It appears that very sophisticated techno hackers have managed to hack into the Yellow House stores phone system through Sunflower cable!
What-ever high tech program that is being used is making the Yellow House phone signals so strong that scanners, police radio's and phones in nearby business's are picking up the Yellow House calls.
But it still gets even weirder yet, When someone uses the phone located in the back of the store, conversations at the front desk can be heard through the earpiece, even if the phone at the front desk is hung-up!
There are also strange bubbly noises coming through the line whenever call waiting comes through.
Has anybody else noticed these strange mysterious occurrences in their phones? Perhaps aliens are involved. Or perhaps a highly sophisticated competitor of second hand goods is trying to steal the Yellow House business secrets!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Our phones are bugged.
The transmission of the bug is so strong our neighbors at the liquor store are picking up our telephone calls through their phones. When ever the phone gets a second call from call waiting the phone makes a bubbly noise and for about 3-4 seconds the conversation is cut off. Third we have two cordless phones in the store. One in back and one in front. Several times now while the phone in the front is hung up on the cradle and nothing is even turned on or being used up front, someone has picked up the back room phone and while using it suddenly can hear me talking to customers and rattling papers at the front desk...(that is really freaky!)
This has been going on since August 19th. That day we lost our service for about 1 hour. I called Sunflower and I could tell they knew something was going on because when I told him I was from Yellow House he raised his voice and started to talk nervously.
The transmission of the bug is so strong our neighbors at the liquor store are picking up our telephone calls through their phones. When ever the phone gets a second call from call waiting the phone makes a bubbly noise and for about 3-4 seconds the conversation is cut off. Third we have two cordless phones in the store. One in back and one in front. Several times now while the phone in the front is hung up on the cradle and nothing is even turned on or being used up front, someone has picked up the back room phone and while using it suddenly can hear me talking to customers and rattling papers at the front desk...(that is really freaky!)
This has been going on since August 19th. That day we lost our service for about 1 hour. I called Sunflower and I could tell they knew something was going on because when I told him I was from Yellow House he raised his voice and started to talk nervously.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Why is the proffer report not in the discovery.. My answer is this. The Proffer report was in the discovery when my attorney Phil Gibson had it. But as you know the prosecutor has always controlled my attorneys. Phil gave it back to the Prosecutor to have it changed and he did not get it back. Here is my detailed explaination.
My first two attorneys were threatened with money laundering charges. Bruce Kipps my third attorney told me he was forced by Terra Morehead to sign a contract that made him agree that he could not show me any of the discovery. He was very angry about the contract and told me he did not agree with it. He also said it made defending me very difficult.
But then he said that there was nothing in the contract that prevented me from looking over his shoulder at the discovery when he was looking the other way. "Looking over his shoulder" I saw most of the discovery he had. Including the receipt for same list in his discovery which was written in Micky Rantz hand writing. Bruce was shocked when I showed him my receipt for same list. The first thing he said was "its not even in the same hand writing!". The list has since been changed out by the prosecutor and now all the lists including the one Duma has is in Bialeks handwriting.
Phil Gibson my attorney I had before Duma, did not like Morehead, but told me he totally trusted Parker. He said he and Parker went back a long way. They had worked together in the Western District of Missouri, and he believed she was very honest and trustworthy enough to babysit his grand kids...(That is an exact quote)
He was having a hard time with our case because he was obviously trying to protect Parker. When I discovered the illegal lis Pendens Parker had placed against our property, I asked him to file a motion immediately. He filed a motion and Judge Murguia scheduled us a court date the following week, but Gibson canceled it. After that Gibson stalled repeatedly until Parker had time to file the superseding indictment, with the sole purpose of mooting our lis pendens to keep the issue out of court. Because of the conspiracy with Parker I filed a marsden motion and took it before Judge Murguia, explaining to the Judge that Gibson had a conflict of interest protecting both me and the prosecutor, and therefore I did not feel I could trust him. And the Judge dismissed Gibson as my attorney and hired Duma.
Phil Gibson had my Proffer report in his discovery. Phil was aware my discovery had been tampered with by the prosecutor and even pointed out that Alex McCaulley was only on the case to get information for the prosecutor and to file the motion to stop the speedy trial time before he withdrew. He told me that he would not give the prosecutor my discovery and that when the judge assigned a new attorney to my case that he would hand deliver the discovery to my new attorney....so how could the proffer report be missing now???
THE ANSWER:
I believe that after Phil Gibson questioned me about the proffer report he "freaked out." He told me according to the report he was under the impression Marietta Parker was present during the proffer. I told him absolutely not. I also told him about the recording I played, and he was shocked that there was no mention of that in the report either. I believe Phil gave the report back to Marietta so she could change it, because there were too many discrepancies. But he was taken off the case before he got it back from her, so now its missing from the discovery.
My first two attorneys were threatened with money laundering charges. Bruce Kipps my third attorney told me he was forced by Terra Morehead to sign a contract that made him agree that he could not show me any of the discovery. He was very angry about the contract and told me he did not agree with it. He also said it made defending me very difficult.
But then he said that there was nothing in the contract that prevented me from looking over his shoulder at the discovery when he was looking the other way. "Looking over his shoulder" I saw most of the discovery he had. Including the receipt for same list in his discovery which was written in Micky Rantz hand writing. Bruce was shocked when I showed him my receipt for same list. The first thing he said was "its not even in the same hand writing!". The list has since been changed out by the prosecutor and now all the lists including the one Duma has is in Bialeks handwriting.
Phil Gibson my attorney I had before Duma, did not like Morehead, but told me he totally trusted Parker. He said he and Parker went back a long way. They had worked together in the Western District of Missouri, and he believed she was very honest and trustworthy enough to babysit his grand kids...(That is an exact quote)
He was having a hard time with our case because he was obviously trying to protect Parker. When I discovered the illegal lis Pendens Parker had placed against our property, I asked him to file a motion immediately. He filed a motion and Judge Murguia scheduled us a court date the following week, but Gibson canceled it. After that Gibson stalled repeatedly until Parker had time to file the superseding indictment, with the sole purpose of mooting our lis pendens to keep the issue out of court. Because of the conspiracy with Parker I filed a marsden motion and took it before Judge Murguia, explaining to the Judge that Gibson had a conflict of interest protecting both me and the prosecutor, and therefore I did not feel I could trust him. And the Judge dismissed Gibson as my attorney and hired Duma.
Phil Gibson had my Proffer report in his discovery. Phil was aware my discovery had been tampered with by the prosecutor and even pointed out that Alex McCaulley was only on the case to get information for the prosecutor and to file the motion to stop the speedy trial time before he withdrew. He told me that he would not give the prosecutor my discovery and that when the judge assigned a new attorney to my case that he would hand deliver the discovery to my new attorney....so how could the proffer report be missing now???
THE ANSWER:
I believe that after Phil Gibson questioned me about the proffer report he "freaked out." He told me according to the report he was under the impression Marietta Parker was present during the proffer. I told him absolutely not. I also told him about the recording I played, and he was shocked that there was no mention of that in the report either. I believe Phil gave the report back to Marietta so she could change it, because there were too many discrepancies. But he was taken off the case before he got it back from her, so now its missing from the discovery.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Full docket text for document 158:
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Carlos Murguia: Status Conference as to Guy S. Neighbors, Carrie Neighbors held on 2/18/2009. Terra Morehead and Marietta Parker appeared on behalf of the government. Defendant Guy Neighbors appeared in person and through counsel, Melanie Morgan and Cheryl Pilate. Defendant Carrie Neighbors appeared in person and through counsel, John Duma. Without objection from the parties, the additional time excluded would serve the ends of justice and would outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant's right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h). The court orders that the time period from January 27, 2009 through October 5, 2009 (and later depending on the other cases and their trial settings to be further determined at the next court appearance) shall be excluded under speedy trial calculations. Motions due by 7/27/2009. Response deadline 8/10/2009. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2009 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. Jury Trial set for 10/5/2009 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. Hearing exhibit to be filed under seal separately. Defendants to remain on bond. (Court Reporter Nancy Wiss.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before District Judge Carlos Murguia: Status Conference as to Guy S. Neighbors, Carrie Neighbors held on 2/18/2009. Terra Morehead and Marietta Parker appeared on behalf of the government. Defendant Guy Neighbors appeared in person and through counsel, Melanie Morgan and Cheryl Pilate. Defendant Carrie Neighbors appeared in person and through counsel, John Duma. Without objection from the parties, the additional time excluded would serve the ends of justice and would outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant's right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h). The court orders that the time period from January 27, 2009 through October 5, 2009 (and later depending on the other cases and their trial settings to be further determined at the next court appearance) shall be excluded under speedy trial calculations. Motions due by 7/27/2009. Response deadline 8/10/2009. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2009 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. Jury Trial set for 10/5/2009 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 463 (CM) before District Judge Carlos Murguia. Hearing exhibit to be filed under seal separately. Defendants to remain on bond. (Court Reporter Nancy Wiss.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
During 2008 while Phil Gibson was still defending me, we attended a case hearing at the DOJ. Officer Bialek & Rantz attended the hearing. After the hearing, investigators followed Bialek back to Lawrence.
That afternoon my friend Jennifer told me while she was at work that day she had stepped outside for a smoke. She noticed a girl standing in the parking lot across the way that she recognized as a "skanky stripper" from the Outhouse strip club. A few minutes later she saw a police car pull up to the girl driven by Officer Bialek. The police car stopped and the stripper leaned into the window talking to the officer.
Later another person told us the investigator had followed Bialek that night to a local motel in his cruiser while on duty. He met a girl with a similar description that my friend had seen him earlier that day with. The two went into a room in the motel for about 20 minutes or so. When officer Bialek came out of the motel he noticed the investigator who was video taping him with a pair of digital binoculars. He approached the car and threatened the investigator with an arrest for stalking. All of which was recorded.
The next day the investigator met with US Attorney Marietta Parker in her office. Parker assumed that the investigator was a law enforcement officer involved in the Yellow House case. The meeting had proceeded for appx. 45 minutes when Parkers phone rang. She answered it; and it was Bialek. She put Bialek on speaker phone and proceeded to talk to him. Bialek told Parker that someone had been following him. She informed Bialek that an officer was in her office now meeting with her. He asked her to describe the officer and at that point she turned off the speaker. She finished the call and called security to have the investigator removed from her office.
During the meeting Parker admitted to the investigator that she had taken the Yellow House case even though it was very weak, because she owed someone a favor. She also admitted there was nothing except circumstantial evidence against the Neighbors. When he questioned her about charging people in Federal court on just circumstantial evidence she stated "we are working on that." When he was being escorted out of her office she told the investigator that the conversation was nothing but hearsay. He then let her know the conversation had been recorded.
That afternoon my friend Jennifer told me while she was at work that day she had stepped outside for a smoke. She noticed a girl standing in the parking lot across the way that she recognized as a "skanky stripper" from the Outhouse strip club. A few minutes later she saw a police car pull up to the girl driven by Officer Bialek. The police car stopped and the stripper leaned into the window talking to the officer.
Later another person told us the investigator had followed Bialek that night to a local motel in his cruiser while on duty. He met a girl with a similar description that my friend had seen him earlier that day with. The two went into a room in the motel for about 20 minutes or so. When officer Bialek came out of the motel he noticed the investigator who was video taping him with a pair of digital binoculars. He approached the car and threatened the investigator with an arrest for stalking. All of which was recorded.
The next day the investigator met with US Attorney Marietta Parker in her office. Parker assumed that the investigator was a law enforcement officer involved in the Yellow House case. The meeting had proceeded for appx. 45 minutes when Parkers phone rang. She answered it; and it was Bialek. She put Bialek on speaker phone and proceeded to talk to him. Bialek told Parker that someone had been following him. She informed Bialek that an officer was in her office now meeting with her. He asked her to describe the officer and at that point she turned off the speaker. She finished the call and called security to have the investigator removed from her office.
During the meeting Parker admitted to the investigator that she had taken the Yellow House case even though it was very weak, because she owed someone a favor. She also admitted there was nothing except circumstantial evidence against the Neighbors. When he questioned her about charging people in Federal court on just circumstantial evidence she stated "we are working on that." When he was being escorted out of her office she told the investigator that the conversation was nothing but hearsay. He then let her know the conversation had been recorded.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Hear is what is really funny:
The Government publicly labels us as the Largest fencers ever in the history of Lawrence with no evidence to back it up.
Repeatedly violates the secrecy of the Grand Jury laws..including putting out a press release of our sealed 19 count indictment 2 days before we were served. Clearly a violation by the Prosecutor of the Grand Jury secrecy laws that state an indictment is sealed until the defendant is served or taken into custody.
Heck we did the radio interview in exchange for a copy of the indictment! I told my attorney Phil that I told the radio station to make sure and let me know if I get anymore indictments!...LO
But we did get some revenge when we found out through a close friend who had a friend that was a relative of the Special Prosecutor, that knew the Special Prosecutor in Wichita had secured the secret Federal Indictment against the Chief, then we posted that Chief Olin was getting indicted! Because his indictment was sealed too! We figured if the Prosecutors in our case can do it, then why shouldn't we let them see how it feels?
Our friend approached Commisioner Mike Amyx and he admitted something was going on with the Chief, but said that it was being handled secretly as a personel issue.
The Prosecutor falsely announced to the press we were trafficking drugs through our store. Now that was a jaw dropper to hear coming over the news for sure! It was really tough when customers started to come in the next day telling us they heard that on the news.
The Prosecutor also lied to the Judge and the press saying she had to drop the charges because bigger charges and more evidence had been found! (How would you like to be a defendant sitting in your living room hearing that come over the news!)
The Prosecutor lied on the DOJ website press release and put that the ebay case had been investigated by the FBI. (LO!..Now that is a whole nother story!)
The Prosecutor has a full blown emotional breakdown in court during a hearing. Crying and sniffling through the entire second half.. (Then pro-claims the defendants need a psychological evaluation..very funny!)
But the funniest part of all is that the Prosecutor has the nerve to accuse us of being the one that is delusional!
Perhaps my delusion is that I am a defendant that finds it hard to believe under these circumstances I could possibly get a fair trial!
The Government publicly labels us as the Largest fencers ever in the history of Lawrence with no evidence to back it up.
Repeatedly violates the secrecy of the Grand Jury laws..including putting out a press release of our sealed 19 count indictment 2 days before we were served. Clearly a violation by the Prosecutor of the Grand Jury secrecy laws that state an indictment is sealed until the defendant is served or taken into custody.
