Could it be that Kansas Department of Justice US Attorney Marietta Parker and Lawrence Kansas Police Chief Ron Olin are co-conspirators to cover up for a dirty police department?
Why would U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker file a motion in Federal Court going before a Federal Judge; filled with outright lies and fabricated evidence to have the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors Bond revoked?

In the motion to revoke the bond for both Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors U.S. Assistant Attorney Marietta Parker repeatedly makes a reference to Lawrence Kansas Police Detective Mike McAtee.
She repeatedly FALSLEY states that he is an officer involved in the Yellow House case. This is not true! Mike McAtee has nothing to do with the Yellow House case, has never met the defendants, is not named on a single document and has not in any way been involved in the nearly 3 year long investigation!

The defendants own a small business called The Yellow Housse, 1904 Massachusetts, in Lawrence Kansas. They have had numerous customers come in and talk about the gross misconduct of Detective Mike McAtee and about the corruption he is involved in. The Yellow House has a multitude of saved videos showing the allegations against Detective Mike McAtee by his victims or victims families. A small number of these video allegations and stories have been posted publicly on the Internet; with the victims permission, to enable these victims of corruption to have a voice.

In response to the defendants (Yellow House) Internet posts exposing corruption, it would appear that Lawrence Kansas Police Chief Ron Olin has conspired with AuSa prosecuting Attorney Marietta Parker, who then conspired with Attorney Kevin Regan. The conspiracy goes to great lengths to use the fact the defendants Guy & Carrie Neighbors are under a corrupt Federal indictment to repeatedly threaten and intimidate the defendants for posting the evidence of corruption involving this particular officer.

THE CONSPIRACY:
As a favor for Police Chief Ron Olin, to help him cover up for his dirty cops...
US Attorney Marietta Parker pulls a favor with a fellow Colleague of 20 years, Attorney Kevin E J Regan of the Regan Law firm LLC. In Kansas City Missouri.

She has him draft a threatening letter and send it to the defendants. In the letter the attorney states that he represents Detective McAtee, and the officer has an impeccable record, and threatens a slander lawsuit against Guy Neighbors on behalf of the detective (Mike McAtee). The letter also demands the defendant Guy Neighbors make a retraction of the statements and e-mails accusing Detective Mike McAtee of corrupt police behavior.



When the defendant Guy Neighbors stands by his allegations and refuses to issue a retraction letter, it appears that US Attorney Marietta Parker once again conspires with the attorney Kevin EJ Regan and has him draft the retraction letter himself and then emails it out. In the email the attorney Kevin Regan makes reference to the fact that he is a long time colleague of Marietta Parker for 20 years. He expresses his knowledge of the indictment, and he also slanders Mister Neighbors by accusing him of being a quote "wrong doer".

Why would this attorney in Kansas City Missouri representing a Lawrence Kansas Police Detective wanting to sue the Yellow House in Lawrence Kansas for making alleged slander allegations, make reference to his friendship with US Chief Assistant Federal Attorney Marietta Parker in his e-mail letter?


Why would the U.S. Prosecuting Attorney Marietta Parker have anything to do with his representation of a case between Lawrence Kansas Police Detective Mike McAtee and defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors? When Mike McAtee was not involved in the Yellow House Federal case that involved the Federal (AUSA) Assistant Chief U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.

Could it be instead of seeking Justice this is just one big department of corrupt conspirators seeking favors from long time colleagues to intimidate and cover-up?

For a close-up magnified view of the letters click on this link:

http://picasaweb.google.com/guysmileys/YellowHouseOwnerSuedForSlanderByLawrencePoliceDetective/photo#5196170487255986210