CORRUPTION AND COVER-UP IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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




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


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


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

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