Heck we did the radio interview in exchange for a copy of the indictment! I told my attorney Phil that I told the radio station to make sure and let me know if I get anymore indictments!...LO
But we did get some revenge when we found out through a close friend who had a friend that was a relative of the Special Prosecutor, that knew the Special Prosecutor in Wichita had secured the secret Federal Indictment against the Chief, then we posted that Chief Olin was getting indicted! Because his indictment was sealed too! We figured if the Prosecutors in our case can do it, then why shouldn't we let them see how it feels?
Our friend approached Commisioner Mike Amyx and he admitted something was going on with the Chief, but said that it was being handled secretly as a personel issue.
The Prosecutor falsely announced to the press we were trafficking drugs through our store. Now that was a jaw dropper to hear coming over the news for sure! It was really tough when customers started to come in the next day telling us they heard that on the news.
The Prosecutor also lied to the Judge and the press saying she had to drop the charges because bigger charges and more evidence had been found! (How would you like to be a defendant sitting in your living room hearing that come over the news!)
The Prosecutor lied on the DOJ website press release and put that the ebay case had been investigated by the FBI. (LO!..Now that is a whole nother story!)
The Prosecutor has a full blown emotional breakdown in court during a hearing. Crying and sniffling through the entire second half.. (Then pro-claims the defendants need a psychological evaluation..very funny!)
But the funniest part of all is that the Prosecutor has the nerve to accuse us of being the one that is delusional!
Perhaps my delusion is that I am a defendant that finds it hard to believe under these circumstances I could possibly get a fair trial!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CONSPIRACY LAWRENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO VIOLATE FEDERAL ANTITRUST, SHERMAN ACT
The Yellow House Business owners Constitutional right to be free from a Stalking Government and protected under the Federal Antitrust laws and Sherman Act have been continuously violated!
Within one week of the Dec 2, 2005 search warrant being served upon the Yellow House Store, the Government violated the Antitrust act rights of the business owners by falsely reporting to Ebay that the Yellow House was fencing stolen property using their Internet site.
This allegation was made even though there were no charges, no arrests and no evidence existed that the Neighbors were involved in any kind of fencing activity. Furthermore.. There were absolutely no police reports linking the Yellow House to any stolen property reports. There were no theft reports or victims of theft that had been linked to any of the property confiscated during the search.
There was not one witness, (even after police repeatedly unsuccessfully tried to bribe witnesses with $50 to set up the Yellow House business with stolen Property) that could give any testimony to lead a reasonable person to believe there was ever any conspiracy by the business owners that involved other peoples criminal activities.
THE CONSPIRACY:
The suspension from Ebay allowed other businesses like the Pawn Shops to gain a competitive edge over the Yellow House. The Confiscation of the business records revealed from the beginning to the Government that 75% of the Yellow House business was conducted through on-line sales.
Part of the conspiracy against the business was to run them out of business by interfering with their trade abilities. An alleged conspiracy between the Police and the Pawn Shops that would allow the Pawn Shops (Whom have the buddy system from the local police) and run their own ebay sites, to monopolize the market in Lawrence. The Sherman Act provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.
After the suspension without a justifiable cause, various family members and friends came forward one at a time to help; and allowed the Yellow House business owners to sell merchandise using their Ebay accounts. Each time the Neighbors used someones ebay account to sell merchandise, the Government would have that persons Ebay account was also suspended, absent of any charges or evidence a crime had been committed. Some accounts were suspended before any of the auctions were even completed. furthering the conspiracy and interfering with the Yellow House businesses right to fair market trade and competition.
Then on August 18Th, 2008, the Neighbors were released from Leavenworth Maximum security Federal detention center, following their arrest and incarceration on August 8Th, 2008 for obstruction of Justice.
The Neighbors were searched and arrested for "obstruction of Justice" by Lawrence Police officers including two officers named as witnesses Jay Bialek & Micky Rantz that were court ordered not to have contact with the defendants, the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and KU detective Mike Riner along with KU police officers, A KU police officer transported Carrie Neighbors in handcuffs to the jail, and a Lawrence Police officer & David Nitz transported Guy Neighbors to the jail.
Both Carrie and Guy Neighbors were arrested because they requested to have their attorneys be present before handing over paperwork or making statements in regards to a stolen property investigation being handled by the University Police.
As part of the conditions of their release Aug. 18Th,2008, the Neighbors were court ordered by Federal Judge James O'Hara to no longer sell over the Internet. Again more restrictions on the business absent of any proof of wrong doing by the defendants involving the use of the Internet or the banks to conduct their business. Further interfering with the Neighbors ability to run their business competitively in the free trade market.
The Sherman Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
FORMAL REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION:
The Neighbors request that a full investigation be conducted into the justification of the continued conspiracy by Government officials to run them out of business, put them at an unfair disadvantage against their competitors and interfere with their ability to conduct business since December of 2005.
THE STALKING HORSE GOVERNMENT:
Ongoing illegal STALKING activity by Government officials hiding behind the protective veil of an unjustified ongoing investigation lasting 4 years, with 6 Federal indictments, Prosecutors Piling up charges absent of any new activity in the case, dismissing charges then bringing them back. only to have them dismissed again, repeated arrests for the same charges, along with a superseding indictment to cover-up an illegal lis pendens, repeated search warrants that included the undocumented seizures of expensive property, theft of the business surveillance tape, repeated strong armed arrests, surveillance without a court order, Grand Jury secrecy violations, arrests & Indictments orchestrated to obstruct justice, hinder an investigation by an outside agency into the Governments misconduct and to cover-up the conspiracy.
THE DEFENDANTS REQUEST A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THE CORRUPT ONGOING ACTS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OF CONSPIRACY AND VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS!
The Sherman Act puts responsibility upon government attorneys and district courts to pursue and investigate trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act. Since no one is above the law, this includes Police departments and Government officials suspected of violating the act.
The Clayton Act(1914) proves the extent of the seriousness of the offense when it extended the right to sue under the antitrust laws to "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws."
Within one week of the Dec 2, 2005 search warrant being served upon the Yellow House Store, the Government violated the Antitrust act rights of the business owners by falsely reporting to Ebay that the Yellow House was fencing stolen property using their Internet site.
This allegation was made even though there were no charges, no arrests and no evidence existed that the Neighbors were involved in any kind of fencing activity. Furthermore.. There were absolutely no police reports linking the Yellow House to any stolen property reports. There were no theft reports or victims of theft that had been linked to any of the property confiscated during the search.
There was not one witness, (even after police repeatedly unsuccessfully tried to bribe witnesses with $50 to set up the Yellow House business with stolen Property) that could give any testimony to lead a reasonable person to believe there was ever any conspiracy by the business owners that involved other peoples criminal activities.
THE CONSPIRACY:
The suspension from Ebay allowed other businesses like the Pawn Shops to gain a competitive edge over the Yellow House. The Confiscation of the business records revealed from the beginning to the Government that 75% of the Yellow House business was conducted through on-line sales.
Part of the conspiracy against the business was to run them out of business by interfering with their trade abilities. An alleged conspiracy between the Police and the Pawn Shops that would allow the Pawn Shops (Whom have the buddy system from the local police) and run their own ebay sites, to monopolize the market in Lawrence. The Sherman Act provides: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.
After the suspension without a justifiable cause, various family members and friends came forward one at a time to help; and allowed the Yellow House business owners to sell merchandise using their Ebay accounts. Each time the Neighbors used someones ebay account to sell merchandise, the Government would have that persons Ebay account was also suspended, absent of any charges or evidence a crime had been committed. Some accounts were suspended before any of the auctions were even completed. furthering the conspiracy and interfering with the Yellow House businesses right to fair market trade and competition.
Then on August 18Th, 2008, the Neighbors were released from Leavenworth Maximum security Federal detention center, following their arrest and incarceration on August 8Th, 2008 for obstruction of Justice.
The Neighbors were searched and arrested for "obstruction of Justice" by Lawrence Police officers including two officers named as witnesses Jay Bialek & Micky Rantz that were court ordered not to have contact with the defendants, the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and KU detective Mike Riner along with KU police officers, A KU police officer transported Carrie Neighbors in handcuffs to the jail, and a Lawrence Police officer & David Nitz transported Guy Neighbors to the jail.
Both Carrie and Guy Neighbors were arrested because they requested to have their attorneys be present before handing over paperwork or making statements in regards to a stolen property investigation being handled by the University Police.
As part of the conditions of their release Aug. 18Th,2008, the Neighbors were court ordered by Federal Judge James O'Hara to no longer sell over the Internet. Again more restrictions on the business absent of any proof of wrong doing by the defendants involving the use of the Internet or the banks to conduct their business. Further interfering with the Neighbors ability to run their business competitively in the free trade market.
The Sherman Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
FORMAL REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION:
The Neighbors request that a full investigation be conducted into the justification of the continued conspiracy by Government officials to run them out of business, put them at an unfair disadvantage against their competitors and interfere with their ability to conduct business since December of 2005.
THE STALKING HORSE GOVERNMENT:
Ongoing illegal STALKING activity by Government officials hiding behind the protective veil of an unjustified ongoing investigation lasting 4 years, with 6 Federal indictments, Prosecutors Piling up charges absent of any new activity in the case, dismissing charges then bringing them back. only to have them dismissed again, repeated arrests for the same charges, along with a superseding indictment to cover-up an illegal lis pendens, repeated search warrants that included the undocumented seizures of expensive property, theft of the business surveillance tape, repeated strong armed arrests, surveillance without a court order, Grand Jury secrecy violations, arrests & Indictments orchestrated to obstruct justice, hinder an investigation by an outside agency into the Governments misconduct and to cover-up the conspiracy.
THE DEFENDANTS REQUEST A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THE CORRUPT ONGOING ACTS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OF CONSPIRACY AND VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS!
The Sherman Act puts responsibility upon government attorneys and district courts to pursue and investigate trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act. Since no one is above the law, this includes Police departments and Government officials suspected of violating the act.
The Clayton Act(1914) proves the extent of the seriousness of the offense when it extended the right to sue under the antitrust laws to "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws."
Monday, January 5, 2009
PROSECUTORS THREATEN AND INTIMIDATE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE
From the very beginning of this case the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead has corruptly attempted to manipulate and control the defense attorneys in the Yellow House case. After the initial search warrant was executed in 2005, the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors hired a defense attorney Sarah Swain to handle the situation. There were no charges at the time.
After several complaints were filed alleging police misconduct, the Prosecutor began to threaten and intimidate defense attorney Sarah Swain that her banking records would be pulled, that her office could be charged with money laundering for accepting payment from the defendants, and that she could even be facing criminal charges or complaints of ethics violations to the Bar for defending the Neighbors.
Then the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker decided that Defense Attorney Sarah Swain could not represent both defendants, even though no charges or indictments had even been filed. The Neighbors then were forced to hire a second Attorney Aaron McKee to represent Carrie Neighbors seperately from Guy Neighbors. Soon after..the Prosecutor began to threaten Mr. McKee's office with the same charges that had been threatened against Ms. Swains office.
Once the Prosecutor had threatened the defense attorneys, they were no longer capable of giving the Neighbors adequate representation. Numerous things happened in violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights, that were a direct result of the defense attorneys acting out of fear, both defense attorneys were rendered incapable of giving the Federal Prosecutor any resistance to her demands.
LEGAL STATEMENT:
The Prosecutor's power comes from the tough money laundering laws passed by Congress in the mid-1980's called the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Money Laundering Act of 1986, which gave federal prosecutors powerful new weapons in the narcotics war. It enabled them to put anyone; including defense attorneys who took money originating from drug trafficking or other illegal activities in prison.
An amendment, passed by Congress in 1994 after heavy lobbying by criminal defense lawyers, excludes funds used "for the right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment" from consideration in money laundering cases.
It is also a violation of ethics and grounds to be disbarred for a Prosecutor to use this law as a weapon to threaten and control defense attorneys without adequate "probable cause" to back up the threats!"
There has never been any evidence presented in this case that the Neighbors have ever evaded taxes, had any illegal transactions, defrauded the banks, been involved in drug trafficking, Laundered money, or used dirty money to pay their attorney's.
PATTERN OF ABUSE:
After several incidents that involved misconduct by the two Lawrnece Kansas Police officers investigating the case Carrie and Guy Neighbors filed a formal complaint against the two officers. Carrie accused defense attorney Aaron Mckee of coercion with the prosecutor and terminated the attorney client relationship. To retaliate against the Neighbors for these actions, the prosecutor Marietta Parker told Aaron McKee that she would indict the Neighbors immediately for being "Unlawful users with firearms."
The pattern of abuse has continued even after the Neighbors could no longer afford paid attorneys, and were forced to use public defenders hired by the courts.
When the Neighbors refused to take a plea deal, and falsely admit guilt, the Prosecutor Terra Morehead dropped the charges using the threat that bigger charges would come.
Then one month later Ausa Morehead brought back the same charges but presented it to the court as a brand new case and piled on more charges absent of any new activity in the case. As a direct result the Neighbors were once again strong armed arrested in their home, and forced to start over with new court appointed attorneys.
Could it be it is easier for police and prosecutors to get convictions by piling charges on a convenient suspect until they coerce a plea than to solve a case and find the truth?
The Prosecutor has continued her abuse of her power by dumping thousands of pages of useless discovery on the defense attorneys, while withholding and removing exculpatory discovery from the files. Documents in the Neighbors discovery has also been forged and manipulated.
And in an effort to further divert the attorneys time from investigations and trial preparations she has filed numerous meritless motions. Filed superseding indictments absent of any new activity, had the defendants arrested and imprisoned on State Charges. Continued to fish for evidence after the trial dates by serving search warrants on the defendants for DNA and even getting into the defendants password protected internet accounts.
The Prosecutor has forced one Attorney off the case by revealing Secret Grand Jury testimony. And the Prosecutor has repeatedly threatened that the trial would last more than 6 weeks, causing the defense attorneys to fear for their practice and the inablitily to serve their other clients.
IN CONCLUSION:
Fortunately for the Neighbors their current defense attorneys John Duma and Cheryl Pilate have continued to fight for justice and have refused to be intimidated into abandoning their obligations to their clients. For the first time in four years, the case is moving forward, investigators have been hired to interview witnesses, view the discovery, document the evidence, and perhaps even a few motions for suppression and dismissal will be filed soon!
After several complaints were filed alleging police misconduct, the Prosecutor began to threaten and intimidate defense attorney Sarah Swain that her banking records would be pulled, that her office could be charged with money laundering for accepting payment from the defendants, and that she could even be facing criminal charges or complaints of ethics violations to the Bar for defending the Neighbors.
