pro-se right to hyrid defense

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


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

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


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

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

A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." onner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)).

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

Plaintiff need not allege personal involvement by all the parties. When a person is part of a conspiracy, one does not require a hub and spoke form. One need only be part of a chain of conspirators. Ms. Stringfellow need not have had personal contact with Judge Syler nor had a meeting of the minds with Judge Syler herself. Ms. Stringfellow employed Mr. Sharp as her agent who did the dirty work in her behalf with her full knowledge and approval. Likewise, The Bar Plan is fully liable under the allegation that their lawyer, Mr. Duncan, who represented them did violate the laws with The Bar Plan's full knowledge and approval. So even if Respondent Superior fails, The Bar Plan was an active participant in the conspiracy.





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

Because a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, the decision to allow such representation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Indeed, many jurisdictions have refused to recognize a right of counseled defendants to act in their own defense, leaving it to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether such participation is permitted (see, e.g., United States v Einfeldt, 138 F3d 373, 378 [8th Cir], cert denied 525 US 851; United States v Tutino, 883 F2d 1125, 1141 [2d Cir], cert denied 493 US 1081; United States v LaChance, 817 F2d 1491, 1498 [11th Cir], cert denied 484 US 928; United States v Mosely, 810 F2d 93, 97-98 [6th Cir], cert denied 484 US 841; United States v Halbert, 640 F2d 1000, 1009 [9th Cir]; State v Frye, 224 Conn 253, 256, 617 A2d 1382, 1384-1385; State v Long, 216 NJ Super 269 275-276, 523 A2d 672, 675-676).

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

letter to 60 minutes requesting a story

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. An Order requiring defendants:

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

C. An Order requiring defendats

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

B. An order requiring defendants

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

A. AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO:

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

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

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

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

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

Due Process definition

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

Letter head: Tom Noyes Assistant POSTAL Inspector

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

Assistant Inspector Tom Noyes,

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

Thank-you for your time

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