PROSECUTION OF UNLAWFUL USER LAW CHARGED WITH MALICE BY PROSECUTOR AGAINST YELLOW HOUSE LAWRENCE KS CASE

Get free hit counter code here.

Unlawful user with firearm, Prosecutorial misconduct with malice.

It would be constitutionally challenging for a federal court to convict Guy and Carrie Neighbors of being an unlawful user in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 922(g)(3). Based upon the constitutionality of the definition. And the prosecutorial misconduct associated with the case.

A conviction would be a violation of due process because the definition of "unlawful user is too vague to supply Guy and Carrie Neighbors with adequate notice that their conduct was prohibited. United States v. Cooper, 173 F.3d 1192, 1202 (9th Cir. 1999).
While there is no evidence to establish grounds that Guy and Carrie Neighbors have had a "consistent use of drugs".

Specifically noted, In determination of the definition of the term "unlawful user" should be supported by "the statutory history," Which indicated that § 922 was enacted "to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of ...their criminal background" Id. at 1365-66. Specifically, it is noted that § 922 explicitly included unlawful drug users as an individual having a "criminal background".

We believe that to prosecute Guy and Carrie Neighbors under this vague law is unconstitutional, and the facts have failed to establish any sufficient evidence beyond a doubt, that the defendants took or used drugs on any regular basis, within the statutory definition of "unlawful user" over an extended period of time.

Both defendants having had no criminal background, or drug histories would not fall under the vague definition of "unlawful user".

Continuing to prosecute under this statute would fall under the definition of "malicious prosecution" and abuse of process. This can be implied in this case, resulting from a lack of probable cause, and from inadequate investigation, research and malice on the part of the prosecution. Prosecuting under such cercumstances would expose the Government to the possibilities of civil actions by defendants.


With indictment under District Court for the District of Kansas case number 06-2071-01/02-CM/JPO. Initiated in conjunction with misuse of the legal process, in retaliation for the defendants filing a complaint alleging police misconduct, violations of the chain of custody rule, and sending out E-mails and public internet postings,

All are an exercise of The First Amendment assuring the Fundamental Right to Free Speech. Federal Judges John Lungstrum and Carlos Marguia have both assured the Neighbors their Liberty of Freedom of Speech will not be compromised in this case.