Then the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker decided that Defense Attorney Sarah Swain could not represent both defendants, even though no charges or indictments had even been filed. The Neighbors then were forced to hire a second Attorney Aaron McKee to represent Carrie Neighbors seperately from Guy Neighbors. Soon after..the Prosecutor began to threaten Mr. McKee's office with the same charges that had been threatened against Ms. Swains office.
Once the Prosecutor had threatened the defense attorneys, they were no longer capable of giving the Neighbors adequate representation. Numerous things happened in violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights, that were a direct result of the defense attorneys acting out of fear, both defense attorneys were rendered incapable of giving the Federal Prosecutor any resistance to her demands.
LEGAL STATEMENT:
The Prosecutor's power comes from the tough money laundering laws passed by Congress in the mid-1980's called the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Money Laundering Act of 1986, which gave federal prosecutors powerful new weapons in the narcotics war. It enabled them to put anyone; including defense attorneys who took money originating from drug trafficking or other illegal activities in prison.
An amendment, passed by Congress in 1994 after heavy lobbying by criminal defense lawyers, excludes funds used "for the right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment" from consideration in money laundering cases.
It is also a violation of ethics and grounds to be disbarred for a Prosecutor to use this law as a weapon to threaten and control defense attorneys without adequate "probable cause" to back up the threats!"
There has never been any evidence presented in this case that the Neighbors have ever evaded taxes, had any illegal transactions, defrauded the banks, been involved in drug trafficking, Laundered money, or used dirty money to pay their attorney's.
PATTERN OF ABUSE:
After several incidents that involved misconduct by the two Lawrnece Kansas Police officers investigating the case Carrie and Guy Neighbors filed a formal complaint against the two officers. Carrie accused defense attorney Aaron Mckee of coercion with the prosecutor and terminated the attorney client relationship. To retaliate against the Neighbors for these actions, the prosecutor Marietta Parker told Aaron McKee that she would indict the Neighbors immediately for being "Unlawful users with firearms."
The pattern of abuse has continued even after the Neighbors could no longer afford paid attorneys, and were forced to use public defenders hired by the courts.
When the Neighbors refused to take a plea deal, and falsely admit guilt, the Prosecutor Terra Morehead dropped the charges using the threat that bigger charges would come.
Then one month later Ausa Morehead brought back the same charges but presented it to the court as a brand new case and piled on more charges absent of any new activity in the case. As a direct result the Neighbors were once again strong armed arrested in their home, and forced to start over with new court appointed attorneys.
Could it be it is easier for police and prosecutors to get convictions by piling charges on a convenient suspect until they coerce a plea than to solve a case and find the truth?
The Prosecutor has continued her abuse of her power by dumping thousands of pages of useless discovery on the defense attorneys, while withholding and removing exculpatory discovery from the files. Documents in the Neighbors discovery has also been forged and manipulated.
And in an effort to further divert the attorneys time from investigations and trial preparations she has filed numerous meritless motions. Filed superseding indictments absent of any new activity, had the defendants arrested and imprisoned on State Charges. Continued to fish for evidence after the trial dates by serving search warrants on the defendants for DNA and even getting into the defendants password protected internet accounts.
The Prosecutor has forced one Attorney off the case by revealing Secret Grand Jury testimony. And the Prosecutor has repeatedly threatened that the trial would last more than 6 weeks, causing the defense attorneys to fear for their practice and the inablitily to serve their other clients.
IN CONCLUSION:
Fortunately for the Neighbors their current defense attorneys John Duma and Cheryl Pilate have continued to fight for justice and have refused to be intimidated into abandoning their obligations to their clients. For the first time in four years, the case is moving forward, investigators have been hired to interview witnesses, view the discovery, document the evidence, and perhaps even a few motions for suppression and dismissal will be filed soon!
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT-GRAND JURY VIOLATION
Are the actions of the Prosecutors in USA v. Neighbors amounting to conduct which can defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts and/or the legal profession into disrepute?
BACKGROUND OF FACTS:
On October 24,2007, A letter was written to defendant Guy Neighbors by Dionne Scherff attorney for Guy Neighbors in United States V. Guy Neighbors case No. 07-20124.
Grand Jury Rule 6(e) functions to protect both the integrity of the investigative process and a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Because leaking by a prosecutor of a witnesses testimony before a grand Jury may constitute a felony under Title 18, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
In the letter dated October 24, 2007 Ms. Sherff explains she has a conflict of interest and will not be proceeding as counsel on the case. The letter explains to Mr. Neighbors that a witness by the name of Patrick Nieder had testified adversely against him in a Grand Jury hearing. (In reality Mr. Neighbors has never even personally met Mr. Nieder.)
The letter goes on to explain that Ms. Sherff had traveled to the U.S. Attorney's office in order to review the Grand Jury testimony of Patrick Nieder. Ms Sherff then explains she discussed the conflict with the Government US Assistant Attorney Terra Morehead. And Morehead stated the she did not expect Mr. Nieder to be a witness in Case no. 07-20073.
In direct contrast to Ms. Moreheads statement, and rendering her credibility in the case questionable, during an evidence hearing in USA v. Guy Neighbors case no. 07-20073 before the Honorable Chief Judge John Lungstrum on November 5, 2007, Postal Inspector David Nitz; under the direction of AUSA Attorney Terra Morehead read the adverse testimony by Patrick Nieder, falsely claiming he had sold $30,000.00 in drugs and guns to the Yellow House Store and that Mr. Neighbors had met with him to buy the guns.
The disclosure of this witnesses false testimony before the Grand Jury was used to gain a tactical advantage over the defense, in order to force the defense attorney to have to withdraw from the case, create a conflict, and even possibly set the stage for a future mis-trial.
Any time a prosecutor purposely manipulates the Grand Jury's veil of secrecy rule by leaking evidence to gain a tactical advantage, for self-enrichment, to cause embarrassment, or out of shear malice, then she has willfully misused grand jury information in a manner no court or jury should excuse.
Because grand jury information is government property, its intentionally unauthorized use by a prosecutor abusing her power is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 which criminalizes the theft of any thing of value. United States grand jury transcripts constitute property covered by §641. More important, the intangible information presented to the grand jury reflected in those transcripts also constitute “any thing of value” under § 641.9.
As a direct result of the United States Assistant Attorney's disclosure of this Grand Jury Testimony, on the 29Th day of October 2007, Dionne Sherff was forced to file a motion to withdraw as Guy Neighbors defense attorney of record. According to the motion Assistant United States Attorney Marietta Parker had no objection to the motion.
Guy Neighbors was also forced to be a defendant in the evidence hearing in Judge Lungstrums court on November 5, 2007, while being represented by a defense attorney with a conflict of interest, who had already filed a motion to withdraw from the case.
In Furtherance of the misconduct, it appears all the discovery involving Patrick Nieder was removed from the Nieghbors file prior to the current defense attorneys being appointed to the case!
CONCLUSION:
Considering the fact that Federal Prosecutors wield an awesome power to investigate federal crimes with the aid of grand jury subpoenas, deals in exchange for testimony and many other tools of power at their fingertips, they must exercise their discretion in a sound, trustworthy and judicious manner.
When a prosecutor intentionally leaks protected Grand Jury testimony she engages in a form of prosecutorial misconduct that not only may compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial, but may also penalize the interests of the United States in a successful prosecution.
BACKGROUND OF FACTS:
On October 24,2007, A letter was written to defendant Guy Neighbors by Dionne Scherff attorney for Guy Neighbors in United States V. Guy Neighbors case No. 07-20124.
Grand Jury Rule 6(e) functions to protect both the integrity of the investigative process and a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Because leaking by a prosecutor of a witnesses testimony before a grand Jury may constitute a felony under Title 18, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
In the letter dated October 24, 2007 Ms. Sherff explains she has a conflict of interest and will not be proceeding as counsel on the case. The letter explains to Mr. Neighbors that a witness by the name of Patrick Nieder had testified adversely against him in a Grand Jury hearing. (In reality Mr. Neighbors has never even personally met Mr. Nieder.)
The letter goes on to explain that Ms. Sherff had traveled to the U.S. Attorney's office in order to review the Grand Jury testimony of Patrick Nieder. Ms Sherff then explains she discussed the conflict with the Government US Assistant Attorney Terra Morehead. And Morehead stated the she did not expect Mr. Nieder to be a witness in Case no. 07-20073.
In direct contrast to Ms. Moreheads statement, and rendering her credibility in the case questionable, during an evidence hearing in USA v. Guy Neighbors case no. 07-20073 before the Honorable Chief Judge John Lungstrum on November 5, 2007, Postal Inspector David Nitz; under the direction of AUSA Attorney Terra Morehead read the adverse testimony by Patrick Nieder, falsely claiming he had sold $30,000.00 in drugs and guns to the Yellow House Store and that Mr. Neighbors had met with him to buy the guns.
The disclosure of this witnesses false testimony before the Grand Jury was used to gain a tactical advantage over the defense, in order to force the defense attorney to have to withdraw from the case, create a conflict, and even possibly set the stage for a future mis-trial.
Any time a prosecutor purposely manipulates the Grand Jury's veil of secrecy rule by leaking evidence to gain a tactical advantage, for self-enrichment, to cause embarrassment, or out of shear malice, then she has willfully misused grand jury information in a manner no court or jury should excuse.
Because grand jury information is government property, its intentionally unauthorized use by a prosecutor abusing her power is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 which criminalizes the theft of any thing of value. United States grand jury transcripts constitute property covered by §641. More important, the intangible information presented to the grand jury reflected in those transcripts also constitute “any thing of value” under § 641.9.
As a direct result of the United States Assistant Attorney's disclosure of this Grand Jury Testimony, on the 29Th day of October 2007, Dionne Sherff was forced to file a motion to withdraw as Guy Neighbors defense attorney of record. According to the motion Assistant United States Attorney Marietta Parker had no objection to the motion.
Guy Neighbors was also forced to be a defendant in the evidence hearing in Judge Lungstrums court on November 5, 2007, while being represented by a defense attorney with a conflict of interest, who had already filed a motion to withdraw from the case.
In Furtherance of the misconduct, it appears all the discovery involving Patrick Nieder was removed from the Nieghbors file prior to the current defense attorneys being appointed to the case!
CONCLUSION:
Considering the fact that Federal Prosecutors wield an awesome power to investigate federal crimes with the aid of grand jury subpoenas, deals in exchange for testimony and many other tools of power at their fingertips, they must exercise their discretion in a sound, trustworthy and judicious manner.
When a prosecutor intentionally leaks protected Grand Jury testimony she engages in a form of prosecutorial misconduct that not only may compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial, but may also penalize the interests of the United States in a successful prosecution.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, FEDERAL MOTION TO DISMISS PRO-SE
Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors, pro-se hereby moves the Honorable Court to Dismiss the above captioned matter for prosecutorial misconduct, to-wit, Vindictive prosecution and as grounds therefore states for the record:
Petitioners believes and therefore asserts that the above titled case has been brought before the
Honorable Court by FRAUD in a mis-construction of statutes, by perjured testimony, by deprivations of constitutionally secured due process, conspiracy and by the commencement of a
vindictive prosecution by a prosecutor.
Contained herein is only the facts and the case law surrounding vindictive prosecution.
The defense cannot, in good faith proceed by waiving any constitutionally secured rights and the Honorable court cannot rule on issues that are not properly before it. The Prosecution has deliberately failed to rise to minimal standards of professional performance and has knowingly and intentionally impeded and obstructed justice in order to gain an unfair advantage in the Prosecution of defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors USA v. Neighbors 07-20124-01-02 KHV/DJW. The petitioner has been repeatedly intentionally and selectively singled out for prosecution on matters that the STATE has shown no compelling interest in, and no probable cause for action.
A bad faith prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or discourage the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 743 F.Supp. 15.
It is exceedingly clear that the Government is presently engaged in an on-going and continuing malicious, vindictive and retaliatory prosecution of the petitioner in order to unlawfully gain an advantage in a sealed civil action of a third party that has resulted from the abuse of authority by officials and civil rights violations of a witness connected to this investigation.
----------------------------------------------
1. Vindictive prosecution” occurs when government penalizes a person merely because he has exercised a
protected statutory or constitutional right. U.S. v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928, appeal after remand 168 F.3d 503.
2. In determining whether an indictment posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was
whether the situation presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a possibility that the defendant might be deterred from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300.
3. To establish vindictive prosecution, defendant must show that prosecutor has some persona “stake” in
deterring defendant” exercise of his constitutional rights, and that prosecutor’s conduct was unreasonable. U.S. v. Wells, 211 F.3d 988, 2000 Fed.App. 161P.
4. Prosecutor’s charging decision does not impose improper “penalty” on defendant unless it results from
defendant’s exercise of protected legal right, as opposed to prosecutor’s normal assessment of social interests to be vindicated by prosecution. U.S. v. Taylor, 749 F.2d 1511.
The defendants believes, and therefore alleges, that AUSA Marietta Parker, has suborned various witnesses through harassment, the bribery of deals and offering payment up to $80, to commit perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 & 1622 before a Federal Grand Jury. Person’s known and unknown to the defendants; including but not limited to wit: testimony by Patrick Nieder Who stated under oath the defendant had trafficked $30,000 in Guns drugs for him, but did not know the defendant’s first name. And James P. Ludwig, who falsely testified that the defendants busy store Yellow House Appliances, while open to the public, openly displayed packaged drugs in the form of “green hairy balls” in full view behind the counter. Statement of facts given through the testimony of Postal Inspector David Nitz under oath during an evidentiary hearing 11-05-2007 before the Honorable Judge Lungstrum.
FATALLY FLAWED INDICTMENT
An indictment returned by a legally constituted grand jury may not
be challenged on the ground of inadequate or incompetent evidence,
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956), and may not be
dismissed for errors in the grand jury proceedings* which do not prej-
udice the defendant. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S.
250, 257 (1988). However, an indictment may be challenged on the
grounds of constitutional error and prosecutorial misconduct. United
States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 486 (4th Cir. 1993).
Perjured testimony and suppressed evidence constitute due process violations. The rights of the accused were violated when the prosecution offered perjured testimony and withheld evidence favorable to the accused. DeLuzio v. People, 177 Colo. 389, 494 P.2d 589 (1972)
5. Fifth Amendment prohibits Government from prosecuting defendant because of some specific animus or
ill will on prosecutor’s part or to punish defendant for exercising legally protected statutory or constitutional right.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, rehearing denied, mandate recalled and corrected 957 F.2d 301, appeal after remand 67 F.3d 641, opinion modified on denial of rehearing 74 F.3d. 152.
Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors believes, and therefore alleges, that in order to secure an Indictment in Federal Court on circumstantial evidence, absent of any compelling physical evidence beyond mere hearsay, AUSA Prosecutor Marietta Parker knowingly and intentionally conspired and colluded with Patrick Nieder and James P Ludwig to commit perjury under oath before the Federal Grand Jury, which therefore constitutes State and Federal Crimes, in conspiracy.
CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. §371: makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a “conspiracy” is an agreement or a kind of “partnership” in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member); and prima facie intentional and malevolent violation of Ethical Rule 8.4 (c).
The Prosecutor AUSA Marietta Parker retaliated against the defendants with a superseding indictment that was filed 02-27-2008. Piling up additional charges to the fatally flawed Indictment, on top of the existing charges without any new incidents or additional evidence, in a vindictive move to Moot the defense’s motion to dismiss the Lis Pendens that had been placed against the defendants property .
6. “Vindictive prosecution” occurs when a prosecutor brings additional charges solely to punish the
defendant for exercising a constitutional or statutory right, such as a defendant’s right to a jury trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6 U.S. v. VanDoren, 182 F.3d 1077.
7. Prosecution is “”vindictive” and violates due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant because he has done something the law plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual vindictiveness require objective evidence of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274.
The defense alleges the prosecution has continually violated the right of due process of the law in retaliation for the defendants exercising their Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, requests for speedy trial, submission of formal complaints, and to “limit the liability” in the related Sealed Civil action by a witness.
LEGAL STATEMENT
The first step is the establishment of the “basic, primary, or historical facts: facts ‘in the sense of a recital
of external events and the credibility of their narrators. . . ‘” Townsend v. Sain 372 U.S. 293, 309 n. 6, 83 S.Ct.745,755 n.6, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) (quoting Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 506, 73 S.Ct. 397, 446, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953)(opinion of Frankfurter, J.)).
The second step is the selection of the applicable rule of law.
The third step – and the most troublesome for standard of review purposes – is the application of the law
to fact or, in other words, the determination “whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790 n. 19, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
[2] The district court’s resolution of each of these inquires is, of course, subject to appellate review. The
appropriate standard of review for the first two of the district court’s determinations – its establishment of historical facts and its selection of the relevant legal principle – has long been settled. Questions of fact are reviewed under the deferential, clearly erroneous standard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Questions of law are reviewed under the nondeferential, de novo standard. See, e.g., U.S. v. One Twin Engine Been Airplane, 533 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.1976); Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F2d 104, 115 (9th Cir.1962). These established rules reflect the policy concerns that properly underlie standard of review jurisprudence generally. Thus, because the application of law to fact will generally require the consideration of legal principles, the concerns of judicial administration will usually favor the appellate court, and most mixed questions will be reviewed independently. This is particularly true when the mixed question involves constitutional rights.
Accordingly, I would be content to rest the debate that has for so long engaged this court upon a statement
made by the Supreme Court, to which we look for leadership in such matters:
“While this Court does not sit as in nisi prius to appraise contradictory factual questions, it will, where
necessary to the determination of constitutional rights, make an independent examination of the facts, the findings, and the record so that it can determine for itself whether in the decision as to reasonableness the fundamental – i.e.,
constitutional – criteria established by this Court have been respected. . .” Ker v. California, 374 U.S. at 34, 83 S.Ct. at 1630. [United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d. 1195 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).]
A defendant alleging vindictive prosecution has the burden of showing an appearance of vindictiveness. The appearance gives rise to a presumption of vindictiveness. Whether there is an appearance of vindictiveness is a question of fact reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Clay, 925 F.2d 299, 302 (9th Cir. 1991). Once that fact is established, whether the presumption arises is a question of law reviewed de novo.
The Prosecutor in this case, U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker has continued to pile on charges and Indictments followed by selectively abusive arrests, searches, civil rights violations, theft of defendants property, incarceration and violation of the Constitutional right of due process of law using statutes that the defendants charges due not qualify for and which the evidence would not merit a trial conviction, brought forth in retaliation for the defendants exercising of the constitutionally secured right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievance.
8. “Stalking Horse” Marietta Parker Prosecutor for the DISTRICT OF KANSAS US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE by and through abuse of power has
has been prevailed upon by conspiracy with law enforcement officers Jay Bialek, Micky Rantz, FBI Special Agent Walter Robert Schaefer “Bob Shaefer,” Postal Inspector David Nitz, IRS Agent Robert Jackson, KU Detective Michael Riner and Police Chief Ronald Olin, to convert the lawful statutes into purposes of commencing and conducting an unlawful retaliatory prosecution known in legal fiction as UNITED STATES V. GUY NEIGHBORS AND CARRIE NEIGHBORS CASE cr-20124-CM-JPO
9. Successful assertions of vindictive prosecution are most common where defendant advances some
procedural or constitutional right and is then punished for doing so. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 U.s. v. Lanoue, 137 F3d 656.
10. Prosecution is “vindictive” and violates due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant because he has
done something the law plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual vindictiveness requires objective evidence of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend 5 U.S. v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274.
11. Prosecution is “vindictive” and violation of due process if undertaken to punish person because he has
done what law plainly allows him to do; filing of indictment may in some instances be basis for such a claim. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Polland, 994 F.2d 1262.
MOTIVE
After executing the search of defendants Home and Business December 5, 2005, The search of the home located at 1104 Andover was executed without a valid search warrant at 9 am. After finding the room with the plants the officers got a “piggy back” warrant to cover-up for the fact no valid warrant was used to enter the property. This can be verified through an evidence hearing and a disclosure of documents. Valuable property was seized in violation of the search warrant, the seized property was improperly recorded, handled, some items never made it to the evidence custodian, and it was later disclosed to the defendants “three high-end laptops that the police agreed to return to the defendants were missing from the evidence room.”The seized property has been held indefinitely for nearly 4 years (since 2005), in violation of due process of law, affording the defendants a right to a hearing before a Judge to determine what property should be held as evidence and what property should have been returned to the defendants.
If the Lawrence Kansas Police officers under the direction of Police Chief Ronald Olin involved with the execution of the search was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated the Fourth Article in Amendment by an unlawful search and seizure, they would be criminally and civilly liable for $50,000 per day for theft of Petitioner’s lawful private registered property a standard administrative protocol commonly used by modern quasi-judicial tribunals and administrative agencies of the government to establish facts
prior to adjudication.
12. Although prosecutor’s discretion as to whom to charge is particularly ill-suited to judicial review, discretion
is not unfettered and decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon unjustifiable standards such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights, and prosecutor may not select individual for prosecution solely because of exercise of rights under the First Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Hunt v. Tucker, 875 F.Supp. 1487, affirmed 93 F.3d 735.
A prosecution based entirely upon an intentional and deliberate mis-construction and erroneous
application of the statutes creating a legal impossibility and having no remote chance of prosecutorial success before a jury is ipso facto “unreasonable” and constitutes a prima facie“ vindictive prosecution.” Such a wild, erratic departure from acceptable prosecutorial practice cannot possibly be normal or usual business. The vast resources and finances expended in this vindictive prosecution must also raise “red flags” in the mind of any reasonable person. What would a Prosecutor hope to gain, what great social evil would she strive to prevent? Before this case the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors were foster parents for 9 years to over 24 children, had been matched with a child through the Big Brother program for 10 years, had deep community involvement including working with the homeless, and ran their successful business in the community for 23 years. Had no prior history of criminal involvement of any kind. The simple answer is that this is a retaliatory prosecution.
The undeniable fact that the UNITED STATES US ATTORNEY MARIETTA PARKER is
prosecuting case #CR-20124-CM against the Petitioner and in doing so continues defending and conspiring with STATE actors in Federal Civil Rights violations against the defendants establishes a prima facie conflict of interest and a credible motive for a vindictive prosecution.
13. In determining whether an indictment posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was
whether the situation presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a possibility that the defendant might be deterred from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300.
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
There is no doubt that numerous GOVERNMENT AGENCIES have a “vested
interest in the outcome” of this case. There is no doubt that the ACTING US ATTORNEY FOR THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Marietta Parker,
has a conflict of interest in continuing the prosecution of this case, based on the mere fact that the defense has been severely prejudiced by the fact all the formal complaints by the Neighbors and the witnesses that were turned into the Internal Affairs for color of law violations and civil rights violations involving all cases and actions in this investigation have been forwarded to Marietta Parkers office at the Department of Justice. Complaints that should have been investigated by a third disinterested party were instead being used by the Prosecutor against the defendants for retaliation and cover-up purposes.
The obvious conflict of interest cannot be ignored.
The open and unconcealed pernicious and egregious prosecutorial vindictiveness in this instant matter justifies the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice,
Defendants respectfully ask this Honorable court for the dismissal of the Indictment USA v. Neighbors 07-20124-01-02-khv, cr-20073-CM. “EBay case” including the superseding indictment.
A trial court may grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to CrR 8.3 (b) if there has been any arbitrary action or governmental misconduct resulting in prejudice to the rights of the accused which materially affect the accuser’s right to a fair trial. Or upon denial of the dismissal of the fatally flawed Indictment, the defense formally requests an evidentiary hearing and further request that all the transcripts and discovery presented to the Grand Jury by the Prosecutor be made available to the defense.
Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for considerations by Pro-se Defendant petitioners Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors.
Whenever any person is required to take an oath before
he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or
business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for
any person employed to administer the oath to administer
it in the following form: The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD
Petitioners believes and therefore asserts that the above titled case has been brought before the
Honorable Court by FRAUD in a mis-construction of statutes, by perjured testimony, by deprivations of constitutionally secured due process, conspiracy and by the commencement of a
vindictive prosecution by a prosecutor.
Contained herein is only the facts and the case law surrounding vindictive prosecution.
The defense cannot, in good faith proceed by waiving any constitutionally secured rights and the Honorable court cannot rule on issues that are not properly before it. The Prosecution has deliberately failed to rise to minimal standards of professional performance and has knowingly and intentionally impeded and obstructed justice in order to gain an unfair advantage in the Prosecution of defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors USA v. Neighbors 07-20124-01-02 KHV/DJW. The petitioner has been repeatedly intentionally and selectively singled out for prosecution on matters that the STATE has shown no compelling interest in, and no probable cause for action.
A bad faith prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or discourage the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 743 F.Supp. 15.
It is exceedingly clear that the Government is presently engaged in an on-going and continuing malicious, vindictive and retaliatory prosecution of the petitioner in order to unlawfully gain an advantage in a sealed civil action of a third party that has resulted from the abuse of authority by officials and civil rights violations of a witness connected to this investigation.
----------------------------------------------
1. Vindictive prosecution” occurs when government penalizes a person merely because he has exercised a
protected statutory or constitutional right. U.S. v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928, appeal after remand 168 F.3d 503.
2. In determining whether an indictment posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was
whether the situation presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a possibility that the defendant might be deterred from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300.
3. To establish vindictive prosecution, defendant must show that prosecutor has some persona “stake” in
deterring defendant” exercise of his constitutional rights, and that prosecutor’s conduct was unreasonable. U.S. v. Wells, 211 F.3d 988, 2000 Fed.App. 161P.
4. Prosecutor’s charging decision does not impose improper “penalty” on defendant unless it results from
defendant’s exercise of protected legal right, as opposed to prosecutor’s normal assessment of social interests to be vindicated by prosecution. U.S. v. Taylor, 749 F.2d 1511.
The defendants believes, and therefore alleges, that AUSA Marietta Parker, has suborned various witnesses through harassment, the bribery of deals and offering payment up to $80, to commit perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 & 1622 before a Federal Grand Jury. Person’s known and unknown to the defendants; including but not limited to wit: testimony by Patrick Nieder Who stated under oath the defendant had trafficked $30,000 in Guns drugs for him, but did not know the defendant’s first name. And James P. Ludwig, who falsely testified that the defendants busy store Yellow House Appliances, while open to the public, openly displayed packaged drugs in the form of “green hairy balls” in full view behind the counter. Statement of facts given through the testimony of Postal Inspector David Nitz under oath during an evidentiary hearing 11-05-2007 before the Honorable Judge Lungstrum.
FATALLY FLAWED INDICTMENT
An indictment returned by a legally constituted grand jury may not
be challenged on the ground of inadequate or incompetent evidence,
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956), and may not be
dismissed for errors in the grand jury proceedings* which do not prej-
udice the defendant. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S.
250, 257 (1988). However, an indictment may be challenged on the
grounds of constitutional error and prosecutorial misconduct. United
States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 486 (4th Cir. 1993).
Perjured testimony and suppressed evidence constitute due process violations. The rights of the accused were violated when the prosecution offered perjured testimony and withheld evidence favorable to the accused. DeLuzio v. People, 177 Colo. 389, 494 P.2d 589 (1972)
5. Fifth Amendment prohibits Government from prosecuting defendant because of some specific animus or
ill will on prosecutor’s part or to punish defendant for exercising legally protected statutory or constitutional right.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, rehearing denied, mandate recalled and corrected 957 F.2d 301, appeal after remand 67 F.3d 641, opinion modified on denial of rehearing 74 F.3d. 152.
Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors believes, and therefore alleges, that in order to secure an Indictment in Federal Court on circumstantial evidence, absent of any compelling physical evidence beyond mere hearsay, AUSA Prosecutor Marietta Parker knowingly and intentionally conspired and colluded with Patrick Nieder and James P Ludwig to commit perjury under oath before the Federal Grand Jury, which therefore constitutes State and Federal Crimes, in conspiracy.
CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. §371: makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a “conspiracy” is an agreement or a kind of “partnership” in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member); and prima facie intentional and malevolent violation of Ethical Rule 8.4 (c).
The Prosecutor AUSA Marietta Parker retaliated against the defendants with a superseding indictment that was filed 02-27-2008. Piling up additional charges to the fatally flawed Indictment, on top of the existing charges without any new incidents or additional evidence, in a vindictive move to Moot the defense’s motion to dismiss the Lis Pendens that had been placed against the defendants property .
6. “Vindictive prosecution” occurs when a prosecutor brings additional charges solely to punish the
defendant for exercising a constitutional or statutory right, such as a defendant’s right to a jury trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6 U.S. v. VanDoren, 182 F.3d 1077.
7. Prosecution is “”vindictive” and violates due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant because he has done something the law plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual vindictiveness require objective evidence of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274.
The defense alleges the prosecution has continually violated the right of due process of the law in retaliation for the defendants exercising their Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, requests for speedy trial, submission of formal complaints, and to “limit the liability” in the related Sealed Civil action by a witness.
LEGAL STATEMENT
The first step is the establishment of the “basic, primary, or historical facts: facts ‘in the sense of a recital
of external events and the credibility of their narrators. . . ‘” Townsend v. Sain 372 U.S. 293, 309 n. 6, 83 S.Ct.745,755 n.6, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) (quoting Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 506, 73 S.Ct. 397, 446, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953)(opinion of Frankfurter, J.)).
