IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Guy Madison Neighbors

Plaintiff,

]
v.

LAWRENCE POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et, al.,

Defendants

Case # 15-4921-DDC

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ODRER TO BLOCK DISTRICT

COURT IN KANSAS CITY KANSAS FROM DESTROYING EVIDENCE IN A
PENDING CIVIL CASE

Comes Now Guy Neighbors Propria Persona Im representing myself in Propria Persona (in
your own person) or pro-per Qualified me as an attorney in fact, according to Blacks Law
Dictionary. By asserting my Sovereign Right to represent myself in legal matters establishes my
status as my own attorney. To proceed in Pro Per, means that the court cannot impose the same
standard up on me as are imposed on a licensed attorney. This court will treat me as my
own attorney, differently that it would treat me as the defendant, and moves this court to
Issue an Injunction and Restraining Order pursuant to Rule 65. (a) (b) (A) to block the District
Court In KCK from destroying Evidence in a pending civil case. The missing evidence is
relevant to the civil case due to the fact it shows the high level of malice misconduct and lack of
self-control which is the bases for the fraudulent federal cases that were filed against the
1

Neighbors. The missing evidence has been well documented by the Neighbors but not one
defense attorney was willing to get it on the record.
The original search warrant was served on Dec. 5th 2005. Neighbors filed a formal complaint that
the two laptops were missing and that issue was never addressed. The Neighbors have NEVER
see, or have been allowed to inventory the seized evidence to make sure it was all accounted for.
This issue is a prime example of the harassment and abuse the Neighbors have been subject to.
The Prosecutor filed a brand new evidence logs that are different than the first two evidence logs.
The main issue is the fact the search warrants were fraudulent, they appear to be signed by
different people, and Mr. Stephen Six, admitted in an email that he had in fact signed those
federal search warrants when he was a State Judge ( a huge no,no), there are clearly serious
issues with the validly of the original search warrants because a State Judge had No judicial
authority to sign a Federal Search warrant. Judge Murguia is blocking Neighbors from presenting
his evidence in the evidence hearing. The Civil case is filed and now that evidence is part of the
new civil case. Neighbors is requesting this court to order the evidence to be preserved, and
requesting this court to order that Neighbors have access to Any and All evidence so Neighbors
and his investigator will have the opportunity to inventory the evidence for missing laptop,
missing shoes, missing tools, missing firearms. Also several of the firearms were brand new and
never had been fired those firearms will be tested to see if in fact they had been taken home
with officers and fired. Neighbors would also request the court to demand any filing from the
district court in KCK be filed in the civil case in Topeka as Neighbors will need to have these
communication on the record to make sure the government can be held accountable for any
attempts of intimidation ,or threats made against Mr. Neighbors, because of his will to never give
up the fight to get his wife back home with her family.

Summary:
1. Plaintiff request to have the restraining order and injunction granted to preserve the evidence
for the pending civil case.
2. Plaintiff requests this court to order that Neighbors, and his private investigator have access to
the evidence for the purpose of pre- trial inventory.
3. Plaintiff requests this court after the evidence is inventoried to have the evidence moved the
court in Topeka where the civil case is filed.
4. Plaintiff requests this court to order that any motions pending the district court in KCK that
failed to hear be moved to the court in Topeka as well.
5. District Court in KCK, should not oppose to any of these request listed in this document
because there are NO pending charged and therefore District Court in KCK, only had
Jurisdiction if Plaintiff agrees to contract, and he does NOT!

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 10th day of Sep, 2015, the foregoing document was filed
in person with the clerk of the court In Topeka KS. by the Plaintiff, to be emailed out to all
parties.
Respectfully Submitted
____________________ 9/10/2015

VERIFICATION:

I Guy Neighbors, declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the Laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and complete to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

____________________________

on this __________th Day, of _______________ 2015

Guy Neighbors

On this ______day of____________, 2015 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for State of KS, personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose
name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that s/he has executed the same.

Signed:_________________________________________
Printed Name:____________________________________
Date:___________________________________________
My Commission Expires:____________________________

ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONS AND OATH OF OFFICE:

Notice To All Officers Of The Court Point of Law: All contracts commence with an offer and
only become binding upon acceptance. See: Contracts by Farnsworth, third edition, sect. 3.3,
pages 112,113, Infra. The Organic Constitution of the United States of America, and the State of
Kansas, and the Oath of Office of the above named PUBLIC SERVANTS, amounts to nothing
more than offer of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way between the
respective governments and the private American people and for other purposes. Be it known by
these presents that Guy Neighbors, do hereby accept the Organic Constitution of the
Unites States of America, and the State of Kansas, and the Oath of Office of the above named
PUBILC SERVANTS as your open and binding offer of promise to form a firm and binding
contract between the respective governments, their political instrumentalities and the above
named PUBLICSERVANT and myself in my private capacity.
I expect that, as a PUBLIC SERVANT, you will perform all of your promises and
stay within the limitations of your constitutions create no unfounded presumptions, seek only the
true facts and tell the truth at all times and respect and protect my right of personal liberty
and private property and all rights antecedent thereto. The foregoing Notice of Acceptance of
Constitution and Oath of Office is made explicitly without recourse and now constitutes a
binding contract and any deviation there from will be treated as a breach of contract and a
violation of substantive due process.