federal prosecutor in contempt of court

All parties in our case have been prohibited from engaging in pretrial public statements on the internet. The order which was originally brought before the Judge by the Governments attorneys.

The Judges court order also mandated that all the press releases mentioning Carrie and Guy Neighbors name and case be removed from the DOJ press release page. Including all press releases about Jim Ludwig and Louis Parsons. The Judges words in court were that "From now on we will litigate this case in a court room where both sides will have an oportunity to defend themselves".
The Prosecutor has conspired with police officers and forever taken away that right that was "promised" to me by the Judge in this case.

This false press release that was aired on WIBW 13 news, various other news channels, news papers both online and in print, and on the DOJ website is a deliberate and calculated act of Federal obstruction of Justice,and is a direct violation of the court order; in contempt of court and has the potential to damage my presumption of innocense and my Constitutional right to a fair trial. Even absent of the court order the Governments Attorney's right to publish prejudicial press releases in a pending case close to trial, is limited outside the courtroom, see, e. g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363. Cf. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20.

If the Prosecutor and cops are allowed to continue to destroy my rights as the accused no one should consider himself safe from the law that once stood to protect us all. With this press release the Prosecutor has turned my presumption of innocense into a joke and police have been bragging about its potential to shut me down by the end of the week; all week!
In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada 501 US 1030; The Supreme court sites Rule 177, which prohibits a lawyer from making extrajudicial statements to the press that he knows or reasonably should know will have a "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" an adjudicative proceeding.

The unproven allegations are flimsy and the witnesses are purchased. Even if I were wrongfully proven guilty there are no known victims in the case.
Allowing the prosecutors actions in this case is resulting in the wrongful destruction of my rights as an American Citizen, making the entire judicial system charged with the duty to secure my constitutional protections a failure.

Hyde Amendment (Justice Act) AEJA

Federal Prosecutor overstepped

government counsel step over ethical lines.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) has been a leader in seeking to enact thoughtful legislation that would restore balance to the government-versus-citizen equation. Despite the high regard with which he is held on both sides of the aisle, the Hyde Amendment was diluted through Justice Department lobbying so that in its current format that statute is now closely modeled on the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (except that the burden of proof under the Hyde Amendment is now placed on the defendant to show that a prosecution was without justification). Both statutes impose a short -- 30-day -- time period after final judgment to seek reimbursement, cap the hourly rate of defense counsel, and exclude wealthier individuals and corporations from their purview.

There is now pending in the House of Representatives a very popular, bi-partisan bill that would make it plain that the government may not exempt its lawyers or other agents (e.g., Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigators) from these state bar and federal court rules of conduct. It would also subject charges of federal prosecutorial misconduct to independent oversight, rather than the Justice Department's own, self-policing office.

The bill, H.R. 3396, was introduced by the senior Republican in the House, Joseph M. McDade (R-PA), along with his Democrat colleague John Murtha (D-PA). Congressman McDade suffered his own eight-year ordeal of government investigation and trial on RICO charges before finally being (quickly) vindicated by a jury. The bill has, in just a few months, garnered over 160 co-sponsors, including key members of the House leadership and a dozen committee chairmen. This legislation is long overdue.

http://www.criminaljustice.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/98jul01.htm

return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e).

Once the analyst has examined the computer system and data and decided that some items or information need not be kept, the government should return this property as soon as practicable. The courts have acknowledged an individual's property interest in seized items, and the owner of seized property can move the court for a return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). That remedy is available not only when the search was illegal, but also if the person simply alleges a "deprivation of property by the Government." In Re Southeastern Equipment Co. Search Warrant, 746 F. Supp. 1563 (S.D. Ga. 1990).
Agents and prosecutors must remember that while a computer may be analogous to a filing cabinet for the agents who search it, it is much more to most computer users. It can be a data processor, graphics designer, publisher, and telecommunications center. Courts will no doubt recognize the increasingly important role computers play in our society, and the public's extensive reliance on these computers to support the way we live and do business. As a result, law enforcement should be prepared to look carefully at the circumstances of each case and to seize computers only as needed, keeping them only as necessary.

Equal Protection of the Law Violated

Equal Protection of the Law:
The guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that all persons be treated equally by the law.
Court decisions have established that this guarantee requires that courts be open to all persons on the same conditions, with like rules of evidence and modes of procedure; that persons be subject to no restrictions in the acquisition of property, the enjoyment of personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which do not generally affect others; that persons are liable to no other or greater burdens than such as are laid upon others and that no different or greater punishment is enforced against them for a violation of the laws.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1998/aug/21/law_enforcement_report2/

August 21, 1998

Burglaries and thefts reported

At least five business checks valued together on a police report at $1,215 were forged and cashed between 7 a.m. July 16 and 10 a.m. July 28. The checks were from the Yellow House, 1904 Mass. They were cashed at Commerce Bank, 647 Mass., police reported. The thefts were reported Aug. 7 and made public by police Thursday.

August 21, 1998
Burglaries and thefts reported * At least five business checks valued together on a police report at $1,215 were forged and cashed between 7 a.m. July 16 and 10 a.m. July 28. The checks were from the Yellow House, 1904 Mass. They were cashed at Commerce Bank, 647 Mass., police reported. The thefts were reported Aug. 7 and made public by police Thursday.



http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1998/aug/22/check_thefts_plague_local/

Since then, about $5,300 in checks, most of them written at Dillons, 3000 W. Sixth,

Full docket text for document 213:
NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors. Competency Hearing set for 12/7/2009 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)

The Tenth Circuit has noted that a district court is not required to consider the
length of pretrial detention when making its initial detention decision, but that after some
period of detention it may be appropriate to reopen the detention hearing to consider the
due process considerations of any future detention. United States v. Cos, 198 Fed. Appx.
727, 733 (10th Cir. 2006). If the hearing is reopened, in analyzing any due process claims,
the court is to consider three factors: (1) length of confinement and any non-speculative
expected confinement; (2) the Government’s responsibilities for delays in the
proceedings; and (3) the strength of the evidence supporting detention. See also United
States v. Cos, No. CR 05-1619-JB, 2006 WL 4061168 at * 3 (D.N.M. Nov. 15, 2006).11

appelate ruling on involentary imprisonment for mental evaluation

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 24


ELECTRONIC CITATION: 1996 FED App. 0280P (6th Cir.)

File Name: 96a0280p.06



No. 96-1156


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________



United States of America,

Plaintiff-Appellee,


v.


Margaret Knape Davis,

Defendant-Appellant.








>










On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan


__________________


Decided and Filed August 26, 1996

__________________



Before: NORRIS and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges; WELLS,*1 District Judge.

WELLS, District Judge. This is an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the district court requiring defendant-appellant, Margaret Knape Davis, to self-surrender at Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) Carswell in Fort Worth,





Texas, for a forty-five day period of psychiatric and psychological examination. We conclude the district court lacked authority to order the commitment and examination of the defendant under either Criminal Rule 12.2(c) or 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242. However, under the circumstances of this case, we hold the district court has the inherent authority to order a reasonable non-custodial examination of the defendant concerning her mental condition at the time of the offense. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND this case for further proceedings.

I. History of Proceedings

Defendant is charged in fourteen counts of a fifteen count superseding indictment filed November 28, 1995. The superseding indictment charges her with wire fraud, uttering, possessing counterfeit and forged securities, and conspiracy to defraud, based on events which occurred between 1992 and 1995.

On December 21, 1995, defendant gave notice that she intended “to offer the defenses of diminished capacity and/or mental disease and/or defect and/or incapacity to form specific intent” pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(b). Five days later, the government filed a motion to commit the defendant for a pretrial psychiatric examination for competency and insanity, and to review the conditions of the defendant’s bond. In response to this motion, defendant stated she had no objection to a sanity or a competency examination, but objected to commitment for that purpose.

At a pretrial conference on January 5, 1996, the district court heard oral argument regarding the government’s motion to commit the defendant for psychiatric examination. In an oral ruling, the district court stated, “[t]here is no question but that the government is entitled to a mental examination of the defendant pursuant to Rule 12.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. 4242,” noting that “[t]he defendant does not . . . even challenge that.” “The issue,” said the district





court, “is whether the defendant must or may be placed in custody for the purpose of conducting an evaluation for a period of at least 45 days.” The court further noted it was “looking for some evaluation which would consider both issues of competence to stand trial and the issue of her mental capacity.”

The government had stated three reasons for requesting commitment: “economics,” “the nature of the crime itself,” and “obtaining an equal field regarding the ability to watch [the defendant] around the clock.” The district court stated it was “impressed with the economics argument, but not as impressed with it as . . . with the other two arguments made”:

I am more persuaded by the argument made that the examination has to be cognizant of the fact that the claim of diminished capacity covers a long period of time and specific periods of time, which based on my experience with psychologists in the past has been difficult to do. . . . [The government] is entitled to have an input, medical input, and Ph.D. psychological input regarding the diminished capacity of defendant over a period that might go as far back as 1988, but at least goes back as far as three years.

More importantly, it seems to me that the government seeks a level playing field. Mr. Morganroth [defendant’s counsel], to his credit, admits that he would call the treating psychiatrist. It is clearly reasonable to this Court that a jury would be impressed by a treating psychiatrist, and that the psychiatrist who treats her or sees her, evaluates her on an outpatient basis won’t have the same ability.

The Court believes that the Justice Department is entitled to some close observation of this defendant on an around-the-clock basis, and with teams that include both psychologists and psychiatrists.






* * * *

I am going to order that she be committed for 45 days pursuant to the statute for the reasons that I have set forth . . . .

The district court ordered the defendant to surrender voluntarily at FMC Carswell, Texas, on January 22, 1996, for a forty-five day period of psychiatric and psychological examination.