The second step is the selection of the applicable rule of law.
The third step – and the most troublesome for standard of review purposes – is the application of the law
to fact or, in other words, the determination “whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790 n. 19, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
[2] The district court’s resolution of each of these inquires is, of course, subject to appellate review. The
appropriate standard of review for the first two of the district court’s determinations – its establishment of historical facts and its selection of the relevant legal principle – has long been settled. Questions of fact are reviewed under the deferential, clearly erroneous standard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Questions of law are reviewed under the nondeferential, de novo standard. See, e.g., U.S. v. One Twin Engine Been Airplane, 533 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.1976); Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F2d 104, 115 (9th Cir.1962). These established rules reflect the policy concerns that properly underlie standard of review jurisprudence generally. Thus, because the application of law to fact will generally require the consideration of legal principles, the concerns of judicial administration will usually favor the appellate court, and most mixed questions will be reviewed independently. This is particularly true when the mixed question involves constitutional rights.
Accordingly, I would be content to rest the debate that has for so long engaged this court upon a statement
made by the Supreme Court, to which we look for leadership in such matters:
“While this Court does not sit as in nisi prius to appraise contradictory factual questions, it will, where
necessary to the determination of constitutional rights, make an independent examination of the facts, the findings, and the record so that it can determine for itself whether in the decision as to reasonableness the fundamental – i.e.,
constitutional – criteria established by this Court have been respected. . .” Ker v. California, 374 U.S. at 34, 83 S.Ct. at 1630. [United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d. 1195 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).]
A defendant alleging vindictive prosecution has the burden of showing an appearance of vindictiveness. The appearance gives rise to a presumption of vindictiveness. Whether there is an appearance of vindictiveness is a question of fact reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Clay, 925 F.2d 299, 302 (9th Cir. 1991). Once that fact is established, whether the presumption arises is a question of law reviewed de novo.
The Prosecutor in this case, U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker has continued to pile on charges and Indictments followed by selectively abusive arrests, searches, civil rights violations, theft of defendants property, incarceration and violation of the Constitutional right of due process of law using statutes that the defendants charges due not qualify for and which the evidence would not merit a trial conviction, brought forth in retaliation for the defendants exercising of the constitutionally secured right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievance.
8. “Stalking Horse” Marietta Parker Prosecutor for the DISTRICT OF KANSAS US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE by and through abuse of power has
has been prevailed upon by conspiracy with law enforcement officers Jay Bialek, Micky Rantz, FBI Special Agent Walter Robert Schaefer “Bob Shaefer,” Postal Inspector David Nitz, IRS Agent Robert Jackson, KU Detective Michael Riner and Police Chief Ronald Olin, to convert the lawful statutes into purposes of commencing and conducting an unlawful retaliatory prosecution known in legal fiction as UNITED STATES V. GUY NEIGHBORS AND CARRIE NEIGHBORS CASE cr-20124-CM-JPO
9. Successful assertions of vindictive prosecution are most common where defendant advances some
procedural or constitutional right and is then punished for doing so. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 U.s. v. Lanoue, 137 F3d 656.
10. Prosecution is “vindictive” and violates due process if it is undertaken to punish defendant because he has
done something the law plainly allows him to do; thus, showing of actual vindictiveness requires objective evidence of some kind of genuine prosecutorial malice. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend 5 U.S. v. Porter, 23 F.3d 1274.
11. Prosecution is “vindictive” and violation of due process if undertaken to punish person because he has
done what law plainly allows him to do; filing of indictment may in some instances be basis for such a claim. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. U.S. v. Polland, 994 F.2d 1262.
MOTIVE
After executing the search of defendants Home and Business December 5, 2005, The search of the home located at 1104 Andover was executed without a valid search warrant at 9 am. After finding the room with the plants the officers got a “piggy back” warrant to cover-up for the fact no valid warrant was used to enter the property. This can be verified through an evidence hearing and a disclosure of documents. Valuable property was seized in violation of the search warrant, the seized property was improperly recorded, handled, some items never made it to the evidence custodian, and it was later disclosed to the defendants “three high-end laptops that the police agreed to return to the defendants were missing from the evidence room.”The seized property has been held indefinitely for nearly 4 years (since 2005), in violation of due process of law, affording the defendants a right to a hearing before a Judge to determine what property should be held as evidence and what property should have been returned to the defendants.
If the Lawrence Kansas Police officers under the direction of Police Chief Ronald Olin involved with the execution of the search was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated the Fourth Article in Amendment by an unlawful search and seizure, they would be criminally and civilly liable for $50,000 per day for theft of Petitioner’s lawful private registered property a standard administrative protocol commonly used by modern quasi-judicial tribunals and administrative agencies of the government to establish facts
prior to adjudication.
12. Although prosecutor’s discretion as to whom to charge is particularly ill-suited to judicial review, discretion
is not unfettered and decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon unjustifiable standards such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights, and prosecutor may not select individual for prosecution solely because of exercise of rights under the First Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Hunt v. Tucker, 875 F.Supp. 1487, affirmed 93 F.3d 735.
A prosecution based entirely upon an intentional and deliberate mis-construction and erroneous
application of the statutes creating a legal impossibility and having no remote chance of prosecutorial success before a jury is ipso facto “unreasonable” and constitutes a prima facie“ vindictive prosecution.” Such a wild, erratic departure from acceptable prosecutorial practice cannot possibly be normal or usual business. The vast resources and finances expended in this vindictive prosecution must also raise “red flags” in the mind of any reasonable person. What would a Prosecutor hope to gain, what great social evil would she strive to prevent? Before this case the defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors were foster parents for 9 years to over 24 children, had been matched with a child through the Big Brother program for 10 years, had deep community involvement including working with the homeless, and ran their successful business in the community for 23 years. Had no prior history of criminal involvement of any kind. The simple answer is that this is a retaliatory prosecution.
The undeniable fact that the UNITED STATES US ATTORNEY MARIETTA PARKER is
prosecuting case #CR-20124-CM against the Petitioner and in doing so continues defending and conspiring with STATE actors in Federal Civil Rights violations against the defendants establishes a prima facie conflict of interest and a credible motive for a vindictive prosecution.
13. In determining whether an indictment posed a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, the question was
whether the situation presented a reasonable likelihood of danger that the state might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right, not whether there was a possibility that the defendant might be deterred from exercising a legal right. U.S. v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300.
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
There is no doubt that numerous GOVERNMENT AGENCIES have a “vested
interest in the outcome” of this case. There is no doubt that the ACTING US ATTORNEY FOR THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Marietta Parker,
has a conflict of interest in continuing the prosecution of this case, based on the mere fact that the defense has been severely prejudiced by the fact all the formal complaints by the Neighbors and the witnesses that were turned into the Internal Affairs for color of law violations and civil rights violations involving all cases and actions in this investigation have been forwarded to Marietta Parkers office at the Department of Justice. Complaints that should have been investigated by a third disinterested party were instead being used by the Prosecutor against the defendants for retaliation and cover-up purposes.
The obvious conflict of interest cannot be ignored.
The open and unconcealed pernicious and egregious prosecutorial vindictiveness in this instant matter justifies the severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice,
Defendants respectfully ask this Honorable court for the dismissal of the Indictment USA v. Neighbors 07-20124-01-02-khv, cr-20073-CM. “EBay case” including the superseding indictment.
A trial court may grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to CrR 8.3 (b) if there has been any arbitrary action or governmental misconduct resulting in prejudice to the rights of the accused which materially affect the accuser’s right to a fair trial. Or upon denial of the dismissal of the fatally flawed Indictment, the defense formally requests an evidentiary hearing and further request that all the transcripts and discovery presented to the Grand Jury by the Prosecutor be made available to the defense.
Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for considerations by Pro-se Defendant petitioners Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors.
Whenever any person is required to take an oath before
he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or
business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for
any person employed to administer the oath to administer
it in the following form: The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD
lACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
MOTION TO DISMISS OR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
BASED UPON FOURTH AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS , LACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION
Comes now Guy Neighbors defendant pro-se in a hybrid motion, a Constitutional right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to respectfully ask this Honorable court to dismiss Indictment USA v. Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors case 07-20073-01/02-jwl/djw, or request an evidentiary based on Constitutional Civil Rights violations, and Lack of Agency Jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND:
On December 2rd, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts. Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Drug taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States Postal Service and IRS also executed a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104 Andover. (The warrantless illegal search allegation is securely supported by documentation which the defendants are prepared to provide through an evidentiary hearing)
Upon discovery at the residence of several small plants in a back room of the residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so called “piggy back” warrant signed by Judge Stephen Six, at 1:30 pm that afternoon. Legally A “Piggy back” warrant would not have been necessary since the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the searches.
Also seized from the residence and poorly documented were the defendants legal valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and under Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe.
(One year later) On December 7th, 2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service, and the IRS, headed by IRS Agent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from the IRS, for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges,( based on the original search and absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at 1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and attending police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC, Sec. 846.
On the 21st day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrum dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution.
Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to wit; KBI, DEA, FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in the investigation or arrests.
LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and Carrie Neighbors request that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice, and that the arrest for the Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law. In other cases involving the application of Kansas Statute, it was held that assistance by authorities possessing jurisdiction can serve to validate a search, even if the officers acting outside their jurisdiction also participate. See See United States v. Price , 75 F.3d 1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti , 998 F.2d 791, 798-99 (10th Cir. 1993). However that was not the case in Neighbors V USA because no officer or agent with jurisdiction over the statutes was present during the search or arrest.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The scope of this protection extends to any area in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the Fourth Amendment provides that all warrants shall be based upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:
The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C. fj 3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail"). That grant of authority is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal offenses" and the enforcement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(l)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
powers of Postal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and inspectors of the USPS-OIG, referring to both as "Postal Inspectors." Id. 5 233.1(a). While recognizing their common authority to enforce laws related to the mails, the section circumscribes the primary responsibility of the USPS-OIG and the USPIS:
(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph
(a) of this section shall be exercised only--
(1) In the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of
the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails,
and other postal offenses. With the exception of enforcing laws
related to the mails:
(i) The Office of Inspector General will investigate all
allegations of violations of postal laws or misconduct by postal
employees, including mail theft; and
(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of
violations of postal laws or misconduct by all other persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST
9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
IRS Agent Authority to Arrest
The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 26 USC §7608.
This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States; to make arrests with or without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the Internal Revenue laws that is committed in his/her presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony
9.1.2.2 (01-16-2008)
General Authority to Enforce Internal Revenue Laws and Related Statutes
1. Title 26 United States Code (USC) §7608(b) provides the initial authority for investigating crimes arising under the Internal Revenue laws. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). The repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath, was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement. Therefore fruits from any searches should be suppressed see United States v. Pennington , 635 F.2d 1387, 1389-91 (10th Cir. 1980).
Constitutional rights are not amenable to compromise.
Jurisdictions, authority and codes of investigating agencies is set forth to protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the State officers and Federal Agents were acting outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation, any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241.
Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating within the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one’s oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore Guy Neighbors respectfully requests the termination of the case, the suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for considerations by Pro-se Defendant
petitioner Carrie Neighbors.
Signed_______________________dated___________________
Whenever any person is required to take an oath before
he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or
business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for
any person employed to administer the oath to administer
it in the following form: The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD
BASED UPON FOURTH AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS , LACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION
Comes now Guy Neighbors defendant pro-se in a hybrid motion, a Constitutional right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to respectfully ask this Honorable court to dismiss Indictment USA v. Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors case 07-20073-01/02-jwl/djw, or request an evidentiary based on Constitutional Civil Rights violations, and Lack of Agency Jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND:
On December 2rd, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts. Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Drug taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States Postal Service and IRS also executed a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104 Andover. (The warrantless illegal search allegation is securely supported by documentation which the defendants are prepared to provide through an evidentiary hearing)
Upon discovery at the residence of several small plants in a back room of the residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so called “piggy back” warrant signed by Judge Stephen Six, at 1:30 pm that afternoon. Legally A “Piggy back” warrant would not have been necessary since the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the searches.
Also seized from the residence and poorly documented were the defendants legal valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and under Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe.
(One year later) On December 7th, 2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service, and the IRS, headed by IRS Agent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from the IRS, for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges,( based on the original search and absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at 1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and attending police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC, Sec. 846.
On the 21st day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrum dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution.
Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to wit; KBI, DEA, FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in the investigation or arrests.
LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and Carrie Neighbors request that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice, and that the arrest for the Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law. In other cases involving the application of Kansas Statute, it was held that assistance by authorities possessing jurisdiction can serve to validate a search, even if the officers acting outside their jurisdiction also participate. See See United States v. Price , 75 F.3d 1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti , 998 F.2d 791, 798-99 (10th Cir. 1993). However that was not the case in Neighbors V USA because no officer or agent with jurisdiction over the statutes was present during the search or arrest.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The scope of this protection extends to any area in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the Fourth Amendment provides that all warrants shall be based upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:
The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C. fj 3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail"). That grant of authority is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal offenses" and the enforcement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(l)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
powers of Postal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and inspectors of the USPS-OIG, referring to both as "Postal Inspectors." Id. 5 233.1(a). While recognizing their common authority to enforce laws related to the mails, the section circumscribes the primary responsibility of the USPS-OIG and the USPIS:
(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph
(a) of this section shall be exercised only--
(1) In the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of
the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails,
and other postal offenses. With the exception of enforcing laws
related to the mails:
(i) The Office of Inspector General will investigate all
allegations of violations of postal laws or misconduct by postal
employees, including mail theft; and
(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of
violations of postal laws or misconduct by all other persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST
9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
IRS Agent Authority to Arrest
The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 26 USC §7608.
This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States; to make arrests with or without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the Internal Revenue laws that is committed in his/her presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony
9.1.2.2 (01-16-2008)
General Authority to Enforce Internal Revenue Laws and Related Statutes
1. Title 26 United States Code (USC) §7608(b) provides the initial authority for investigating crimes arising under the Internal Revenue laws. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). The repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath, was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement. Therefore fruits from any searches should be suppressed see United States v. Pennington , 635 F.2d 1387, 1389-91 (10th Cir. 1980).
Constitutional rights are not amenable to compromise.
Jurisdictions, authority and codes of investigating agencies is set forth to protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the State officers and Federal Agents were acting outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation, any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241.
Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating within the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one’s oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore Guy Neighbors respectfully requests the termination of the case, the suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for considerations by Pro-se Defendant
petitioner Carrie Neighbors.
