UNLAWFUL USER WITH FIREARM IS OBSCURE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHARGE FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTORS TO USE

Get free hit counter code here.

Unlawful user with firearm, A production charge of Prosecutorial misconduct with malice.

It would be constitutionally challenging for a federal court to convict the 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 the defendants with adequate notice that their conduct was prohibited. United States v. Cooper, 173 F.3d 1192, 1202 (9th Cir. 1999). 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 the prosecution of Guy and Carrie Neighbors under this vague law is unconstitutional and vindictive, 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.

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 along with blog sites, All fall within an exercise of The First Amendment assuring the Fundamental Right to Free Speech.

Making the circumstances of the indictment and arrest a case of Prosecutorial Misconduct. The fact both defendants were denied food while being held in a cell for 8 hours December 8th, 2006. Clearly was an act of retaliation by the prosecution, and a violation of Guy and Carrie Neighbors protected Fourteenth Amendment constitutional and civil rights. In violation of the Eighth Amendment. Forbidding “cruel and unusual punishments" clearly this shows "deliberate indifference" by the responsible officials.

Attorney Jim George was informed by prosecution team member Terra Moorehead that the arrest and Indictment was handled in this cruel manner to quote “Show Guy and Carrie Neighbors who is boss”. (Clearly this establishes retaliation and Malice by the prosecution.) Genito v. Rabinowitz, 92 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1966).

In conclusion with the Judicial system having a responsibility of full accountability, why would a Federal Judge be presented such a vague case that has been riddled with police misconduct, corruption, documented harassment and intimidation of both witnesses and defendants. Violations in the chain of custody rule, prosecutorial misconduct with deception, malice, and slander? When allowing this unconstitutional case to continue, would compromise the precious integrity of the courts procedural process.

In continuation, to further the vindictiveness of the prosecution, the original charge of unlawful user with firearms was dismissed by the prosecutor, then refiled under the disguise of a brand new case with added enhancements in order to cover up the speedy trial violations. A federal Judge as a result of this vindicitive refiling of the same charges dismissed the unlawful user with firearms charge against the defendants with Prejudice.



.