Defendant moved the district court to reconsider its involuntary commitment order or to stay the order for twenty-one days to permit the defendant to seek appellate review. Attached to the motion was a letter from the defendant’s treating psychiatrist, Steven H. Berger, M.D., who stated, among other things, that in his judgment the defendant “understands (1) the nature of the charges against her, (2) the possible consequences if found guilty, and (3) the role that her attorneys have in representing her in her defense.”

The district court denied the motion to reconsider, but granted the motion for a stay until February 12, 1996, to allow the defendant to appeal to this Court. Following oral argument in this matter, this Court stayed the order of commitment pending this appeal.

II. Jurisdiction

The district court’s commitment order was not a “final order” appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The government therefore contends this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

In criminal cases in particular, the final judgment rule is strictly applied to ensure the prompt adjudication of criminal charges. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 264-65 (1984). However, the collateral order doctrine permits an interlocutory appeal from a narrow class of non-final orders which “finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too





independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). To come within this “narrow exception,” the order must, “at a minimum,” meet three criteria:

First, it “must conclusively determine the disputed question”; second, it must “resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action”; third, it must be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”

Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265.

An order of commitment for psychiatric examination easily satisfies the requirements of the collateral order doctrine. First, the order here conclusively determines (a) there should be an examination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial, and (b) the government is entitled to an examination of the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. While the district court order did not finally decide the defendant’s competency or mental capacity at the time of the offense, the decisions reached are sufficiently conclusive to have been relied upon by the district court in ordering a forty-five day period of involuntary commitment, a serious consequence itself. United States v. Weissberger, 951 F.2d 392, 396 (D.C. Cir. 1991). These issues are completely independent from the issue of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the crimes charged. Finally, the loss of liberty occasioned by the commitment for examination, and the forced intrusion of a court-ordered psychiatric examination, are completely unreviewable by the time of final judgment. Appellate review after final judgment would be available only if the defendant is found guilty, and even then, no effective relief could be provided for her loss of liberty during the period of commitment. United States v. Weissberger, 951 F.2d 392, 396 (D.C.Cir. 1991); United States v. Gold, 790 F.2d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 1986) (discussing unreviewability of an





order of commitment); see United States v. White, 887 F.2d 705, 707 (6th Cir. 1989) (implicitly recognizing proper exercise of jurisdiction over appeal from order of commitment to determine competency).

Therefore, the district court’s order of commitment falls within that narrow class of cases reviewable on interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine, and this Court has jurisdiction over the instant appeal. We now turn to the merits of the defendant’s appeal.

III. Law and Analysis

Defendant presents three issues for review. First, defendant argues that a defendant who gives notice of her intent to present psychiatric evidence of her mental state at the time of the offense is not subject to pretrial commitment for examination under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c) or under 18 U.S.C. § 4242, because those provisions only authorize psychiatric examination concerning the defendant’s sanity, which is not at issue here. Second, defendant claims the district court erred by ordering her committed for a competency examination, because there was no evidence in the record to support a determination of reasonable cause to question the defendant’s competency, nor was there any showing that commitment was necessary to perform a competency examination. Finally, defendant asserts her involuntary commitment for forty-five days violates her fifth amendment right to due process.

A. Competency Examination

We first address defendant’s contention that the district court erred by committing her for a competency examination. The government moved the district court for an examination of the defendant’s competency, asserting the defendant’s notice of intent to present expert testimony regarding her mental state provided reasonable cause to question her competency. Based on the government’s motion, the district court ordered defendant committed for a “psychiatric and psychological examination for her





competency to stand trial.” The government has not responded to defendant’s argument that this order was erroneous.

The district court could order a competency examination only if it found “reasonable cause to believe” the defendant was incompetent. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). There was little evidence in the record to support such a finding here. The defendant’s assertion of “mental incapacity” at the time of the offense did not permit or require an examination of her present competency. Although there is some suggestion in the record that the defendant is currently under psychiatric care, even if she were mentally ill, “[i]t does not follow that because a person is mentally ill he is not competent to stand trial.” Newfield v. United States, 565 F.2d 203, 206 (2d Cir. 1977), cited with approval in United States v. Collins, 949 F.2d 921, 925 (7th Cir. 1991).

Defendant’s lack of objection to a competency examination does not justify the order. Even if the defendant herself requests an examination, the district court has an independent obligation to determine whether there is reasonable cause to question her competency before ordering an examination, particularly when the order subjects the defendant to involuntary commitment. Collins, 949 F.2d at 925. The district court here erred by ordering a competency examination without first finding reasonable cause to believe the defendant was incompetent.

The district court did not address the competency examination at all in his ruling on the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, despite the attached letter from the defendant’s treating psychiatrist, who concluded she was competent. Even if we assume the district court had reasonable cause to question the defendant’s competency when it issued its order of commitment, this new evidence required at a minimum that the district court weigh the competing evidence and determine whether reasonable cause continued to exist. Absent a reasonable ground to question the treating psychiatrist’s conclusion, the district





court was not justified in continuing to question defendant’s competency.

Therefore, the district court erred by denying the motion for reconsideration with respect to the order for a competency evaluation.

B. Examination Regarding Mental State at the Time of the Offense

More complex issues are presented by the defendant’s argument that the district court lacked authority to commit her for an examination of her mental state at the time of the offense. Defendant asserts that neither 18 U.S.C. § 4242 nor Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 authorizes a district court to order such an examination. Defendant further argues the compulsion of a court order, particularly one that restrains the defendant’s liberty by committing her or him for the purpose of examination, raises serious constitutional issues which militate against implication of the power under the Criminal Rules.

For purposes of analysis, it is important to separate the questions (a) whether the district court was authorized to order any examination at all, and (b) whether the district court was authorized to order the kind of examination it did. Logically, the second question cannot be reached until the first question is answered affirmatively. More important, the statutory and constitutional concerns raised by the two questions are distinct.

The question whether the district court was authorized to order any examination raises, most conspicuously, the question whether there is any statutory or other authority for compelling an examination, and whether a compelled examination may implicate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,1 as well as her





Sixth Amendment rights to counsel2 and to compel witnesses in her favor.3

The circumstances under which an examination can be ordered, and the time, place, and manner of conducting the examination, raise due process concerns about the appropriate limitations on the government’s power to restrain the defendant’s liberty in order to conduct the examination.

1. Authority to Order Examination of a Defendant Who Gives Notice of Intent to Present Expert Testimony Regarding Her Mental Condition at the Time of the Alleged Offense.

We first confront the question whether the district court was authorized to order any examination of the defendant under the circumstances of this case. The parties have suggested two provisions which might authorize a court-ordered psychiatric examination of the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense, 18 U.S.C. § 4242 and Rule 12.2. In light of our conclusion that neither the rule nor the statute authorizes a court-ordered examination, we also consider the courts’ inherent authority to order an examination.

a. Authority Under 18 U.S.C. § 4242.






Clearly, the defendant could not be committed for the purpose of conducting a psychological or psychiatric examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242.4 Section 4242 requires a district court to order a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant on the motion of the government “[u]pon the filing of a notice, as provided in Rule 12.2[(a)] of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the defendant intends to rely on the defense of insanity.” (Emphasis added.)

Defendant did not give notice of her intent to rely on the defense of insanity, and disclaims any such intent. Rather, she gave notice of her intent “to introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition . . . bearing on the issue of guilt.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(b).

Section 4242 neither permits nor requires a court-ordered examination by the government regarding the defendant’s “mental condition” at the time of the alleged offense when the defendant gives notice of her intent to rely on expert testimony on that subject. See United States v. Marenghi, 893 F.Supp. 85, 99 (D.Me. 1995).

b. Authority Under Criminal Rule 12.2(c).

The government argues Rule 12.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorized the court-ordered examination. The structure of the rule is critical to the government’s argument, so the full text of Rule 12.2 is set





forth in the margin.5 The government argues the identical





syntactic structure of the first sentences of subdivisions (a) and (b) implies that notice of either an insanity defense or an intent to introduce psychiatric evidence of mental condition at the time of the offense may present an “appropriate case” for a court-ordered examination under subdivision (c). Furthermore, the government asserts, the separate sanction provided in subdivision (d), which allows the district court to exclude expert testimony if the defendant fails “to give notice when required by subdivision (b)” or “to submit to an examination when ordered under subdivision (c),” makes little sense if the only possible examination is for insanity. Finally, the government contends the stated purpose of the notice requirement -- to avoid delay -- implicitly assumes the government is entitled to conduct its own expert examination of the defendant before trial.

The essence of the government’s argument is as follows: A defendant who gives notice of intent to introduce expert testimony may be “an appropriate case” under Rule 12.2(c), which would permit the court to order “an examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241 or 4242." While it may be possible to read Rule 12.2(c) in this fashion, to base this conclusion on the similar syntactic structure of subdivisions (a) and (b) is misleading. The similarity between the first sentences of subdivision (a) and (b) only concerns the timing and manner in which the defendant is required to give notice to the government. Similarities regarding such mechanics do not demonstrate an intent that the subject of the notice should be treated similarly for all purposes under the rule.

On the other hand, the facts of which the defendant is required to give notice under subdivisions (a) and (b) differ, in a highly significant way. Subdivision (a) directs the defendant to give notice of his or her intent “to rely





upon the defense of insanity,” while subdivision (b) directs the defendant to give notice of her or his intent “to introduce expert testimony . . . .” As Congress has already recognized in 18 U.S.C. § 4242, an insanity defense will necessarily put in issue a very specific question regarding the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense,6 and will therefore require that the government be permitted to examine the defendant on request.7 By contrast, the introduction of expert testimony regarding a mental condition, disease, or defect does not particularly suggest the need for an examination of the defendant, let alone require it.