Signed_______________________dated___________________
Whenever any person is required to take an oath before
he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or
business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for
any person employed to administer the oath to administer
it in the following form: The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD
Sunday, November 30, 2008
CORRUPTION AND COVER-UP IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE
According to the Federal Criminal Resource manual, A Federal investigation that leads to a Federal Indictment, should be handled by the Agency or Bureau that has Jurisdiction over the Statutes assigned by citation.
According to the Federal Criminal Resource manual, an investigation into Federal offenses involving money laundering, fencing, drug and gun charges, would fall under the Jurisdiction of the FBI. The FBI then delegates agencies with Jurisdiction over specific statutes to assist in the investigation. To wit; Postal Inspector for mail fraud and IRS for financial crimes.
The FBI begins the Federal level investigation by initially gathering the details of information from the police, decides if the details of the crime would merit a Federal level investigation and takes the information to the Attorney General. The Attorney General and the FBI present the Federal Prosecutor with the evidence and the Federal Prosecutor must determine if a case merits a Federal Prosecution, and what Federal statutes of law merits a Federal level prosecution.
BACKGROUND OF FACTS:
In the Yellow House case, the local Police department began the investigation November 2005 as a State level case with the assistance of the IRS and Postal Inspectors office.
After one month of investigation by two LKPD patrol officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz, on December 2, 2005 the local Police assisted by Sheriffs deputies, District Attorneys, Drug enforcement task force, Postal Inspectors, and IRS agents executed an illegal unwarranted search of the defendants home, violated the legal search warrant of the business, tried to cover-up for the lack of a search warrant at the residence by acquiring a "Piggy back warrant" midway through the search.
THE NEED FOR COVER-UP:
Dec. 3, the Lawrence Police Departments Internal Affairs Sgt. Dan Ward made defaming false allegations to the media about details of the case, allegations of wrong doing, estimated dollar amounts of the crime, the defendants presumed guilt and publicly labeled the defendants business as "the largest most sophisticated fencing organization ever in the history of Lawrence". All in violation of Departments Procedure and Policy. The local District Attorneys office declined to press State charges or be involved in the case.
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY LEADS TO CORRUPTION:
There is no citizen review board in Lawrence for individuals to express grievances about the actions of the Police department. The City Manager, City Counsel and Internal Affairs do not handle complaints of police misconduct in connection to ongoing investigations. The complaints the Yellow House business owners turned in to LKPD Internal Affairs were forwarded to the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker.
THE SCHEME:
As a favor to the Police Chief Ron Olin, The Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker accepted the State case being investigated by two Patrol officers for Federal Prosecution. To cover-up for the fact the FBI was not involved in the investigation, documentation shows she allegedly had the two patrol officers stage the appearance of an FBI investigation by insinuating to various individuals that the FBI was involved in the investigation, telling witnesses they were being filmed by FBI surveillance, investigated or questioned by FBI agents.
In response to the formal complaint by the defendants that LKPD officers were posing as FBI agents. The Prosecutor Marietta Parker sent down Kansas City FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer ie: "Walter Robert Schaefer" to stage an investigation and clear the Police Department of any wrong doing. Even though the Topeka FBI is the resident agency with Jurisdiction over Lawrence matters.
The same day the police are cleared by Kansas City FBI Agent "Bob Shaefer" in retaliation for the defendants complaints, the Prosecutor Marietta Parker had local police officers assisted by the Postal Inspectors and the IRS execute two more search warrants on the defendants business and home, which entailed the seizure of more merchandise, the seizure of the copies of the same business records the police had given the business 6 month prior,(since the originals were still being detained from the original search warrant in 2005) and personal computers,and ipods of the entire family.
In October 2006 LKPD officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz violated the Constitutional right of the defendants to have counsel during questioning and violated the chain of evidence rule by returning seized evidence without proper procedure.
In response to the defendants filing a complaint that was forwarded to the Prosecutor Marietta Parker, the US Attorney's office had the Postal Inspector David Nitz and IRS Agent Robert Jackson arrest the Neighbors for for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
Arrests by the Postal inspector who according to Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations only has jurisdiction over cases involving the mails, and IRS Agent whose general authority is enforcement relating to the Internal Revenue laws and statutes, was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law.
IN CONCLUSION:
The Neighbors allege that the entire Yellow House case is a corrupt State level investigation involving a Federal level Conspiracy that has been ongoing since 2005. This State investigation has resulted in four separate flawed Federal Indictments, absent of an FBI investigation, both defendants being falsely arrested and incarcerated in a Federal Prison for a State case. All four indictments (Two for the same Federal drug and gun charges, one for Ebay case, and one for Obstruction of Justice) were the result of corrupt State level investigations by patrol level police officers, and the Federal arrests were carried out by the Postal Inspector, assisted by the IRS and uniformed officers in conspiracy with the Federal Prosecutor All lacking agency Jurisdiction over the Statutes and codes being enforced.
According to the Federal Criminal Resource manual, an investigation into Federal offenses involving money laundering, fencing, drug and gun charges, would fall under the Jurisdiction of the FBI. The FBI then delegates agencies with Jurisdiction over specific statutes to assist in the investigation. To wit; Postal Inspector for mail fraud and IRS for financial crimes.
The FBI begins the Federal level investigation by initially gathering the details of information from the police, decides if the details of the crime would merit a Federal level investigation and takes the information to the Attorney General. The Attorney General and the FBI present the Federal Prosecutor with the evidence and the Federal Prosecutor must determine if a case merits a Federal Prosecution, and what Federal statutes of law merits a Federal level prosecution.
BACKGROUND OF FACTS:
In the Yellow House case, the local Police department began the investigation November 2005 as a State level case with the assistance of the IRS and Postal Inspectors office.
After one month of investigation by two LKPD patrol officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz, on December 2, 2005 the local Police assisted by Sheriffs deputies, District Attorneys, Drug enforcement task force, Postal Inspectors, and IRS agents executed an illegal unwarranted search of the defendants home, violated the legal search warrant of the business, tried to cover-up for the lack of a search warrant at the residence by acquiring a "Piggy back warrant" midway through the search.
THE NEED FOR COVER-UP:
Dec. 3, the Lawrence Police Departments Internal Affairs Sgt. Dan Ward made defaming false allegations to the media about details of the case, allegations of wrong doing, estimated dollar amounts of the crime, the defendants presumed guilt and publicly labeled the defendants business as "the largest most sophisticated fencing organization ever in the history of Lawrence". All in violation of Departments Procedure and Policy. The local District Attorneys office declined to press State charges or be involved in the case.
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY LEADS TO CORRUPTION:
There is no citizen review board in Lawrence for individuals to express grievances about the actions of the Police department. The City Manager, City Counsel and Internal Affairs do not handle complaints of police misconduct in connection to ongoing investigations. The complaints the Yellow House business owners turned in to LKPD Internal Affairs were forwarded to the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker.
THE SCHEME:
As a favor to the Police Chief Ron Olin, The Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker accepted the State case being investigated by two Patrol officers for Federal Prosecution. To cover-up for the fact the FBI was not involved in the investigation, documentation shows she allegedly had the two patrol officers stage the appearance of an FBI investigation by insinuating to various individuals that the FBI was involved in the investigation, telling witnesses they were being filmed by FBI surveillance, investigated or questioned by FBI agents.
In response to the formal complaint by the defendants that LKPD officers were posing as FBI agents. The Prosecutor Marietta Parker sent down Kansas City FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer ie: "Walter Robert Schaefer" to stage an investigation and clear the Police Department of any wrong doing. Even though the Topeka FBI is the resident agency with Jurisdiction over Lawrence matters.
The same day the police are cleared by Kansas City FBI Agent "Bob Shaefer" in retaliation for the defendants complaints, the Prosecutor Marietta Parker had local police officers assisted by the Postal Inspectors and the IRS execute two more search warrants on the defendants business and home, which entailed the seizure of more merchandise, the seizure of the copies of the same business records the police had given the business 6 month prior,(since the originals were still being detained from the original search warrant in 2005) and personal computers,and ipods of the entire family.
In October 2006 LKPD officers Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz violated the Constitutional right of the defendants to have counsel during questioning and violated the chain of evidence rule by returning seized evidence without proper procedure.
In response to the defendants filing a complaint that was forwarded to the Prosecutor Marietta Parker, the US Attorney's office had the Postal Inspector David Nitz and IRS Agent Robert Jackson arrest the Neighbors for for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
Arrests by the Postal inspector who according to Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations only has jurisdiction over cases involving the mails, and IRS Agent whose general authority is enforcement relating to the Internal Revenue laws and statutes, was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law.
IN CONCLUSION:
The Neighbors allege that the entire Yellow House case is a corrupt State level investigation involving a Federal level Conspiracy that has been ongoing since 2005. This State investigation has resulted in four separate flawed Federal Indictments, absent of an FBI investigation, both defendants being falsely arrested and incarcerated in a Federal Prison for a State case. All four indictments (Two for the same Federal drug and gun charges, one for Ebay case, and one for Obstruction of Justice) were the result of corrupt State level investigations by patrol level police officers, and the Federal arrests were carried out by the Postal Inspector, assisted by the IRS and uniformed officers in conspiracy with the Federal Prosecutor All lacking agency Jurisdiction over the Statutes and codes being enforced.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON
FOURTH AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS , LACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION
Comes now Guy Neighbors defendant pro-se in a hybrid motion, a right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to respectfully ask this Honorable court to dismiss Indictment USA v. Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors case 07-20073-01/02-jwl/djw, or request an evidentiary based on Constitutional Civil Rights violations, and Lack of Agency Jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND:
On December 2rd, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts. Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Drug taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States Postal Service and IRS also executed a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104 Andover. (The warrantless search allegation is securely supported by documentation which the defendants are prepared to make available through an evidentiary hearing)
Upon discovery at the residence of several plants in a back room of the residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so called “piggy back” warrant signed by Judge Stephen Six, at 1:30 pm that afternoon. Legally A “Piggy back” warrant would not have been necessary since the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the searches.
Also seized from the residence and poorly documented was the defendants legal valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and under Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe.
(One year later) On December 7th, 2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service, and the IRS, headed by IRS Agent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from the IRS, for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges,( based on the original search and absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at 1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and attending police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC, Sec. 846.
On the 21st day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrum dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution.
Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to wit; KBI, DEA, FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in the investigation or arrests.
LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and Carrie Neighbors request that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice, and that the arrest for the Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The scope of this protection extends to any area in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the Fourth Amendment provides that all warrants shall be based upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:
The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C. fj 3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail"). That grant of authority is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal offenses" and the enforcement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(l)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
powers of Postal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and inspectors of the USPS-OIG, referring to both as "Postal Inspectors." Id. 5 233.1(a). While recognizing their common authority to enforce laws related to the mails, the section circumscribes the primary responsibility of the USPS-OIG and the USPIS:
(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph
(a) of this section shall be exercised only--
(1) In the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of
the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails,
and other postal offenses. With the exception of enforcing laws
related to the mails:
(i) The Office of Inspector General will investigate all
allegations of violations of postal laws or misconduct by postal
employees, including mail theft; and
(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of
violations of postal laws or misconduct by all other persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST
9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
IRS Agent Authority to Arrest
The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 26 USC §7608.
This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States; to make arrests with or without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the Internal Revenue laws that is committed in his/her presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony
9.1.2.2 (01-16-2008)
General Authority to Enforce Internal Revenue Laws and Related Statutes
1. Title 26 United States Code (USC) §7608(b) provides the initial authority for investigating crimes arising under the Internal Revenue laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). The repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath, was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement.
Constitutional rights are not amenable to compromise.
Jurisdictions, authority and codes of investigating agencies is set forth to protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the officers and agents were acting outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation, any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241.
Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating within the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one’s oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore the Neighbors respectfully request the termination of the case, the suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice.
FOURTH AMENDMENT CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS , LACK OF AGENCY JURISDICTION
Comes now Guy Neighbors defendant pro-se in a hybrid motion, a right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to respectfully ask this Honorable court to dismiss Indictment USA v. Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors case 07-20073-01/02-jwl/djw, or request an evidentiary based on Constitutional Civil Rights violations, and Lack of Agency Jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND:
On December 2rd, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts. Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Drug taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States Postal Service and IRS also executed a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104 Andover. (The warrantless search allegation is securely supported by documentation which the defendants are prepared to make available through an evidentiary hearing)
Upon discovery at the residence of several plants in a back room of the residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so called “piggy back” warrant signed by Judge Stephen Six, at 1:30 pm that afternoon. Legally A “Piggy back” warrant would not have been necessary since the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the searches.
Also seized from the residence and poorly documented was the defendants legal valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and under Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe.
(One year later) On December 7th, 2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service, and the IRS, headed by IRS Agent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from the IRS, for being unlawful users in possession of firearms United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections 922(g)(2) .
The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges,( based on the original search and absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at 1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and attending police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC, Sec. 846.
On the 21st day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrum dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution.
Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to wit; KBI, DEA, FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in the investigation or arrests.
LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and Carrie Neighbors request that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice, and that the arrest for the Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The scope of this protection extends to any area in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the Fourth Amendment provides that all warrants shall be based upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:
The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C. fj 3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail"). That grant of authority is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and other postal offenses" and the enforcement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(l)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
powers of Postal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and inspectors of the USPS-OIG, referring to both as "Postal Inspectors." Id. 5 233.1(a). While recognizing their common authority to enforce laws related to the mails, the section circumscribes the primary responsibility of the USPS-OIG and the USPIS:
(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph
(a) of this section shall be exercised only--
(1) In the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of
the Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails,
and other postal offenses. With the exception of enforcing laws
related to the mails:
(i) The Office of Inspector General will investigate all
allegations of violations of postal laws or misconduct by postal
employees, including mail theft; and
(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of
violations of postal laws or misconduct by all other persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST
9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
IRS Agent Authority to Arrest
The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 26 USC §7608.
This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States; to make arrests with or without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the Internal Revenue laws that is committed in his/her presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony
9.1.2.2 (01-16-2008)
General Authority to Enforce Internal Revenue Laws and Related Statutes
1. Title 26 United States Code (USC) §7608(b) provides the initial authority for investigating crimes arising under the Internal Revenue laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). The repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath, was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement.
Constitutional rights are not amenable to compromise.
Jurisdictions, authority and codes of investigating agencies is set forth to protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the officers and agents were acting outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation, any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241.
Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating within the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one’s oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore the Neighbors respectfully request the termination of the case, the suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice.
