Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion For Dismissal Against Guy and Carrie Neighbors Case No. 07-20124-01-02-KHV/DJW With Terra D. Morehead and Marietta Parker US Kansas
Motion For Dismissal Against Guy and Carrie Neighbors Case No. 07-20124-01-02-KHV/DJW With Terra D. Morehead and Marietta Parker US Kansas
The Investigation by the Lawrence Kansas Police Department into the Business
Yellow House Store Incorporated began in December in 2005.
FBI agents. She told them the investigation had cost a lot of money and
therefore she was going to forfeit the Yellow House building regardless
With indictment under District Court for the District of Kansas case number
06-2071-01/02-CM/JPO. Initiated in conjunction with misuse of the legal
process, in retaliation for the defendants filing a complaint alleging police
misconduct, violations of the chain of custody rule, and sending out E-mails
and public internet postings along with blog sites, All fall within an exercise
of The First Amendment assuring the Fundamental Right to Free Speech.
Making the circumstances of the indictment and arrest a case of
Prosecutorial Misconduct. The fact both defendants were denied
food while being held in a cell for 8 hours December 8th, 2006.
Clearly was an act of retaliation by the prosecution, and a violation
of Guy and Carrie Neighbors protected Fourteenth Amendment
constitutional and civil rights. In violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Forbidding “cruel and unusual punishments" clearly
this shows "deliberate indifference" by the responsible officials.
Attorney Jim George was informed by prosecution team member Terra
Moorehead that the arrest and Indictment was handled in this cruel manner
to quote “Show Guy and Carrie Neighbors who is boss”. (Clearly this
establishes retaliation and Malice by the prosecution.) Genito v. Rabinowitz,
92 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1966).
Guy and Carrie Neighbors were first indicted with being users of a
controlled substance in possession of firearms on December 7, 2006,
in a prior case in this court, United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-
20171-CM. After substantial time on the speedy trial clock had run,
the government filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in that case
on May 4, 2007, based on additional evidence that the government
argued it had discovered during an ongoing investigation. The
Honorable Carlos Murguia, United States District Judge, granted the
government’s motion and dismissed the first indictment without
prejudice.
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 of
conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly
and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
The second indictment was filed absent of any new incidents or
additional evidence. On September 11, 2007, counsel for Ms.
Neighbors filed a motion to dismiss Count 2 (doc. #24) in which Mr.
Neighbors subsequently joined (doc. #28) based on a violation of the
Speedy Trial Act. This court granted the motion but reserved the
determination of whether to dismiss Count 2 with or without
prejudice until after an evidentiary hearing. That hearing was held on
November 27, 2007.
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 36 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 4 of 22
On June 25, 2007, defendants were rearrested at their home and a
search incident absent of a search warrant to arrest was performed.
They were not given the option to self surrender, and the government
pointed out they were not treated any differently than any other
defendants. Mr. Neighbors was taken under arrest on the first floor of
the house while two female officers went upstairs and, after watching
Ms. Neighbors dress, handcuffed her and placed her under arrest.
They were taken in police vehicles to court that day and counsel was
appointed for them. They were held in custody for about four to six
hours. Mr. Neighbors testified that no one asked him about his
former counsel, James George, and he was not allowed to call Mr.
George. The court originally appointed Alex McCauley to represent
him. Mr. McCauley subsequently withdrew from the case due to a
conflict of interest because he had formerly represented an informant
in this case. Prior to his withdrawal from the case Mr. McCauley spent
approximately 4 hours in his office going over the prosecutions
discovery with Mr. Neighbors, During the meeting Mr. McCauley
highlighted and took notes on the discovery. Before contacting his
client Mr. Neighbors, Mr. McCauley filed a motion to stop the speedy
trial clock without notifying his client Guy Neighbors, or Phil Gibson
Carrie Neighbors attorney, then withdrew from the case and turned
over the discovery along with the notes and highlights back to the
Prosecutor. The documents in the discovery given to Mr. Neighbor’s
new attorney Dionne Sheriff did not match the documents that Mr.
Neighbors had gone over with his former attorney Mr. McCauley.
The lis pendins placed against the defendant’s property, absent of the
required notification of the lis pendens within 60 days of the filing and in
violation of the "10th circuit court statutes" has placed a heavy burden upon
the defendants, has interfered with the sale of the property, and has
prejudiced the defense by creating a tremendous financial burden upon the
defendants.
The prosecutor Marietta Parker has knowingly presented the courts with
false information, hearsay evidence by convicted felons in exchange for a
deal was presented before a Grand Jury in USA v. Neighbors 07-cr-20124-
cm-JPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Giving testimony to the grand jury that was "patently false and misleading in
material respects and undoubtedly led to the erroneous indictment
While the law of conspiracy may be broad in scope, its breadth is not
limitless, and the Government must show each individual’s willful and
knowing involvement in an unlawful agreement with convincing, reliable
and honest evidence beyond mere hearsay and speculation.
During a detention hearing Aug. 11th , It was established that the PMB
“mail box” used by the defendants in connection with the Ebay site
was in the defendants true name and also included the names of the
other people who would be receiving mail there as required by law.
The hearing also established the shared bank account the defendant
used in connection with the eBay site also had the defendants name as
a signer on the account since 2006.
United States Of America vs. Guy & Carrie Neighbors case no.08-
20105-cm-jpO for violation of Title 18 section 1343 for wire fraud and
Title 18, sections 1512 (c) and 2. Even though no evidence of fraud
could be provided by the Government during the Aug. 11 hearing.
LEGAL STANDARDS
.
To punish a person because he has done what the law
plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the
most
basic sort.. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363
(1978).
Although a prosecutor has broad discretion in his charging
decisions, there are two important limitations on this
authority. First, a prosecutor may not bring charges with a
vindictive motive, since ..penalizing those who choose to
exercise. constitutional rights, .would be patently
unconstitutional... North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711,
724
(1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith,
490 U.S.
794 (1989) (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570,
581
(1968)); see Guam v. Fegurgur, 800 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir.
1986). Nor may a prosecutor selectively enforce the law
based
on race, religion or some other arbitrary classification,
including the exercise of rights under the First Amendment.
Guam, 800 F.2d at 1473; United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965
F.2d
Though similar, vindictive prosecution and 1 selective
prosecution
are distinct claims governed by different legal standards.
See United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1112 (9th
Cir. 1987). A motion to dismiss on grounds of selective
prosecution is filed herewith.
848, 849 (10th Cir. 1992).1
No evidence of actual bad faith is necessary to establish the
Claim of Prosecutorial Vindictiveness. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21,
28 (1974); United States v. Groves, 571 F.2d 450, 454 n.1 (9th Cir.
1978); United
States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977); see also
United States v. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d 1367, 1369 (9th Cir.
1976) (.the mere appearance of vindictiveness is enough to place
the burden on the prosecution.) .
CONCLUSION
This case has gone on for nearly four years. It has entailed filing
charges, dismissing charges, refilling charges, having the same
charges dismissed again. Unwarranted searches, illegal forfeiture
allegations, false arrest, public false allegations against the
defendants, incarceration, violations of speedy trial law, and the
violations of basic Constitutional rights that should be afforded to
every American citizen including the Neighbors. This case has gone on
long enough and due to its vindictive nature the Neighbors respectfully
request the courts dismiss all pending Indictments with prejudice.