The kinds of expert testimony which could be presented regarding the defendant’s mental condition may vary widely. For example, the defendant may seek to present expert testimony about the effects of mental retardation or a developmental disability. The expert testimony could concern a psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia or paranoia. Expert testimony may generally describe the effects of a particular condition, relying on other evidence to establish the defendant suffered from that condition, or it may particularly concern the defendant, based on examination or observation.

The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1983 revision of Rule 12.2(b) make clear that the rule was intended to require the defendant to provide notice of any of these





kinds of expert testimony. But unlike a claim of insanity, a mental condition, disease or defect requires a case by case analysis to determine whether a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant will be necessary for the government fairly to rebut the defendant’s expert evidence.

It could be argued that Congress included the phrase “in an appropriate case” for this very reason. However, the rule’s specific reference to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242 inhibits such an interpretation. These statutes apply only in specific circumstances. Section 4241 provides for an examination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial (if there is reasonable cause to question the defendant’s competency); section 4242 requires an examination regarding a claim of insanity, at the government’s request. If the Supreme Court or Congress had intended Rule 12.2(c) to permit examinations in a broader array of cases, why did it not permit the court to order an examination “in an appropriate case” “pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247,” the general provision regarding psychiatric and psychological examinations? Why refer to both § 4241 and § 4242, when a reference to one or the other would more clearly demonstrate which set of procedures Congress intended to be applicable?

It is more reasonable to conclude that the intent of the first sentence Rule 12.2(c) was to permit the court to consider the potential applicability of § 4241 and 4242 in connection with required notices regarding mental conditions. While a suggestion of mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense does not itself permit or require a competency examination, for example, a history of mental disease is a factor the court should consider along with other factors such as the nature of the disease and the court’s own observations. A notice of intent to assert an insanity defense will require the court to order an examination at the government’s request.

Some federal courts have ordered psychiatric examinations pursuant to Rule 12.2(c) or have suggested





that such an examination would be appropriate when a defendant gives notice of intent to present expert testimony regarding her or his mental condition. See, e.g., United States v. Stackpole, 811 F.2d 689, 697 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Buchbinder, 796 F.2d 910, 915 (7th Cir. 1986) (finding the government had been prejudiced by lack of notice of the defendant’s intent to present expert testimony because it “did not have sufficient time prior to trial to have the defendant examined by its own expert witnesses”); United States v. Halbert, 712 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Vega-Penarete, 137 F.R.D. 233 (E.D. N.C. 1991); United States v. Banks, 137 F.R.D. 20 (C.D. Ill. 1991); cf. United States v. Rauer, 963 F.2d 1332, 1334 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that the district court had ordered psychiatric examination pursuant to Rule 12.2(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 4242 following defendant’s notice pursuant to Rule 12.2(b)). The reasoning of some of these cases bears examination.

While noting that 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242 only authorize psychiatric testing to determine competency or sanity, the district courts in Vega-Penarete and Banks each proceeded to examine whether Rule 12.2(c) “authorizes a court to order psychiatric evaluation of a defendant who intends to rely on a mental incapacity defense other than insanity.” Banks, 137 F.R.D. at 21. Because a straight reading of the rule did not provide an answer, the courts turned to the Advisory Committee Notes accompanying the rule, and concluded it was “apparent that the drafters of Rule 12.2(c) intended to allow the government to examine a defendant who intends to rely upon expert testimony regarding a mental condition.” Banks, 137 F.R.D. at 22; Vega-Penarete, 137 F.R.D. at 235. The Advisory Committee Notes on which these courts relied state, in pertinent part:

Because it is possible that the defendant will submit to examination by an expert of his own other than a psychiatrist, it is necessary to recognize that it will sometimes be





appropriate for defendant to be examined by a government expert other than a psychiatrist.

This commentary addresses the kinds of expert testimony the defendant might seek to introduce, and the kind of expert examination the government might seek, not the circumstances under which a defendant could be compelled to submit to an examination. We therefore conclude this commentary provides no insight into the question whether Rule 12.2(c) was intended to permit the court to order an examination of a defendant who gives notice of an intent to introduce expert testimony regarding her or his mental condition at the time of the alleged offense.

The commentary to the 1983 revision of Rule 12.2(b) provides a more telling analysis of the purpose of Rule 12.2(b)’s notice requirement and its impact on the question whether Rule 12.2(c) should be read to permit the government to compel an examination of the defendant:

. . . in all circumstances in which the defendant plans to offer expert testimony concerning his mental condition at the time of the crime charged, advance disclosure to the government will serve “to permit adequate pretrial preparation, to prevent surprise at trial, and to avoid the necessity of delays during trial.” 2 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 11-55 (2d 1980). Thus, while the district court in United States v. Hill, 481 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Pa. 1979), incorrectly concluded that present rule 12.2(b) covers testimony by a psychologist bearing on the defense of entrapment, the court quite properly concluded that the government would be seriously disadvantaged by lack of notice. This would have meant that the government would not have been equipped to cross-examine the expert, that any expert called by the government would not have had an opportunity to hear the defense expert testify,





and the government would not have had the opportunity to conduct the kind of investigation needed to acquire rebuttal testimony on defendant’s claim that he was especially susceptible to inducement. Consequently, rule 12.2(b) has been expanded . . . .

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, 1983 Revision to Rule 12.2(b).

The commentary notably does not suggest the government would be prejudiced if it were not given sufficient notice to enable it to examine the defendant. As the commentary implies, the government can prepare to meet expert defense evidence in a variety of ways, including the retention of a government expert to attend at trial and assist the government in cross-examination, and review of evidence relied upon by the defense expert. Thus, the need for advance notice of expert evidence does not imply a court-ordered examination of the defendant is intended or appropriate. The commentary to Rule 12.2(b) does not demonstrate the drafters intended the notice to prompt a court-ordered examination of the defendant under Rule 12.2(c).

A portion of the commentary to Rule 12.2(c) may explain the lack of any discussion in the commentary to Rule 12.2(b) regarding an examination of the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense:

The last sentence of subdivision (c) has been amended to more accurately reflect the Fifth Amendment considerations at play in this context. See Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), holding that self-incrimination protections are not inevitably limited to the guilt phase of a trial and that the privilege, when applicable, protects against use of defendant’s statement and also the fruits thereof, including expert testimony based upon defendant’s statements to the expert.





Estelle also intimates that “a defendant can be required to submit to a sanity examination” and presumably some other forms of mental examination, when “his silence may deprive the State of the only effective means it has of controverting his proof on an issue that he interjected into the case.” (Emphasis added.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, 1983 Amendment to Rule 12.2(c).

We find it unlikely that the Supreme Court or Congress intended the first sentence of Rule 12.2(c) to resolve, sub silentio, the Fifth Amendment concerns arising from a compelled, custodial pretrial examination of a criminal defendant concerning her or his mental state at the time of the alleged offense -- an element of the crime which the government bears the burden of proving.8 The defendant who claims insanity interjects a new issue into the proceedings on which he or she bears the burden of proof. 18 U.S.C. § 17. The privilege is not violated by an examination, because the examination does not concern an element of the crime. See Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 465 (1981). The limited purpose of the examination concomitantly restricts the use the government can make of it: The results of the examination can only be used to rebut defendant’s expert evidence. Estelle teaches that a defendant’s compelled testimony before a government expert, and the fruits of the examination (i.e., the expert’s conclusions), cannot be used against the defendant in the government’s case-in-chief.

When the defendant claims “diminished capacity,” however, he or she seeks to undercut the government’s proof of an element of the offense. Therefore, any compelled examination will necessarily involve

self-incrimination. Estelle, 451 U.S. 454. While Rule 12.2(c) would prohibit the government from introducing the incriminating statements (or expert testimony based on them) unless the defendant introduces testimony regarding mental condition, the existence of an exclusionary rule will not easily justify a compelled examination in the first place. Exclusion is a remedy for a constitutional violation; the defendant should not be precluded from preventing the constitutional violation from occurring.

The issue squarely presented by a government request to examine the defendant regarding his or her mental state at the time of the offense is whether the defendant waives the privilege against self-incrimination by giving notice of intent to introduce expert evidence on that subject. Criminal Rule 12.2 was not intended to resolve this constitutional issue, and we need not and do not decide the issue here.





For these reasons, we conclude that Rule 12.2(c) did not authorize the district court to order the examination of the defendant regarding her mental condition at the time of the alleged offense.

c. Inherent Authority.

While neither Rule 12.2(c) nor 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242 authorizes a district court to order a custodial pretrial examination of the defendant concerning his or her mental state at the time of the offense, the statutes and rule do not displace extant inherent authority to order a reasonable, noncustodial examination of a defendant under appropriate circumstances. The extent of this authority of course must be determined on a case by case basis. As intimated above, serious -- and as yet undecided -- constitutional questions are presented. Under the particular circumstances of this case, however, where the defendant has consented to an examination (and therefore waived the privilege against self-incrimination), the Court need not decide these constitutional issues. The district court here has inherent authority to order an examination of the defendant, provided the examination is both reasonable and non-custodial.

We recognize our ruling leaves the district court without detailed guidance for its determinations regarding the terms





of the examination. We do so advisedly. The proper parameters of the courts’ inherent authority can only be determined based on concrete cases or controversies, after development of the factual and legal issues at the district court level.

2. Due Process

Because the Court finds no authority for the district court’s order committing the defendant for psychiatric or psychological examination regarding her mental state at the time of the alleged offense, we need not address the subsidiary question whether such an examination violates the defendant’s due process rights.

