KANSAS University POLICE department defendant MICHAEL RINER falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, tortured, discriminated, control and selectively prosecuted. CARRIE NEIGHBORS is suing for federal charges of an alleged crime solely based on a state investigation that should have been tried by the state. "Federal intervention depends upon proof that there is both a present and immediate threat to a federal right and no
KANSAS University POLICE department defendant MICHAEL RINER falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, tortured, discriminated, control and selectively prosecuted. CARRIE NEIGHBORS is suing for federal charges of an alleged crime solely based on a state investigation that should have been tried by the state. "Federal intervention depends upon proof that there is both a present and immediate threat to a federal right and no
KANSAS University POLICE department defendant MICHAEL RINER falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, tortured, discriminated, control and selectively prosecuted. CARRIE NEIGHBORS is suing for federal charges of an alleged crime solely based on a state investigation that should have been tried by the state. "Federal intervention depends upon proof that there is both a present and immediate threat to a federal right and no
KANSAS University POLICE department defendant MICHAEL RINER falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, tortured, discriminated, control and selectively prosecuted. CARRIE NEIGHBORS is suing for federal charges of an alleged crime solely based on a state investigation that should have been tried by the state. "Federal intervention depends upon proof that there is both a present and immediate threat to a federal right and no
[Lawrence Kansas] CARRIE NEIGHBORS Plaintiff v KANSAS UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT defendant Case No: ----- MICHAEL RINER defendant COMPLAINT Demand for Jury Trial or Declaratory Judgment NOTICE OF COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL ACTION 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 CONSPIRACY AGAINST SECURED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW DENIAL OF EOUALACCESS TO JUSTICE Comes Now Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors by special appearance, hereby brings forth notice of suit that the above entitled defendants have knowingly conspired under color of law, acting outside of their Jurisdiction, and in an abuse of discretionary authority to Conspire to bring forth Federal charges of an alleged crime solely based on a State investigation involving Kansas University that should have been tried by the State where no crime would have been found to be committed, "Federal intervention depends upon proofthat there is both a present and immediate threat to a federal right and no opportunity to protect it in the state court prosecution." [Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)] wherefore violating Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors due process of law, Constitutional and Civil rights, and denial of equal access to justice in case 08-20105-cm-JPO filed in Kansas Federal District Court. Requests for review of violations of law, disciplinary action, and investigation in the violations of rules and regulations have been submitted predicated on the following issues by both plaintiff to The Kansas University Public Safety office (KU Police). The Department representative Captain Schuyler Bailey received the complaint. The foregoing named defendant's in this cause have knowingly and willfully conspired to violate Carrie Neighbors Due process of law, harassed her and conspired to provide the court with non credible perjured testimony by K.U. Detective Michael Riner in an abuse ofAuthoritative discretion to falsely arrest, falsely imprison, torture, discriminate, control and selectively prosecute, as well as fraudulently Federally indict the plaintiff in violation of the Constitution and Jurisdictional Supreme Court Rule. In support of said allegations Plaintiff states as follows: It is necessary for a department or agency ofthe Federal Government to prove standing. Ifan agency isn't vested with authority by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint. So the court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 1.) LACK OF JURISDICTION Search warrant executed on August 8 t h, 2008, accusing the Plaintiff of "Federal Obstruction of Justice" by Detective Michael Riner with the Kansas University Police Department, and executed with assistance from Lawrence Kansas Police department and the Postal Inspector lacked jurisdictional authority over Federal Statutes, Acts, codes and regulations. "Federal Jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown. [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F.2d. 633] Federal arrest warrant executed on August 8 t h, 2008 by Postal Inspector David Nitz, based upon Kansas University Detective Mike Riner's theft investigation violated the jurisdictional authority of Post office statutes, constituted malicious conspiracy under Color of Law, resulting in the arrest of the plaintiff, in violation of the Plaintiffs fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights of due process, without an official compliant that any trespass of laws had been committed involving the US. Mails. The arrest and Frivolous Federal Indictment solely based upon a state investigation by the University Of Kansas police involving an alleged stolen laptop sold to the Plaintiffs business the Yellow House Store, continues to cause extreme duress and pain to Plaintiff for an ongoing period of more than 3 years. 