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!