Our ruling today does not preclude the government from examining the defendant pursuant to a voluntary agreement among the parties. An agreed examination may, in fact, be of benefit to a defendant; the government’s expert may well agree with his or her defense following the examination. Such a voluntary arrangement could, of course, alleviate the constitutional concerns inherent in a court-ordered examination.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we find the district court erred by failing to reconsider and vacate its order committing the defendant for purposes of determining her competency to stand trial. We find no authority for the district court’s order committing the defendant for purposes of conducting an examination of her mental state at the time of the offense. However, the district court has the inherent authority to order a reasonable, non-custodial examination of the defendant under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the district court’s order is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Sept 22, carrie ordered into a mental facility in Carswell Texas

August 25th, 2009, court- Hearing for mental exam..carrie
Sept 5, 2009, letter sent by marshals to go to Carswell Texas
Sept 22, 2009 turn in date.
May 20th, Guy locked up for sending email.
Guy ordered for mental exam
Guy is floating in space no mental exam or medications since lock up.
Wednesday Sept. 16th Guy transferred to Oklahoma transfer holding facility

Full docket text for document 211:
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Carlos Murguia: Motion Hearing as to Carrie Marie Neighbors held on 8/25/2009 re [209]

Third MOTION for Mental Exam and Hearing filed by USA.

Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead appeared on behalf of the government. Defendant appeared in person and through counsel, John Duma. Defendant advised of her rights.

The government offered Exhibits 2 & 4 - admitted. The government also played audio evidence during the hearing.

The court granted the government's motion. Order for mental evaluation to follow.

The court ordered the time from the date of this hearing through the date of the hearing regarding the results of the mental evaluation to be excludable under 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(a).

Defendant to remain on bond at this time. (Court Reporter Nancy Wiss.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)

USA v. Carrie Neighbors

Case No. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO

Response by Defendant to Governments motion for mental examintation

UNITED STATES’ THIRD
MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 4241
AND FOR A HEARING


To the Honorable Judge Carlos Murguia,

I come before this honorable court today on behalf of myself, in opposition of the Governments motion to have me placed in a mental health facility. Because I believe in Justice, this courts fairness, in myself and my Constitutional right as a defendant in this case to maintain my innocence against the Governments allegations against me.

I would like to assure this court that I am of sound mind, quite capable of understanding the charges against me, and assisting in my own defense.

My attorney John Duma has informed me, that because of my refusal to plead guilty he will not defend me against this motion, therefore I am forced to come before the court in my own defense.

This case has entailed the Governments pursuit against me since 2005, and this has been extremely stressful, however I believe that confinement to a mental facility will only add to the already tremendous amount of stress and pressure the Government has already forced upon me by creating yet another huge disruption in my life, finances, and mental health program I am already on.

I would like to reiterate to the court that I was extensively evaluated by a licensed professional therapist Marilyn Hutchinson, and she has found me to be competent to stand trial.

I have been under the constant supervision on a monthly basis of this courts US Probation officer Melissa Goldsmith since 2007. I have maintained my updated reports to Melissa on a monthly basis, and have complied with meeting with her in person once a month.

I have submitted to monthly random drug testing as ordered by this court since 2007. I have never failed a single test while under the court order, nor have I missed any appointments.

I have complied with all the court orders and restrictions that this court has placed upon my life and business over the past two years.

I have maintained steady housing and continued to run my business full time during the time I have been out on bond.

I have never lost focus of the fact I have very serious charges against me and I understand fully the possible consequences of my choices when I choose to continue to fight for justice, rather than except a plea of guilty.

I am currently voluntarily maintaining my mental health through regularly scheduled appointments at The Bert Nash Mental Health Center in Lawrence Kansas. I am under the care of a licensed mental health professional Dr. Harold Hogan.

I am including with this response to the court, a signed letter from my current mental health physician Dr. Harold Hogan.

I would like to reiterate for the courts, that in order to be put on the current mental health program I am on, I was first put through the extensive Bert Nash intake process. This intake process required several months of mental health evaluations, tests, interviews and appointments.

For the reasons as stated above, and under solemn oath I am requesting that the Governments motion to have me committed to a mental health facility be denied.

elements of the national security establishment; politically driven U.S. Attorneys and high-ranking officials of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; elements of the national media, who committed the equivalent of witting perjury, by transmitting, through television and the print news media, slanders and fabrications, provided by the IRS and the Department of Justice, to mislead the American public and create a climate conducive to a railroad prosecution of an entire political movement

Wildly fabricated "informant" information,

Where the government has induced an individual to break the law and
the defese of entrapment is at issue, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents,''

Prior to the first sting cops had no viable evidence that Carrie and Guy Neighbors had ever knowingly purchased stolen property. In fact the reports actually show that the Yellow House owners repeatedly cooperated with officers investigating stolen property. Willingly turned over property, gave a statement and shared the information of the seller. And the Yellow House was often itself not only victimized by the alleged thief but also by officers who failed to follow proper procedures during the investigations.

The Musical instruments sold by Stacy Barnes were not stolen, they were purchased, (perhaps fraudulently) but if so then the facts show she was a smooth scammer who was able to scam the merchants into accepting her stolen credit cards. As well as the victims she sold the merchandise to.

The Government did not even prove the instruments in question were in fact the instruments sold by Yellow House because they did not have serial numbers and the model numbers did not match. And Barnes stole more instruments that were never connected to the Yellow House store.

Nicole Beach told me her items were purchased. That is why I paid a very high price of $600 for the two vacuums. I thought she was going to have to cover the cost at some point for the credit cards. Had I known they were stolen it would have made more sense to try and get them for $25. or $50. I know it sounds stupid now, but I believed her. Perhaps I should be on trial for being Federally stupid.

``In their zeal to enforce the law ... government agents may not
originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the
disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the
crime so that the government may prosecute,''

The video by Rantz "uncut in its entirety" will show that there was a tremendous amount of pressure. I am naive and easily controlled by people, and the police took advantage of that.
I tried to get out of buying his stuff several times but he would not let me go. I told him I didn't want any trouble in my store, and he assured me there would not be, and that he was from out of town.
When he told me his manager had gotten the stuff, I figured the manager had purchased it at a discount, because you wouldnt think a manager would risk his job to steal. When he said that the manager had nabed it I figured he was just using crappy language and I told him not to say that, because talk like that could get people in trouble. Rantz never said he stole the stuff.
I finally walked away and did not intend to buy the stuff, but he got all pissed off at me and started yelling at me and stomping his feet and waving his hands demanding me to tell him if I was going to buy the stuff or not. (That part was cut out of the video) I was almost to the door before I turned and told him if its not stolen you carry in the box.
There was a lot of conversation cut out of the tape that I saw that had been edited. I was very stupid to allow him to control me and not be more stern with Rantz, I had never had anyone act like that before and I did not handle it well I should not have given in to his pressure. But that doesn't make me a fencer of 1/2 million dollars worth of stuff.

I believe the original video showed entrapment, which is why the Government edited it.

Things taken from the house;
From the Armoire:
My 14K gold necklace, 1/4CT. Diamond in 14k setting in grey velvet box.

Small plastic box with my dead grandfathers jewelry in it: (grandfathers Rings, costume jewelry, his gold cross in black velvet case (not real gold) )

Several small white earring boxes with cheap costume jewelry earrings in them, I think they were purchased on sale at JC Penney.

Some KU Shorts,
and some mixed pieces of womens clothing with KU logos on them.

A blue Jayhawk KU pendant.

UNDER BED:
several shirts and various pieces of mens clothing I picked up at garage sales. They had been under the bed a long time so dont really remember much about the descriptions. I think at least two were size Large KU shirts, and several were mediums.

Under the bed was a plastic container, several things were taken from the container:
a small pill bottle with TOny Reyes name on it. If you look at the date on the bottle you see its Very old had been under there a long time. had 3 or 4 pills in it I think. Dont really remember because they were just garbage anyway. There was also 1/2 a smoked rolled marijuana cigarette that was about 8 months old inside an old orange pill bottle, so it was all brown and gross looking..they took it too.

They took a white portable Airconditioner on wheels that was used to cool the office,

Several pairs of shoes off a metal rack in the office

A used (very nice) Specialized Yellow Bike that had been taken apart and was in a Sunflower box.

some computer accessories, (modem, router etc.)

The custom built Desktop PC from the Office.

Some pairs of kids jeans

11 unloaded guns from a locked safe in the bedroom closet

1 unloaded Hand gun in the Kitchen Cabinet over the refrigerator.

a small leather pouch full of old silver coins in it and one silver certificate $20 bill from the safe

a plastic container with insurance policies, birth certificates, letters and wills in it,

1 wood crate with mixed Amunitition in it from the basement

The Desktop PC from the middle room I used That had my Christian poetry Book I was writing stored on it. (Never got that back) THere is irreplaceable things written for my book in that PC. Along with letters I saved to my desktop from my attorney.

A note pad of my notes including a scratch paper with all my passwords listed on it. I was locked out of my accounts on line because they took my paper with my passwords on it.

A small pocket phone book

a used kodak easyshare camera

All my business papers I needed to do my taxes with.

Lots of Plastic Boxes of all my old business records, old checks, and notebooks including past audit stuff from my accountants going back 5 years or more from the basement.

2 small white Ipod Nano's from my son's room, i dont think one of them even worked.

My sons Desktop computer

Several pairs of jeans, and some other pieces of clothing I had purchased for my foster son with a clothing allowance from SRS.

A remote control Blue Monster Truck from my foster sons room..(A birthday present my sister bought him at Walmart)

A white ipod nano that belonged to a customer, I had brought it home to program it. It was laying on the footstool in the living room, along with an empty paded envelope with a canada address on it.

The undercounter DVD player that Rantz had sold me, I was going to give it to my sister for Christmas. (I think it was under the bed too.)

a plastic baggie with my adderaul medication in it. (little orange balls)

A pile of old bikes that were being stored in the basement for parts.