Green argues that incriminating evidence from the November and December searches of his house 5 should be suppressed because the WPD officers who investigated him, obtained warrants to search his residence, and executed that warrant were acting outside their jurisdiction. It is evident, and indeed the government does not contest, Appellee's Br. at 11, that the WPD officers were acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law, which provides that
(2) Law enforcement officers employed by any city may exercise their powers as law enforcement officers:
(a) Anywhere within the city limits of the city employing them and outside of such city when on property owned or under the control of such city; and
(a)in any other place when a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from that place or when in fresh pursuit of a person.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2401a(2) (West 1995); see State v. Sodders , 872 P.2d 736, 738-40 (Kan. 1994).
Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1990)
"It is, however, well established in this circuit that `in federal prosecutions the test of reasonableness in relation to the Fourth Amendment protected rights must be determined by Federal law even though the police actions are those of state police officers.'" United States v. Le , -- F. 3d --, --, 1999 WL 176192, at *4 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1999) (quoting United States v. Miller , 452 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir. 1971)). This is because "`the exclusionary rule is only concerned with deterring [federal] Constitutional violations.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Wright , 16 F.3d 1429, 1437 (6th Cir. 1994)). Thus, "the fact that the arrest, search, or seizure may have violated state law is irrelevant as long as the standards developed under the Federal Constitution were not offended." Id. (citation omitted).
Green argues that we have applied state law in past cases where we have considered whether a search was lawful, citing United States v. Richardson , 86 F.3d 1537 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Price , 75 F.3d 1440 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti , 998 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1993); and United States v. Ibarra , 955 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1992). Indeed, in Price and Occhipinti , Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2401a was the state statute at issue. Green, however, misinterprets our cases. In Price , we explained that our discussion regarding whether the Kansas statute was complied with in that case was secondary to the federal constitutional inquiry mandated by the Fourth Amendment. We stated that, in that case, the defendant's argument that the Kansas statute was violated failed in any event, because the officers had not acted in violation of the statute. Price , 75 F.3d at 1443; see also Richardson , 86 F.3d at 1544; Occhipinti , 998 F.2d at 798-99. However, we were careful to point out that even if the Kansas statute had been violated, that would not have ended the inquiry, because "[t]he authority in a federal case for suppressing evidence due to an unlawful search is the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. A violation of state law may or may not form the basis for suppression on Fourth Amendment grounds." Price , 75 F.3d at 1443-44 (citations omitted); cf. Ibarra , 955 F.2d at 1409-10 (conducting a Fourth Amendment inquiry even after finding that the state statute was violated).
In an effort to link the WPD officers' violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Green cites Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, we held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54. That case, however, is distinguishable from the case at hand in one major respect: Ross involved a warrantless arrest outside the arresting officer's jurisdiction. Id. at 1354 (stating that "[a] warrantless arrest outside the arresting officer's jurisdiction is analogous to a warrantless arrest without probable cause" and that "[a]bsent exigent circumstances, such an arrest is presumptively unreasonable"). A warrantless arrest is vastly different from a warranted search. In the case before us, there is no dispute that the WPD officers obtained search warrants from magistrates of the relevant jurisdiction. We decline to extend Ross to the context of warranted searches.
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires only that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). These requirements were clearly met in this case. Green does not contest that probable cause, albeit allegedly tainted by the violation of the Kansas statute, 6 existed to support each of the three challenged searches, including the December search of the van discussed below, see Appellant's Br. at 19, 24, and he has not attempted to argue, either on appeal or before the district court, that the warrants were not sufficiently particular.
In sum, there was no federal constitutional violation in this case. The Fourth Amendment is satisfied where, as here, officers obtain a warrant, grounded in probable cause and phrased with sufficient particularity, from a magistrate of the relevant jurisdiction 7 authorizing them
These issues are not amenable to compromise. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Any attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act is almost certainly a violation of someone's civil rights, and is, therefore, itself a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241. Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, and those who enforce them are criminals. Failure to prosecute such crimes is a violation of one's oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. It may also itself be a criminal act in violation of 18 USC 241.
They state that "The Constitution gave Congress jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.". That's four crimes, not three. "Piracy (and felonies) on the high seas" is a distinct category from "offenses against the laws of nations". The distinction is important, and needs to be better understood.
They neglect to mention that the Fourteenth Amendment added a fifth category: deprivation of civil rights by the State, that is, by agents of government. Although the amendment is not explicit about whether criminal powers were included, the legislative history of the debates on the amendment make it clear that that was intended. The most important federal criminal statutes under this amendment are 18 USC 241, Conspiracy Against Rights, and 18 USC 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and they are constitutional. The amendment does not provide authority to impose criminal sanctions against deprivation of rights by parties who are not government agents.
(2) Law enforcement officers employed by any city may exercise their powers as law enforcement officers:
(a) Anywhere within the city limits of the city employing them and outside of such city when on property owned or under the control of such city; and
(a)in any other place when a request for assistance has been made by law enforcement officers from that place or when in fresh pursuit of a person.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2401a(2) (West 1995); see State v. Sodders , 872 P.2d 736, 738-40 (Kan. 1994).
Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1990)
"It is, however, well established in this circuit that `in federal prosecutions the test of reasonableness in relation to the Fourth Amendment protected rights must be determined by Federal law even though the police actions are those of state police officers.'" United States v. Le , -- F. 3d --, --, 1999 WL 176192, at *4 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1999) (quoting United States v. Miller , 452 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir. 1971)). This is because "`the exclusionary rule is only concerned with deterring [federal] Constitutional violations.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Wright , 16 F.3d 1429, 1437 (6th Cir. 1994)). Thus, "the fact that the arrest, search, or seizure may have violated state law is irrelevant as long as the standards developed under the Federal Constitution were not offended." Id. (citation omitted).
Green argues that we have applied state law in past cases where we have considered whether a search was lawful, citing United States v. Richardson , 86 F.3d 1537 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Price , 75 F.3d 1440 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti , 998 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1993); and United States v. Ibarra , 955 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1992). Indeed, in Price and Occhipinti , Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2401a was the state statute at issue. Green, however, misinterprets our cases. In Price , we explained that our discussion regarding whether the Kansas statute was complied with in that case was secondary to the federal constitutional inquiry mandated by the Fourth Amendment. We stated that, in that case, the defendant's argument that the Kansas statute was violated failed in any event, because the officers had not acted in violation of the statute. Price , 75 F.3d at 1443; see also Richardson , 86 F.3d at 1544; Occhipinti , 998 F.2d at 798-99. However, we were careful to point out that even if the Kansas statute had been violated, that would not have ended the inquiry, because "[t]he authority in a federal case for suppressing evidence due to an unlawful search is the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. A violation of state law may or may not form the basis for suppression on Fourth Amendment grounds." Price , 75 F.3d at 1443-44 (citations omitted); cf. Ibarra , 955 F.2d at 1409-10 (conducting a Fourth Amendment inquiry even after finding that the state statute was violated).
In an effort to link the WPD officers' violation of state statutory law to the Fourth Amendment, Green cites Ross v. Neff , 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990). In that case, we held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment . . . ." Id. at 1353-54. That case, however, is distinguishable from the case at hand in one major respect: Ross involved a warrantless arrest outside the arresting officer's jurisdiction. Id. at 1354 (stating that "[a] warrantless arrest outside the arresting officer's jurisdiction is analogous to a warrantless arrest without probable cause" and that "[a]bsent exigent circumstances, such an arrest is presumptively unreasonable"). A warrantless arrest is vastly different from a warranted search. In the case before us, there is no dispute that the WPD officers obtained search warrants from magistrates of the relevant jurisdiction. We decline to extend Ross to the context of warranted searches.
The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are well established. The Fourth Amendment requires only that the warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v. Wicks , 995 F.2d 964, 972 (10th Cir. 1993). These requirements were clearly met in this case. Green does not contest that probable cause, albeit allegedly tainted by the violation of the Kansas statute, 6 existed to support each of the three challenged searches, including the December search of the van discussed below, see Appellant's Br. at 19, 24, and he has not attempted to argue, either on appeal or before the district court, that the warrants were not sufficiently particular.
In sum, there was no federal constitutional violation in this case. The Fourth Amendment is satisfied where, as here, officers obtain a warrant, grounded in probable cause and phrased with sufficient particularity, from a magistrate of the relevant jurisdiction 7 authorizing them
These issues are not amenable to compromise. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.
Any attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act is almost certainly a violation of someone's civil rights, and is, therefore, itself a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241. Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, and those who enforce them are criminals. Failure to prosecute such crimes is a violation of one's oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. It may also itself be a criminal act in violation of 18 USC 241.
They state that "The Constitution gave Congress jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.". That's four crimes, not three. "Piracy (and felonies) on the high seas" is a distinct category from "offenses against the laws of nations". The distinction is important, and needs to be better understood.
They neglect to mention that the Fourteenth Amendment added a fifth category: deprivation of civil rights by the State, that is, by agents of government. Although the amendment is not explicit about whether criminal powers were included, the legislative history of the debates on the amendment make it clear that that was intended. The most important federal criminal statutes under this amendment are 18 USC 241, Conspiracy Against Rights, and 18 USC 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and they are constitutional. The amendment does not provide authority to impose criminal sanctions against deprivation of rights by parties who are not government agents.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
pro-se right to hyrid defense
6) If the Court decides that it has the right to deny the Respondent
due process by refusing to consider his post trial motions, then the
Judge is refusing to do the work of the Court. If the Judge refuses
to do the work of the Court then he lacks the authority and
immunities of the Court. If the Judge can not or will not perform his
duties as Judge then he is obligated under Law to recuse himself and
get out of the way of justice.
A Judge who stands in the way of justice and the law is acting
outside of all judicial authority and thereby waives his rights to
immunity from civil liability. The 14th Amendment guarantees the
fundamental rights of citizens to due process and such rights require
strict scrutiny of the Court. The Respondent therefore puts the Court
on notice that the Respondent intends to defend his rights and to
hold the Court liable for acts the Court takes against the Respondent
that are done in the absence of judicial authority.
“An expression of opinion on the merits of the case prior to hearing the evidence
is indicative of bias.” State v. Alley, 882 S.W.2d at 822.
On a motion to dismiss the court will construe the complaint liberally and assume all factual allegations to be true. (Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997). The court will not grant the motion to dismiss "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim[s] which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson.
Because the Plaintiff is pro se, the court has a higher standard when faced with a motion to dismiss. White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 makes this point clear and states:
A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." onner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)).
Thus, if this court were to entertain any motion to dismiss, this court would have to apply the standards of White v. Bloom. That means if this court can figure out a legal theory that the Plaintiff hasn't thought of, this court must deny a motion to dismiss on the court's legal theory. And considering that the Plaintiff is suing lawyers and judges who are part of the "brotherhood", this court has an obligation to try hard to come up with that legal theory to avoid the appearance of bias.
Plaintiff need not allege personal involvement by all the parties. When a person is part of a conspiracy, one does not require a hub and spoke form. One need only be part of a chain of conspirators. Ms. Stringfellow need not have had personal contact with Judge Syler nor had a meeting of the minds with Judge Syler herself. Ms. Stringfellow employed Mr. Sharp as her agent who did the dirty work in her behalf with her full knowledge and approval. Likewise, The Bar Plan is fully liable under the allegation that their lawyer, Mr. Duncan, who represented them did violate the laws with The Bar Plan's full knowledge and approval. So even if Respondent Superior fails, The Bar Plan was an active participant in the conspiracy.
UNDER THE BIFURCATED MODEL, A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT EITHER MAY DELEGATE TO HIS ATTORNEY FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING HIS TRIAL OR MAY APPEAR PRO SE, I.E., ACT AS HIS OWN ATTORNEY. COURTS HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AND TO DEFENSE PRO SE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. UNDER THE HYBRID MODEL, THE DEFENDANT HAS THE ACTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BUT MAY ALSO PARTICIPATE IN HIS OWN DEFENSE AS CO-COUNSEL. THE HYBRID MODEL FOCUSES ON THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERSON WHO CONTROLS THE MODE OF HIS REPRESENTATION AND THE CONDUCT OF HIS DEFENSE. JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELEVANT TO THE BIFURCATED MODEL OF REPRESENTATION RIGHTS ARE REVIEWED, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO HYBRID REPRESENTATION IS ANALYZED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, UNLIKE THE BIFURCATED MODEL, THE HYBRID MODEL ACCOMMODATES THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES UNDERLYING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS THE 'CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPELLED APPROACH', FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
Because a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, the decision to allow such representation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Indeed, many jurisdictions have refused to recognize a right of counseled defendants to act in their own defense, leaving it to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether such participation is permitted (see, e.g., United States v Einfeldt, 138 F3d 373, 378 [8th Cir], cert denied 525 US 851; United States v Tutino, 883 F2d 1125, 1141 [2d Cir], cert denied 493 US 1081; United States v LaChance, 817 F2d 1491, 1498 [11th Cir], cert denied 484 US 928; United States v Mosely, 810 F2d 93, 97-98 [6th Cir], cert denied 484 US 841; United States v Halbert, 640 F2d 1000, 1009 [9th Cir]; State v Frye, 224 Conn 253, 256, 617 A2d 1382, 1384-1385; State v Long, 216 NJ Super 269 275-276, 523 A2d 672, 675-676).
Nevertheless, defendant maintains that a court confronted with a pro se motion should, at minimum, inquire into whether "the defense attorney is aware of the existence of the motion and has discussed its contents with his or her client" (People v Renaud, 145 AD2d 367, 369-370, appeal dismissed , 74 NY2d 734; see also, People v Costas, 248 AD2d 482, 483, lv denied , 91 NY2d 971). While such inquiries may be the better practice, we will not compel courts to engage in any particular catechism before deciding whether to entertain a pro se motion. Neither our Constitution nor our precedent requires it. Rather, the decision to allow hybrid representation implicates the trial court's function in ensuring the orderly administration of the proceedings (see, People v Mirenda, supra, 57 NY2d, at 266). As such, it is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge.
due process by refusing to consider his post trial motions, then the
Judge is refusing to do the work of the Court. If the Judge refuses
to do the work of the Court then he lacks the authority and
immunities of the Court. If the Judge can not or will not perform his
duties as Judge then he is obligated under Law to recuse himself and
get out of the way of justice.
A Judge who stands in the way of justice and the law is acting
outside of all judicial authority and thereby waives his rights to
immunity from civil liability. The 14th Amendment guarantees the
fundamental rights of citizens to due process and such rights require
strict scrutiny of the Court. The Respondent therefore puts the Court
on notice that the Respondent intends to defend his rights and to
hold the Court liable for acts the Court takes against the Respondent
that are done in the absence of judicial authority.