An older red portable generator from the garage,

digital electronic heavy duty scales we bought at Sams club

a metal patio set in a cardboard box in the garage,

They cut all the labels off the bike old boxes we had gotten from from the Sunflower bike shops trash.


an incomplete set of older Dewalt power tools, and various other assorted tools from the garage and deck that were guys

All the old 1980's golf & soccer shoes that were in the garage in boxes on a pallet

Some toothbrush head replacements that went with our Braun toothbrushes,

and what ever they took from the plant room.

My pink vibrator was taken out of the drawer next to the bed and the cord was yanked out of the bottom. I dont know what was going on when that happened..but I paid $80 for it and I was really pissed off they did that!..but you dont have to bring that up in court...I'll live..!!

Full docket text for document 184:
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Carlos Murguia: Motion Hearing as to Guy M. Neighbors held on 7/1/2009 re [176] MOTION for order Reinstatement of Pretrial Release filed by Guy M. Neighbors. Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead appeared on behalf of the government. Defendant appeared in person and through counsel, Cheryl Pilate. Evidence was entered. 3 Witnesses for the defendant were presented: Christina Neighbors Rutledge, Dennis Conway, Dan Clark. Defendant exhibits for witness Neighbors Rutledge included 109, 111, 112, 108. Government exhibits for this same witness included 2. Defendant exhibits for witnesses Conway and Clark included 105, 103, 115, 116, 117, 113 and 114. The court retained possession of the exhibits. Defendant requested another hearing date for additional presentation of evidence - granted. Motion Hearing set for 8/7/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. Defendant remanded to custody. (Court Reporter Nancy Wiss.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)

motions hearing set

Full docket text for document 185:
MINUTE ORDER as to Carrie Marie Neighbors, Guy M. Neighbors re [170] Minute entry resetting the motions in limine hearing for 8/11/2009 at 9:30 a.m. Because the court reset the hearing date for any motions in limine filed, the deadline for a response to any motions in limine shall be 8/5/2009. The deadline for filing motions in limine remains 7/27/2009. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 7/1/2009. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)

Guy remanded to custody, hearing 6/30/09

Full docket text for document 181:
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Carlos Murguia: Status Conference as to Guy M. Neighbors held on 6/16/2009. Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead appeared on behalf of the government. Defendant appeared in person and through counsel, Cheryl Pilate. Counsel for the defendant requested approximately 10 days to schedule the motion hearing for availability of evidence and witnesses. Motion Hearing set for 6/30/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. Defendant remanded to custody.

City cop Bialek and Postal Inspector David Nitz Beat'n the street for Parker

Get free hit counter code here.

Bialek and the Postal Inspector David Nitz ran around handing out subpoenas for the October trial and the August pre-trial practice hearing on the 15th. Mike Coffman got one, Charles Rayton got one and Patrick Stanwyix called me to let me know they were trying to give him one. He is going to go ahead and meet with Dan the investigator this week and give him his statement.

Charles called them the Postal Character and the Midget Cop duo! So funny! Yellow house people have no scrupals!

reinstatement hearing date

Full docket text for document 180:
NOTICE OF HEARING as to Defendant Guy M. Neighbors. Status Conference re [176] Motion for Reinstatement of Pretrial Release set for 6/16/2009 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. The motion hearing previously set for June 18, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. is hereby cancelled. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/may/jail-criticizing-federal-prosecutors
[9:18:26 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://www.borderfirereport.net/news-headlines/jail-for-criticizing-federal-prosecutors.php

[9:18:56 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://carrollstandard.com/en/politics/in-other-news/5391-criticizing-federal-prosecutors-go-to-jail.html

[9:19:23 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: just google the term
[9:19:34 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: Criticizing Federal Prosecutors
[9:19:44 AM] carrie neighbors: damn

[9:19:46 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://wcitymike.tumblr.com/post/112179437/jail-for-criticizing-federal-prosecutors

[9:20:24 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/may/jail-criticizing-federal-prosecutors
[9:20:32 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: people are going bizzerk
[9:21:05 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4823&posts=2
[9:22:13 AM] carrie neighbors: I am going to send these over to our people they are great!
[9:22:16 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2257108/posts?page=142
[9:22:41 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://rantburg.com/index.php?D=2009-05-23&HC=6
[9:23:00 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: holy shit
[9:23:04 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: He made it in USA today
[9:23:16 AM] carrie neighbors: really?
[9:23:25 AM] Eye in the Sky Neighbors: http://www.usatoday.com/topics/article/Organizations/Government+Bodies/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation/03GU7nt1eufPq/3

OFFICERS OFFER CONFLICTING TESTIMONY UNDER OATH IN ANSWER TO DEFENSES ALLEGATIONS

Overview:Testimony
In response to the Neighbors allegation that the Police have changed the inventory receipt for same list while it was in the custody of defense attorney Sarah Swain, adding ammunition to the list and changing the number of guns from 12 to 11, and certain items seized at the scene like laptops and a gun did not make it to the police evidence room.

Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz testifies under oath that the Lawrence Police leave a broadly worded inventory (without serial numbers or identification) at the scene of a search warrant, and do not officially log or account for items seized at the scene until it is actually logged into the police department evidence room:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony Taken from the court Transcripts:
Page 32-Micky Rantz-Questioned by Government U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker:
(Rantz): When we
leave the list from the search warrant packet it has very
generic detail, as in 11 guns seized or marijuana plants
seized or stolen property -- certain stolen property
seized. Then when we actually have to log all that stuff
in accountability-wise, there's an actual evidence custody
sheet that has a detailed description, serial numbers for
each item that is then logged into the evidence -- into


page 33-
(Parker)Q. Is leaving a broadly worded inventory at the scene
in accordance with Lawrence Police Department practices
and procedures?
(Rantz)A. Yes

(Parker)Q. Were you also in Exhibit 2C accused a thief -- of
theft of evidence from -- regarding some items taken from
the --
(Rantz)A. Yes
(Rantz)A. Continuing on with the same paragraph -- or the same
section following the ten search warrants it goes, "And
receipts for same inventory switched and forged several
times. Chain of custody violations, theft of evidence
from the evidence room, missing laptops."

(Rantz)A. Because we have gone through every single piece of
evidence that's logged in for this case and had
accountability, either it being in our evidence custody
room or showing it's signed back over to the Neighbors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW:
Rantz specifically testifies that the evidence has been gone through and every piece that was logged in had accountability. Either it was in the evidence custody room or it showed it was signed back over to the Neighbors....

Note that there have been no police reports linked to any stolen property associated with this case, and no chain of custody reports turned over to the defense indicating there are any victims of theft having their items returned.

Yet Postal Inspector David Nitz in direct contrast to Rantz's testimony testifies when questioned about missing evidence, that missing evidence was returned to its rightful owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Page 222--

(Nitz) A. No, all the evidence was accounted for either by
being present -- present in the evidence room or had been
returned and the proper documentation with that.
(Parker)Q. When you say it was returned, returned to the
rightful owners?
(Nitz)A. Correct.
(Parker)Q. All right. And in some instances were a few things
returned to the Neighbors?
(Nitz)A. Yes.

(Parker)Q. And all of the items that were returned were
properly documented and accounted for, correct?
(Nitz)A. Yes.

The Prosecutor Marietta Parker has filed the 7th motion in the Neighbors criminal case to revoke the defendants bond. This motion to have this defendant incarcerated is not because the defendant is a danger to society, it is not because he has comitted a crime. It is because he sent out an email with information in the email in a case that is a matter of public record. This email was not a public blog, it was a request to specific agencies that provide Government oversight. Requesting that these Agencies with oversight investigate the actions of the Government, which he believes is repeatedly violating his constitutional rights.

Based on the complaint by the Prosecutor that the Neighbors Public blogging about issues of misconduct in their case was scaring off the witnesses and interferring with the officers abiltiy to do their jobs. Magistrate Judge James O'Hara court ordered the Neighbors not to blog or discuss their case on the internet. How can this court order even be constitutional in a case that has not been sealed by the court?

As a matter of law, all criminal cases not filed under seal are a matter of public record. So why would the Neighbors criminal case need to be a secret? why would the law regarding public records be considered different in the Neighbors case?

Is it not the right of every American to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Is it not the right of every American to request the oversight by Agencies or to request the investigation of Government officials which the person believes has violated the law or their constitutional rights? If there has been no violation by the Government then there would be no problem!

Letter of sincere appology

Ms. Marietta Parker and my attorney Cheryl Pilate

This case has a taken a toll on me, and has caused me to be very angry and frustrated.
I never intended for anything I have done or said to be taken personally. I would like to extend my sincere apology to Marietta Parker.
My intention was never to offend anyone. My only intention was to have oversight of my case from outside agencies. I now realize that is not possible, and accept the fact that my attorney and investigator are working to see that I am treated fairly. I will not ask anymore agencies for oversight of my case and I agree in the future to allow my investigator and attorney to handle the defense of my case.

Please accept my sincere apology.

Guy Neighbors

Conspiracy between Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead, Police officer Mike McAtee

Following a mis-trial in Federal court, Lawrence Kansas Police officer Mike McAtee traveled across state lines into Florida acting in the capacity of a Federal agent to investigate, and harass family members of Johnnie Williams, Zachary Williams and Terry McIntyre, for Federal Prosecutor Terra D. Morehead. This took place after these three defendants already were forced by Prosecutor Morehead to spend 2 years in segregation (because they refused to accept a plea deal) while incarcerated in Leavenworth. Before finally going to the first trial which ended in a mistrial, second trial was postponed, and a circuit Judge called in, and the original and second sentencing dates have been postponed.

Attached are hand written notarized letters from five family members living In the State of Florida. Lucinda Stallworth Zachary & Johnnie Williams mother, Elizabeth K. Richardson Grandmother of Terry McIntyre, Johnnie Williams and Zachary W., Reina Mejia Zachary Williams girl friend, and Devon Edwards Lucinda's sister.