“An expression of opinion on the merits of the case prior to hearing the evidence
is indicative of bias.” State v. Alley, 882 S.W.2d at 822.
On a motion to dismiss the court will construe the complaint liberally and assume all factual allegations to be true. (Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997). The court will not grant the motion to dismiss "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim[s] which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson.
Because the Plaintiff is pro se, the court has a higher standard when faced with a motion to dismiss. White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 makes this point clear and states:
A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." onner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)).
Thus, if this court were to entertain any motion to dismiss, this court would have to apply the standards of White v. Bloom. That means if this court can figure out a legal theory that the Plaintiff hasn't thought of, this court must deny a motion to dismiss on the court's legal theory. And considering that the Plaintiff is suing lawyers and judges who are part of the "brotherhood", this court has an obligation to try hard to come up with that legal theory to avoid the appearance of bias.
Plaintiff need not allege personal involvement by all the parties. When a person is part of a conspiracy, one does not require a hub and spoke form. One need only be part of a chain of conspirators. Ms. Stringfellow need not have had personal contact with Judge Syler nor had a meeting of the minds with Judge Syler herself. Ms. Stringfellow employed Mr. Sharp as her agent who did the dirty work in her behalf with her full knowledge and approval. Likewise, The Bar Plan is fully liable under the allegation that their lawyer, Mr. Duncan, who represented them did violate the laws with The Bar Plan's full knowledge and approval. So even if Respondent Superior fails, The Bar Plan was an active participant in the conspiracy.
UNDER THE BIFURCATED MODEL, A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT EITHER MAY DELEGATE TO HIS ATTORNEY FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING HIS TRIAL OR MAY APPEAR PRO SE, I.E., ACT AS HIS OWN ATTORNEY. COURTS HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AND TO DEFENSE PRO SE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. UNDER THE HYBRID MODEL, THE DEFENDANT HAS THE ACTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BUT MAY ALSO PARTICIPATE IN HIS OWN DEFENSE AS CO-COUNSEL. THE HYBRID MODEL FOCUSES ON THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERSON WHO CONTROLS THE MODE OF HIS REPRESENTATION AND THE CONDUCT OF HIS DEFENSE. JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELEVANT TO THE BIFURCATED MODEL OF REPRESENTATION RIGHTS ARE REVIEWED, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO HYBRID REPRESENTATION IS ANALYZED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, UNLIKE THE BIFURCATED MODEL, THE HYBRID MODEL ACCOMMODATES THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES UNDERLYING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS THE 'CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPELLED APPROACH', FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
Because a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, the decision to allow such representation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Indeed, many jurisdictions have refused to recognize a right of counseled defendants to act in their own defense, leaving it to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether such participation is permitted (see, e.g., United States v Einfeldt, 138 F3d 373, 378 [8th Cir], cert denied 525 US 851; United States v Tutino, 883 F2d 1125, 1141 [2d Cir], cert denied 493 US 1081; United States v LaChance, 817 F2d 1491, 1498 [11th Cir], cert denied 484 US 928; United States v Mosely, 810 F2d 93, 97-98 [6th Cir], cert denied 484 US 841; United States v Halbert, 640 F2d 1000, 1009 [9th Cir]; State v Frye, 224 Conn 253, 256, 617 A2d 1382, 1384-1385; State v Long, 216 NJ Super 269 275-276, 523 A2d 672, 675-676).
Nevertheless, defendant maintains that a court confronted with a pro se motion should, at minimum, inquire into whether "the defense attorney is aware of the existence of the motion and has discussed its contents with his or her client" (People v Renaud, 145 AD2d 367, 369-370, appeal dismissed , 74 NY2d 734; see also, People v Costas, 248 AD2d 482, 483, lv denied , 91 NY2d 971). While such inquiries may be the better practice, we will not compel courts to engage in any particular catechism before deciding whether to entertain a pro se motion. Neither our Constitution nor our precedent requires it. Rather, the decision to allow hybrid representation implicates the trial court's function in ensuring the orderly administration of the proceedings (see, People v Mirenda, supra, 57 NY2d, at 266). As such, it is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
letter to 60 minutes requesting a story
As the belt on the economy tightens we believe there are sure to be more cases like the Yellow House second hand stores outrageous case that has drug on since 2005. Laws and policies need to be changed to offer more protection to both the Second-Hand store dealers and their customers!
The Yellow House Store investigation started out simple. Police all across America assume if a second hand store is buying and selling products from the public and is not regulated like the Pawn Shops then they must be a Fencer.
With the new Rico acts the Government gives large amounts of grant money to Police Departments and Cities to do Money Laundering and Fencing investigations. This would be a big incentive for a Police Department with financial woes to attack a small business like the Yellow House!
A Prosecutor that is able to prosecute a Second-Hand store for Stolen Property and Money Laundering can Seize everything the business owners own. From the beginning the goal in the Yellow House case was to seize the Business property and home of the Neighbors. At one point the Prosecutor even put a Lis Pendens on both properties without giving the required 60 day notification to the defendants. Even thought it has been ruled that Lis Pendens are not allowed in the 10th circuit court.
Acting on assumptions and retaliation the Lawrence Police served a search warrant on the Neighbors business and Home December 2005. The search of the home started at 9am but the time of the warrant states 1:30pm. Hundreds of expensive undocumented items including expensive collector Guns from a locked safe were seized.
The police had a messy case, with no evidence and the local DA was not interested in prosecuting.
The next day they made accusations to the media they could not support with the evidence.
As a favor to the Chief of Police Ron Olin, Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, took the Yellow House Case for Prosecution.
The prosecution of this case (since 2005) has included 3 strong armed arrests, (even thought the defendants had counsel), the same case being dropped and brought back 3 times, the case has been through 5 Federal Judges, the Defendants have had 7 attorneys, had their property searched with and without search warrants at least 8 times, a staged FBI investigation was launched in 2006 by an FBI agency outside the Lawrence Jurisdiction as a favor for the prosecutor Marietta Parker.
On Friday Aug. 8th the defendants Guy and Carrie were arrested for “Obstruction of Justice” after requesting their attorneys be notified before they make statements or hand over paperwork to police in a stolen property investigation they were cooperating with.
The Postal Inspector David Nitz got a Federal Obstruction of Justice arrest warrant, (even though the case did not involve the post office or mail) and search warrant, during the search the surveillance video from the stores security system was taken and replaced with a blank tape. The Neighbors were put in the Douglas county Jail from Friday until Monday when they were transferred to Leavenworth Federal Maximum Security detention center Prison, and held there until the Judge had them released on Aug. 18th. On Aug. 19th the case was Terminated. On Aug. 20th the Prosecutor Got a third Federal Indictment against the Neighbors for Obstruction of Justice.
The Neighbors have stood by their innocence and chose not to be bullied into a plea agreement by the Federal Government!
The Yellow House Store investigation started out simple. Police all across America assume if a second hand store is buying and selling products from the public and is not regulated like the Pawn Shops then they must be a Fencer.
With the new Rico acts the Government gives large amounts of grant money to Police Departments and Cities to do Money Laundering and Fencing investigations. This would be a big incentive for a Police Department with financial woes to attack a small business like the Yellow House!
A Prosecutor that is able to prosecute a Second-Hand store for Stolen Property and Money Laundering can Seize everything the business owners own. From the beginning the goal in the Yellow House case was to seize the Business property and home of the Neighbors. At one point the Prosecutor even put a Lis Pendens on both properties without giving the required 60 day notification to the defendants. Even thought it has been ruled that Lis Pendens are not allowed in the 10th circuit court.
Acting on assumptions and retaliation the Lawrence Police served a search warrant on the Neighbors business and Home December 2005. The search of the home started at 9am but the time of the warrant states 1:30pm. Hundreds of expensive undocumented items including expensive collector Guns from a locked safe were seized.
The police had a messy case, with no evidence and the local DA was not interested in prosecuting.
The next day they made accusations to the media they could not support with the evidence.
As a favor to the Chief of Police Ron Olin, Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, took the Yellow House Case for Prosecution.
The prosecution of this case (since 2005) has included 3 strong armed arrests, (even thought the defendants had counsel), the same case being dropped and brought back 3 times, the case has been through 5 Federal Judges, the Defendants have had 7 attorneys, had their property searched with and without search warrants at least 8 times, a staged FBI investigation was launched in 2006 by an FBI agency outside the Lawrence Jurisdiction as a favor for the prosecutor Marietta Parker.
On Friday Aug. 8th the defendants Guy and Carrie were arrested for “Obstruction of Justice” after requesting their attorneys be notified before they make statements or hand over paperwork to police in a stolen property investigation they were cooperating with.
The Postal Inspector David Nitz got a Federal Obstruction of Justice arrest warrant, (even though the case did not involve the post office or mail) and search warrant, during the search the surveillance video from the stores security system was taken and replaced with a blank tape. The Neighbors were put in the Douglas county Jail from Friday until Monday when they were transferred to Leavenworth Federal Maximum Security detention center Prison, and held there until the Judge had them released on Aug. 18th. On Aug. 19th the case was Terminated. On Aug. 20th the Prosecutor Got a third Federal Indictment against the Neighbors for Obstruction of Justice.
The Neighbors have stood by their innocence and chose not to be bullied into a plea agreement by the Federal Government!
Monday, October 6, 2008
D. An Order requiring defendants:
Procedures should be in place to protect a defendants right of due process in regards to seized property. Policy should be in place to insure a defendants Fifth Amendment right to Property ownership. This would include the defendants right to a hearing before a Judge to determine what property should be held by Police as evidence to a crime and what property should be returned to the defendant.
C. An Order requiring defendats
Procedures need to be put in place within the Lawrence Police Department regarding video evidence. Stricter protocol should require sting operation videos to be entered into evidence in an unaltered state. More effort should be made when documenting seized evidence, especially guns and Jewelry valued over $100 to include descriptions and serial numbers of itemized items seized in a way the defendant or reasonable person would know what property was seized.
B. An order requiring defendants
FBI Special Agents should only be allowed to do investigations within their own jurisdiction. Investigations into formal complaints against "Color of Law" violations should only be done by an impartial investigator.
To avoid a conflict of interest, protocol should be in place to prevent a Federal Prosecutor prosecuting a case; to send down the FBI Agent of her choosing to investigate the Formal Complaints against Police officers involved in the investigation, accused of civil rights violations against a defendant she is prosecuting.
To avoid a conflict of interest, protocol should be in place to prevent a Federal Prosecutor prosecuting a case; to send down the FBI Agent of her choosing to investigate the Formal Complaints against Police officers involved in the investigation, accused of civil rights violations against a defendant she is prosecuting.
A. AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO:
Create a program that would allow second- hand businesses and Police an opportunity to work together to deter crime.
In order for this type of action to be successful the police must provide lists of stolen property to businesses that have signed up to a code of practice.
This would include the business agreeing to keep written records of the items they buy and checking property offered to them for possible problems. It could also include photographing or fingerprinting sellers of items valued at over $100.
There would also need to be a protocol agreement for handling stolen property that does end up in the business.
Like requiring the alleged victim to positively identify the item with serial numbers before it is confiscated. Limiting searches of businesses cooperating with an investigation. Giving the business a property receipt and case number for items seized, And possible means of providing restitution to a business that becomes a victim themselves once stolen property is identified.
Police should also provide details of prolific offenders with the shops that join the program, so that they are aware of people who steal and who will be looking for outlets for that stolen property. When these people attempt to sell things to the business, the business will be in a position to acquire information for police without risking becoming a victim themselves.
Criminals who steal need to sell that property and police, by working with secondhand outlets, would be able to make it more difficult for criminals to dispose of stolen goods this would lead to the recovery of more stolen property.
In order for this type of action to be successful the police must provide lists of stolen property to businesses that have signed up to a code of practice.
This would include the business agreeing to keep written records of the items they buy and checking property offered to them for possible problems. It could also include photographing or fingerprinting sellers of items valued at over $100.
There would also need to be a protocol agreement for handling stolen property that does end up in the business.
Like requiring the alleged victim to positively identify the item with serial numbers before it is confiscated. Limiting searches of businesses cooperating with an investigation. Giving the business a property receipt and case number for items seized, And possible means of providing restitution to a business that becomes a victim themselves once stolen property is identified.
Police should also provide details of prolific offenders with the shops that join the program, so that they are aware of people who steal and who will be looking for outlets for that stolen property. When these people attempt to sell things to the business, the business will be in a position to acquire information for police without risking becoming a victim themselves.
Criminals who steal need to sell that property and police, by working with secondhand outlets, would be able to make it more difficult for criminals to dispose of stolen goods this would lead to the recovery of more stolen property.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Due Process definition
Due process means prison officials are not
supposed to restrict your access to courts or
lawyers, or punish you (take away your property or
your liberty, even within prison) without fair
procedures.
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are
known as the “Bill of Rights.” Technically, these
amendments apply only to actions by the federal
government, not to actions by state officials. However,
the courts have ruled that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” most of the Bill
of Rights. This means when a state or local official
does something that is prohibited by one of the first ten
amendments, it is a violation of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
supposed to restrict your access to courts or
lawyers, or punish you (take away your property or
your liberty, even within prison) without fair
procedures.
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are
known as the “Bill of Rights.” Technically, these
amendments apply only to actions by the federal
government, not to actions by state officials. However,
the courts have ruled that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” most of the Bill
of Rights. This means when a state or local official
does something that is prohibited by one of the first ten
amendments, it is a violation of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Letter head: Tom Noyes Assistant POSTAL Inspector
Assistant Inspector Tom Noyes
6201 College Blvd. 400
Overland Park Kansas
66211-2435
Assistant Inspector Tom Noyes,
This is a copy of our formal complaint. We will also be forwarding this complaint.
We feel we have been subjected to continued harassment, discriminatory and unjustified treatment, thus violating our Constitutional rights by the Postal Inspector. Holding our property from August until October without just cause. These continued acts are a violation under the color of the law, are not to enforce justice but are acts intended to bring hardship and aid in the vindictive ongoing prosecution against us.
Thank-you for your time
Guy and Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence Kansas
66047
6201 College Blvd. 400
Overland Park Kansas
66211-2435
Assistant Inspector Tom Noyes,
This is a copy of our formal complaint. We will also be forwarding this complaint.
We feel we have been subjected to continued harassment, discriminatory and unjustified treatment, thus violating our Constitutional rights by the Postal Inspector. Holding our property from August until October without just cause. These continued acts are a violation under the color of the law, are not to enforce justice but are acts intended to bring hardship and aid in the vindictive ongoing prosecution against us.
Thank-you for your time
Guy and Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence Kansas
66047
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)