These family members were interrogated by Lawrence Police Detective Mike McAtee (operating outside of his local jurisdiction), acting in the capacity of a Federal Agent crossing state lines, in a Federal Investigation under the direction of Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead prosecuting the Federal case involving Johnnie Williams, Terry McIntyre and Zachary Williams.
Questioning the appropriation of funds for travel expenses for a Lawrence Kansas Police officer, conducting a Federal investigation outside of his agencies Jurisdiction and across state lines?

Typically Federal Investigations brought before Federal Prosecutors for prosecution are handled by a Federal Agency.
That is not the case for the Federal Prosecutors Marietta Parker & Terra Morehead in the Kansas Department of Justice.

Protocol would be q police Detective that works for one State, that needs to investigate matters in another State would typically contact the police in that States to handle the investigation and then compare notes. Or when the case crosses state lines the FBI would typically become involved in the case.

In a pattern of conspiracy and cover-up between Federal prosecutors and City police:

1. Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead sent Lawrence Police officer Mike McAtee across state lines to the State of Florida, to investigate with the Jurisdictions of a Federal agent.

2. Lawrence Kansas Police officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz pose as FBI agents while conducting Federal investigations for Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead in the Yellow House case, to cover-up for missing evidence, search warrant & chain of custody violations and the lack of FBI involvement in the case.

3. Kansas City FBI agent Walter Schaefer, poses as FBI agent Bob Shaefer, to conduct fake FBI investigations outside of his agencies jurisdictions to cover-up for Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, who is conspiring to cover-up police misconduct.


4. In a case laking merit or probable cause. Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead has the Yellow House owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors falsely arrested 3 times, repeatedly searched, and incarcerated in Leavenworth Federal prison for 12 days on charges involving a state investigation without merit.

5. Federal Prosecutors Terra Morehead & Marietta Parker in an abuse of power control defense attorneys by forcing public defenders to sign her contract to not allow their clients access to their own discovery, and cause "conflicts of interest" that lead to withdraw or mistrial by showing the defendants attorneys secret Grand Jury information. They also threaten to pull paid defense attorneys banking records, and they threaten them with money laundering charges if they do not comply.

Where is the oversight of Government spending and Constitutional law that would allow Federal Prosecutors in an abuse of power spend millions of tax dollars investigating and prosecuting meritless cases, using defense attorneys and law enforcement as their own personal pawns, operating outside of their agencies jurisdictions and the law, crossing state lines, City officers acting as Federal Investigators, repeatedly violating citizens Constitutional rights without consequence.

saved conversations

[4/10/2009 9:57:07 PM] annette: we got a new judge
[4/10/2009 9:57:32 PM] carrie neighbors: Why did you get a new judge?
[4/10/2009 9:57:48 PM] carrie neighbors: Did the old one have enough of this shit!
[4/10/2009 9:58:24 PM] annette: no the other one had to have emergancy surgery so for this motion we had a new judge
[4/10/2009 9:58:33 PM] annette: he cant rule on the old stuff
[4/10/2009 9:58:55 PM] carrie neighbors: Is the new judge a magistrate or district judge/
[4/10/2009 9:59:09 PM] annette: he is federal judge filling in
[4/10/2009 9:59:32 PM] carrie neighbors: Oh sounds like something going in the undercurrent to me
[4/10/2009 10:00:12 PM] annette: the judge filling is is one that our judge says he trust
[4/10/2009 10:00:19 PM] carrie neighbors: There is a very big investigation going on right now. and the Judges are involved
[4/10/2009 10:00:26 PM] annette: but our judge had to have a aptemdectomy thinghy
[4/10/2009 10:00:49 PM] carrie neighbors: The Judges are wanting to get to the bottom of the corruption.
[4/10/2009 10:01:14 PM] carrie neighbors: Your old judge may not have really had a medical problem. They might have just told you that.
[4/10/2009 10:01:29 PM] carrie neighbors: They never tell the defendant the truth about anything
[4/10/2009 10:01:32 PM] annette: no i called the hospital
[4/10/2009 10:01:47 PM] annette: and i dont think mike would lie to me
[4/10/2009 10:01:52 PM] carrie neighbors: oh
[4/10/2009 10:02:15 PM] annette: he was in the court room when the judge got really sick throwing up and bad stomache pain
[4/10/2009 10:02:33 PM] carrie neighbors: ya they did postpone your court date
[4/10/2009 10:02:42 PM] annette: it was bad
[4/10/2009 10:02:54 PM] annette: mike said that his firm sent flowers
[4/10/2009 10:03:18 PM] carrie neighbors: Does mike ever say when he thinks your case will go somewhere?
[4/10/2009 10:03:51 PM] carrie neighbors: You can have 50 lawsuits but if no one ever has to pay you then ...
[4/10/2009 10:03:54 PM] annette: yeah he feels if this judge goes with all of our new motions then shit is going to hit the fan
[4/10/2009 10:04:39 PM] carrie neighbors: Our people are going to look at the evidence within a couple of weeks. They are really doing some heavy investigations right now
[4/10/2009 10:04:54 PM] annette: thats good
[4/10/2009 10:05:32 PM] carrie neighbors: We had a guy come forward that wanted to tell us about some corruption he experienced and said one of his friends got pulled over and the cops stole his money and drugs and let him go.
[4/10/2009 10:05:47 PM] carrie neighbors: So we told him to call our investigator, that was yesterday at 5pm
[4/10/2009 10:05:59 PM] annette: has he called
[4/10/2009 10:06:10 PM] carrie neighbors: He called around 1 today and let us know the investigator had already met wiith him
[4/10/2009 10:06:18 PM] carrie neighbors: We were really impressed.
[4/10/2009 10:06:22 PM] annette: so what happened about your investigators having me calll cherly
[4/10/2009 10:06:54 PM] carrie neighbors: I think that my attorney got mad, and they had a big meeting and everybody got mad at each other.
[4/10/2009 10:07:03 PM] annette: lol
[4/10/2009 10:07:08 PM] carrie neighbors: and now none of them are talking to us
[4/10/2009 10:07:18 PM] annette: i dont know it just made me really uncomfortable
[4/10/2009 10:07:30 PM] carrie neighbors: We have not talked to any of the investigators since you talked to him
[4/10/2009 10:07:52 PM] carrie neighbors: And i am not so sure that John duma and Cheryl are speaking
[4/10/2009 10:08:30 PM] carrie neighbors: But they are really focused on doing an in depth investigation into the police department.
[4/10/2009 10:08:42 PM] carrie neighbors: and I think they are all working it out to get that done
[4/10/2009 10:09:02 PM] annette: i hope so
[4/10/2009 10:09:23 PM] carrie neighbors: They are also predicting Morehead is going to have serious problems when the investigation gets wrapped up
[4/10/2009 10:09:37 PM] carrie neighbors: But they wont tell us any details
[4/10/2009 10:10:15 PM] annette: i dotn know my invertagartor said he was gonna call john and give him some pointers on what to check into
[4/10/2009 10:10:29 PM] carrie neighbors: That will tie into your new motions for the new lawsuit.
[4/10/2009 10:10:42 PM] carrie neighbors: When did he say that
[4/10/2009 10:10:43 PM] annette: alot of things
[4/10/2009 10:11:07 PM] annette: i cant remeber
[4/10/2009 10:11:09 PM] carrie neighbors: can your investigator talk to us?
[4/10/2009 10:11:15 PM] annette: i think it was on friday or monday of last week
[4/10/2009 10:11:42 PM] annette: no but we found out he can talk some to your investagor and tell him what to look at without telling him what we have found out
[4/10/2009 10:12:35 PM] annette: he couldnt make it to court today because of some big thing going down there in lawrence and kansas city
[4/10/2009 10:12:59 PM] carrie neighbors: have you met him/
[4/10/2009 10:13:17 PM] annette: met who
[4/10/2009 10:13:26 PM] carrie neighbors: your investigato
[4/10/2009 10:13:30 PM] carrie neighbors: investigator
[4/10/2009 10:13:39 PM] annette: we had a big meeting last week
[4/10/2009 10:13:50 PM] annette: me him and mike i got to see a bunch of pics
[4/10/2009 10:14:02 PM] annette: and some things
[4/10/2009 10:14:10 PM] carrie neighbors: pictures of what
[4/10/2009 10:14:28 PM] annette: servalince
[4/10/2009 10:14:53 PM] carrie neighbors: in lawrence?
[4/10/2009 10:15:05 PM] annette: lawrence and kansas city
[4/10/2009 10:15:23 PM] carrie neighbors: did anything impress you
[4/10/2009 10:15:28 PM] annette: oh yeah
[4/10/2009 10:15:34 PM] carrie neighbors: like what
[4/10/2009 10:15:58 PM] annette: parker spending the night at moreheads house
[4/10/2009 10:16:09 PM] annette: but you cant say anything casue i promised
[4/10/2009 10:16:29 PM] annette: i would say anthing in detail about what i seen
[4/10/2009 10:16:33 PM] carrie neighbors: I would never say anything
[4/10/2009 10:16:49 PM] annette: there was a good bye kiss
[4/10/2009 10:17:23 PM] carrie neighbors: on the mouth
[4/10/2009 10:17:52 PM] annette: it was GROSS!!!!!!!
[4/10/2009 10:18:02 PM] carrie neighbors: you are not serious
[4/10/2009 10:18:12 PM] annette: but it was funny
[4/10/2009 10:18:13 PM] annette: yes i am
[4/10/2009 10:18:32 PM] carrie neighbors: were we in any of the pics/
[4/10/2009 10:19:28 PM] annette: not the ones they were showeing me
[4/10/2009 10:19:33 PM] annette: but they have some of the store
[4/10/2009 10:19:58 PM] carrie neighbors: why did they show you?
[4/10/2009 10:20:25 PM] annette: pics of police morehead some judges i dont know
[4/10/2009 10:20:28 PM] annette: parker
[4/10/2009 10:20:31 PM] annette: chief
[4/10/2009 10:20:37 PM] annette: stuff like that
[4/10/2009 10:20:50 PM] annette: outside the evidence office
[4/10/2009 10:21:08 PM] carrie neighbors: what are they doing with them if they cant share them with us to get our case moving faster.
[4/10/2009 10:21:23 PM] annette: they can share them with you
[4/10/2009 10:21:37 PM] annette: well not you but your invest
[4/10/2009 10:21:47 PM] annette: but they have to wait
[4/10/2009 10:22:03 PM] carrie neighbors: what R we waitng for
[4/10/2009 10:22:14 PM] annette: we were deciding which ones to send to chanell for news
[4/10/2009 10:22:32 PM] annette: and 6 and all the other news channels and newspapers
[4/10/2009 10:22:56 PM] carrie neighbors: they are too chicken shit to send that stuff to the news!
[4/10/2009 10:23:18 PM] annette: oh i may be but mike and the investagor arent
[4/10/2009 10:23:20 PM] annette: lol
[4/10/2009 10:23:36 PM] annette: plus we are just waiting to see what the judge says on tuesday
[4/10/2009 10:24:06 PM] carrie neighbors: do you have to go back to court on tues
[4/10/2009 10:24:07 PM] annette: if things dont go our way they are going to be annoymasly sent
[4/10/2009 10:24:23 PM] annette: yep
[4/10/2009 10:24:26 PM] carrie neighbors: can they send them annonomysly to us
[4/10/2009 10:24:32 PM] annette: lol
[4/10/2009 10:24:36 PM] annette: i can see what i can do
[4/10/2009 10:25:35 PM] annette: we have to watch to make sure there are no ties back
[4/10/2009 10:26:15 PM] carrie neighbors: We just say that we got them from an anonomous blogger.
[4/10/2009 10:26:30 PM] carrie neighbors: We protect your people with our life
[4/10/2009 10:26:36 PM] annette: it might just be sent by bloggs
[4/10/2009 10:26:41 PM] carrie neighbors: we have never told them anything you have told us
[4/10/2009 10:27:04 PM] annette: i know i just have to be really careful what i say and do
[4/10/2009 10:27:04 PM] carrie neighbors: your case is very important, we would never do anything to jeapordize that
[4/10/2009 10:27:10 PM] annette: i know
[4/10/2009 10:28:09 PM] carrie neighbors: our case is going to be won, it would be sweet to be able to tie the two investigations together for bigger fireworks, but and faster results,
[4/10/2009 10:28:21 PM] annette: i know
[4/10/2009 10:28:24 PM] carrie neighbors: do you know what was going down in KC?
[4/10/2009 10:28:32 PM] annette: cant say
[4/10/2009 10:28:42 PM] carrie neighbors: can you hint
[4/10/2009 10:28:57 PM] carrie neighbors: I will delete this when we are done talking
[4/10/2009 10:29:23 PM] annette: it has to do with lies and emblesalment
[4/10/2009 10:29:27 PM] annette: that is all i can say
[4/10/2009 10:30:28 PM] carrie neighbors: sounds like another delay that will cause another year or more
[4/10/2009 10:30:36 PM] carrie neighbors: to investigate
[4/10/2009 10:30:43 PM] annette: ummmmm no
[4/10/2009 10:31:02 PM] annette: this has been being investagaed for awhile behind the scenes
[4/10/2009 10:31:11 PM] annette: there is alot of sex scandels to
[4/10/2009 10:31:47 PM] carrie neighbors: We know about the sex scandals, and our investigators are looking into the "sex scandals too"
[4/10/2009 10:32:12 PM] carrie neighbors: There have been NO Federal indictments coming down from Lawrence!
[4/10/2009 10:32:41 PM] annette: the indictements will be coming though dont worry about that
[4/10/2009 10:33:01 PM] carrie neighbors: We had a shooting last week in Lawrence, It was a convicted felon with a firearm, shot 3 people outside a local bar...and its not in federal court! Its in Judge Malones court.
[4/10/2009 10:33:14 PM] carrie neighbors: The bloggers on ljworld are all saying WTF?
[4/10/2009 10:33:25 PM] annette: i bet
[4/10/2009 10:33:27 PM] annette: what bar
[4/10/2009 10:33:59 PM] carrie neighbors: we also had a kidnapping, at gunpoint , 3 guys held a guy for 12 hours, beat him and held a gun on him, got probation in State court.
[4/10/2009 10:34:09 PM] carrie neighbors: no federalies
[4/10/2009 10:34:20 PM] annette: i will let mike know
[4/10/2009 10:34:31 PM] annette: im sure this info is gonna help
[4/10/2009 10:34:44 PM] carrie neighbors: Its all in the LJworld. Just go there and search out the stories in the search box.
[4/10/2009 10:34:54 PM] annette: ok
[4/10/2009 10:35:02 PM] carrie neighbors: Its pretty shocking
[4/10/2009 10:35:31 PM] carrie neighbors: I watch the federal indictment press release page, there have been no indictments from Lawrence in several months
[4/10/2009 10:35:53 PM] carrie neighbors: I figure that the LPD must be in the dog hous
[4/10/2009 10:36:02 PM] annette: yes
[4/10/2009 10:36:38 PM] carrie neighbors: Our attorneys said they are really focused on the Lawrence PD. So I guess they are going to bring them down first
[4/10/2009 10:37:01 PM] annette: they have to cause that is where it starts
[4/10/2009 10:37:04 PM] carrie neighbors: I dont think Parker will be in trouble when this is all over though
[4/10/2009 10:37:21 PM] carrie neighbors: It seems more like Morehead is the one they are after
[4/10/2009 10:37:45 PM] annette: cause it all goes back to moreheads bank account
[4/10/2009 10:38:30 PM] carrie neighbors: That must be what our investigators ment
[4/10/2009 10:39:02 PM] carrie neighbors: when they said moreheads going to have some serious problems
[4/10/2009 10:39:29 PM] annette: yeah all the money trail and paper trail goes back to morehead
[4/10/2009 10:39:36 PM] annette: not much goes to parker
[4/10/2009 10:39:59 PM] carrie neighbors: That totally goes along with what we are hearing
[4/10/2009 10:40:38 PM] carrie neighbors: Guy says morehead wont be willing to take the fall without singing like a stuck bitch against parker
[4/10/2009 10:41:10 PM] annette: yeah but she is going to get it worse caseu all the proof that we have goes to her not parker
[4/10/2009 10:41:23 PM] carrie neighbors: Parker gets other people to put their names on stuff. Just like the lis pendens was signed by Annette Gurney
[4/10/2009 10:41:31 PM] annette: yep
[4/10/2009 10:41:47 PM] carrie neighbors: parker is very slick.
[4/10/2009 10:41:52 PM] annette: but i ink when everyone else startes singing then parker is going down to
[4/10/2009 10:42:32 PM] carrie neighbors: Parker is going to have problems with our case because she is right in the middle of the fake FBI investigation and that was serious
[4/10/2009 10:42:41 PM] carrie neighbors: coverup
[4/10/2009 10:43:05 PM] annette: yeah but she got morehead to start it and cover it up
[4/10/2009 10:43:11 PM] annette: it was moreheads idea
[4/10/2009 10:44:37 PM] carrie neighbors: She puts Moreheads name on everything, but we have copies of emails from Parker to our attorney Sarah Swain that puts Parker right in the middle of the fake FBI investigation.
[4/10/2009 10:44:51 PM] annette: yes
[4/10/2009 10:45:00 PM] carrie neighbors: She was not being smart in the beginning
[4/10/2009 10:45:02 PM] annette: but i cant say anything else
[4/10/2009 10:45:05 PM] carrie neighbors: and we saved everything
[4/10/2009 10:46:18 PM] carrie neighbors: Yea our investigators keep telling us morehead is behind it. But I just dont buy it
[4/10/2009 10:46:28 PM] carrie neighbors: Parker is the head conspirator
[4/10/2009 10:46:42 PM] carrie neighbors: and the boss
[4/10/2009 10:47:03 PM] annette: no she is just the bitch
[4/10/2009 10:47:07 PM] carrie neighbors: lol
[4/10/2009 10:47:16 PM] annette: morehead wears the pants in their relationship
[4/10/2009 10:47:19 PM] carrie neighbors: the bitch needs to go down!
[4/10/2009 10:47:30 PM] annette: lol
[4/10/2009 10:47:45 PM] carrie neighbors: parker is gay! lol
[4/10/2009 10:48:00 PM] annette: duh
[4/10/2009 10:48:12 PM] carrie neighbors: an angle I had never thought of ....i thought she was married!
[4/10/2009 10:48:21 PM] annette: she is
[4/10/2009 10:48:36 PM] annette: her and morehead have been messing around for about 8 yrs now
[4/10/2009 10:48:43 PM] annette: oops i mean 6
[4/10/2009 10:49:11 PM] carrie neighbors: well dont worry you could not even pay me to repeat that!!! lol
[4/10/2009 10:49:27 PM] annette: lol
[4/10/2009 10:49:49 PM] annette: and a certain judge has joined in on some of their late night rondevous

Selective Prosectution and Conspiracy In Kansas Federal Court

The ongoing nearly 5 year long Federal Prosecution of the Yellow House and its owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors is discriminatory, selective, based on favors, and its a Conspiracy cover-up for Misconduct of Government officials! The obvious is the pattern of abuse and selective prosecution between Federal and State charges in various cases from Lawrence Kansas.

In July of 2008, Robert Sample sold the Yellow House store a Dell Laptop. At the time of the sale Mr. Sample filled out the sellers form and signed & dated the bottom of the form stating that the item was not stolen.
It was placed for sale on an Ebay auction with the serial and model number listed in the auction. It turned out that Mr. Sample had stolen the laptop from his employer the University of Kansas.

The Yellow House owners were notified about the theft by KU Detective Mike Riner on August 7th, 2008. The Yellow House agreed to turn over the Laptop to the Detective. The Yellow House business owners agreed to allow KU Detective Riner to copy the information from the sellers form Mr. Samples had filled out, but on Friday Aug. 8th, requested the right to go through their attorneys to physically hand over the document or make any statements to police.

In response to the Neighbors requesting the presence of their attorneys:
Later that day KU Detective Riner returned with Lawrence Officers Jay Bialek, Micky Rantz, Postal Inspector David Nitz, and a number of officers from LKPD and KUPD and served a search warrant on the business (during the search the stores video surveillance video was taken and a blank off brand tape put in its place). Officers stormed into the business front and back grabbed both Guy and Carrie Neighbors put them in handcuffs and placed them under Federal arrest for "Federal Obstruction of Justice".

The Neighbors were taken into custody and held from Aug 8th to Aug 11th in 24 hour lock down at the Douglas county Jail.

On Aug. 11th the Postal Inspector David Nitz picked up the Neighbors and their personal belongings from the Douglas County jail, and transported them in his vehicle without their attorneys present to the Kansas City DOJ 45 min. away, where they were chained and shackled and held in cells. After a brief appearance before Federal Magistrate Judge James O'Hara they were strip searched and transferred to the Leavenworth Maximum security detention center. They were incarcerated for "Obstruction of justice" in the Federal Prison until they were released and the case was terminated for lack of evidence on Aug. 18th, 2008.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep/22/yellow_house_owners_plead_not_guilty_obstruction_c/

During the investigation it was discovered that over a 5 year period Robert Sample had stolen over $31,000.00 worth of property from the University of Kansas. The bulk of the merchandise had been sold to the local Pawn Shops. The local Pawn shops are linked directly to the local police for oversight yet Mr. Samples was never investigated.

On September 17, 2007 it was a documented fact by the Topeka FBI that the local Pawn Shops sell guns and other items missing (stolen) from the Lawrence Kansas Police Department evidence room.

Mr. Sample Plead guilty to misdemeanor theft and 3 felony counts of theft in State Court and was ordered to pay restitution and serve one month in the Douglas county jail. He was not charged in Federal court. The Yellow House owners were arrested and incarcerated in Federal Prison on Federal Charges for "obstruction" in this State misdemeanor case Investigation. The Neighbors case for Federal Obstruction connected to this midemeanor State case is still pending in Federal Court.
see story:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/apr/01/former-ku-employee-serving-time-theft-campus-build/

James Ludwig, Lewis Parsons, and Stacy Barnes, are individuals that were paid by checks for various items sold to the Yellow House Store, mostly over a 5 year period. They were all charged in Federal Court, even though none of the merchandise sold by these individuals was proven to be stolen, because People selling to the Yellow House not involved with the Pawn Shops are prosecuted in Federal Court!

It was alleged that Lewis Parsons while claiming to be a wholesaler, sold just under $30,000. Worth of merchandise to the Yellow House over a 5-6 year period (The same amount that Mr. Sample sold the Pawn shops). The merchandise sold by Parsons had never been reported stolen, and had no reported victims. Yet Mr. Parsons was charged in Federal Court and was forced to take a plea deal in exchange for Grand Jury testimony and anticipated testimony at trial against the Yellow House owners.

Ludwig who also claimed to be a wholesale dealer and sold merchandise which he accepted checks for from the Yellow House over a 5-6 year period for an estimated total of $100,000. His property was never proven to be stolen, had no listed victims or police reports. Both men plead guilty in Federal Court In April 2008, and now (April 2009) 1 year later are still free waiting to be sentenced.
See story:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/apr/22/2_plead_guilty_selling_stolen_goods/

Stacy Barnes Catlett, was paid by check for some instruments sold to the Yellow House during the summer of 2005. Stacy allegedly purchased the used instruments with a stolen credit card. Stacy was charged in Federal court 3yrs later after Prosecutors discovered she had been written checks from the Yellow House. Postal Inspector David Nitz was involved in her arrest. July 2008, Stacy plead guilty and was also offered a plea deal in exchange for agreeing to give false testimony against the Yellow House owners that they somehow conspired with her during her crime. She was originally scheduled to be sentenced October 20th, 2008, but her sentencing has been postponed.

She has remained free on bond, violated bond and was listed as an absconder. She then was captured and placed in the Leavenworth halfway house for treatment, where her prison sentence continues to be delayed.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/23/lawrence_woman_admits_credit_card_scheme_id_theft/

2006-2007,
Twelfth & Haskell Bargain Center, (A second hand store similar to Yellow House that buys and sells.) fined for having 6 stolen cars on their lot with vin numbers removed. The owners were not searched or made public specticals by Government officials. Their punishment was for 6 months they were not allowed to sell parts or have any cars brought on the lot. Nothing was made public, after the 6 months it was business as usual. Then in 2007, they were sighted and fined for EPA violations involving the improper disposal of refrigerants. Nothing made public, no arrests, or information damaging the business released.

March 30, 2009
Three men that kidnapped a man, robbed him, beat him and held him at gunpoint, were charged in State court (not federal) and given probation.
See Story
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/mar/30/three-men-receive-probation-connection-january-kid/

April 1, 2009
A felon with a gun, shoots 3 people outside a Lawrence Bar, is being held in Douglas County Jail, appearing in State Court (Not Federal) before Judge Michael Malone.
See Story:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/apr/01/lawyer-requests-psychological-evaluation-suspect-t/


IN CONCLUSION:
Federal Prosecutors Terra Morehead and Marietta Parker in a conspiracy and cover-up have spent the past 5 years having The Yellow House owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors repeatedly and selectively targeted, arrested, Indicted, searched, falsely accused, and incarcerated on Frivolous unsubstantiated fabricated Federal Charges in State level cases, without due process of Law or Probable cause for Prosecution.

Thank-you for your reply and your suggestion that we forward any further information to the FBI in Kansas city Missouri. However the Kansas City FBI has a conflict of interest in this case and has informed us they have no jurisdiction over Lawrence affairs involving police misconduct.

This has been a deeply corrupt investigation, with conspiracy that has been ongoing since 2005. Our rights have been continuously violated, we have been retaliated against for filing complaints with frivolous Federal Indictments, false arrests and torture, planted evidence, incarcerations, warrantless searches, false press releases and more. Because of the extreme power the Federal Prosecutors have to control and influence everyone involved in this case, we fear fear for our safety and the safety of our family. We understand you cannot investigate our complaints while the criminal investigation is going on, so we only ask that an outside agency such as yours, watch over this corrupt investigation that is entering into its 5th year to insure our safety from future retaliation until we are acquitted.

The basis of the conspiracy and corruption is directly linked to the missing evidence, chain of custody issues and search warrant violations, compounded by a lack of evidence against the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors.

When the local City prosecutor Charles Branson refused to prosecute the corrupt case, it was forwarded to Federal Prosecutor AUSA Marietta Parker by Police Chief Ron Olin. The Federal Prosecutor immediately began to threaten the Neighbors paid attorneys with pulling their banking records and money laundering.

Lawrence Kansas Police patrol officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz are the lead investigators in the ongoing Federal Investigation against the Yellow House store owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors. To cover-up for the fact they are not federal investigators the two officers were approaching witnesses in the investigation and identifying themselves as FBI agents. This is supported by signed statements and affidavits by witnesses.

The Neighbors attorney Sarah Swain filed a formal complaint with LKPD internal affairs Sgt. Dan Ward, stating that Patrol officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz were posing as FBI agents. Sgt. Ward forwarded the complaint to AUSA Marietta Parker. Marietta Parker sent down a Kansas City FBI agent who identified himself as FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer.
Agent Shaefer conducted a 5 day fake FBI investigation, made a public announcement to the Media through the Kansas City FBI spokesperson Jeff Lanza that the Lawrence Kansas Police officers had been cleared. The same day AUSA Marietta Parker orchestrated two more searches on the Neighbors business and home, lead by Police officers Jay Bialek, Micky Rantz, Postal Inspector David Nitz and IRS Agent Rob Jackson.

In 2007 An LJWorld reporter Ron Knox the Neighbors, along with others were all told by the Kansas City FBI, the FBI investigation by Agent Bob Shaefer into the Lawrence police misconduct complaints by the Neighbors never took place, and there was no file for the investigation. The Kansas City FBI also claimed at the time that there was no FBI agent Bob Shaefer.

Bob Shaefer later testified during a hearing in Federal Court before Magistrate Judge James P O'Hara, that his actual name is "Walter Robert Schaefer" and that his jurisdiction for investigations is the Western District of Missouri. Investigations & testimony done within his Jurisdiction are conducted under his actual name FBI Agent Walter Schaefer.

The Kansas city FBI also stated, not only had they not done an investigation, they had no jurisdiction to do investigations in Lawrence Kansas. The Neighbors were told by the Kansas City FBI not to contact them again, and that the Topeka FBI had jurisdiction over Lawrence Kansas and they should contact them for future reference.

The Neighbors then met with the Topeka FBI agents Scott Gentine and Denton Murray and gave them copies of the formal complaints connected to the missing evidence and police misconduct. The following week Dave Bryant also filed a complaint with Topeka FBI agent Scott Gentine because his guns that had been stolen during a burglary, and later recovered in a drug bust were also missing from the Lawrence Kansas Police Department evidence room, and he had found them being offered for sale in the 23rd street Pawn Shop.