2 2.) UNLAWFUL ARREST AND DETENTION OVERVIEW: Kansas University Detective Michael Riner served a search warrant on the Plaintiff's business; The Yellow House store, and the Postal Inspector David Nitz Acting outside of his jurisdiction of authority rules and regulations served arrest warrant on the Plaintiff and her husband on Friday August 8,2008 for "obstruction of Justice" in violation of Title 18, USC lS12(c)", in the University's state investigation of a stolen laptop from the University of Kansas, sold to the Plaintiffs resale store, stolen by a University employee Robert Sample, that was being investigated by the University Police Detective Mike Riner. The investigation did not fall under federal statutes, codes, Acts, or regulations and did not involve any crime of the U.S. mail. "Under where the Federal Agents lack authority over jurisdiction, so to the Federal courts lack jurisdiction." [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200, F 2d. 633]. During the execution of the search on 08-08-08 the stores surveillance video cassette was stolen by the officers from the recorder and a blank "off brand tape" was put in its place. (The blank tape has been sealed in an evidence bag for future DNA fingerprint analysis, as it is not possible that the Plaintiff's DNA will be on it, since Plaintiff was arrested prior to the search, theft and switch). The Plaintiff, prior to the purchase was not aware that the laptop in question had been stolen, no federal or state law had been trespassed upon by the Plaintiff. Cooperating with the investigation, Plaintiff turned over the laptop and showed Detective Riner the sellers form that Robert Sample had filled out. Detective Riner copied the information onto his "field notes" then asked for the actual form to take with him. Plaintiff informed Detective Riner that she allowed him to copy the information from the form, however due to the corrupt investigation already in progress by the Lawrence Police Department, she would need her attorney present if she was to make any statements or turnover the sellers form as evidence. Plaintiffs attorney John Duma had already informed her he would not be available until Monday. Four hours later Detective Riner, several KU uniformed police officers, 3 Lawrence Kansas Police officers including Micky Rantz and Jay Bialek and Postal Inspector David Nitz served a search warrant upon the business signed by a state Judge and Federal arrest warrant on the Plaintiff and her husband for "obstruction ofjustice". Ifan agency isn't vested with authority by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint, or make an arrest. 2). PERJURY BY KANSAS UNIVERSITY DETECTIVE MIKE RINER: On August Ill", 2008 in Federal court for the District of Kansas, K. U. Detective Mike Riner was called to the stand to testify about his state level investigation into the laptop allegedly stolen from Kansas University. He falsely testified that the plaintiff had not let him see the sellers form. However in failing to get the lie straight, in the "Application for arrest affidavit" by Postal Inspector David Nitz, it clearly states that Mr. Riner was shown the form bearing Robert Sample's name and information. Detective Riner also took notes from the sellers form on his yellow note pad, and used the information obtained from the form to arrest and further investigate the seller of the laptop; K.U. Employee Robert Sample. It was found during the investigation that Mr. Sample had stolen numerous items from his employer, and sold the items to the Pawn Shop. Plaintiff was selectively prosecuted in connection to Mr. Sample's criminal acts. (No action was taken against the Pawn Shop.) Detective Riner gave perjured testimony as a Federal witness at the hearing on August 11 th, 2008 that the Plaintiff had concealed the sellers form from him, when shown the sellers form on the witness stand, he again committed perjury and claimed he had never seen it. When the defense revealed the fact that his notes would contradict his testimony he testified he had "shredded" the notes. During the subsequent hearing on August 18 th , 2008, U.S. Attorney Terra Morehead proffered to the court that Mr. Riner claimed to have found the notes he had earlier testified to shredding. At the close of the hearing the Magistrate judge ruled that no bond violations had occurred and ordered that the Plaintiff be released from Federal custody and her bond reinstated. On August 19 t ", 2008, based upon Kansas 4 --...- University's Detective Mike Riner's fraud upon the court, the Government's Attorney's moved forward and obtained an indictment before a Federal Grand Jury against the Plaintiff for "Federal Obstruction of Justice" [US. V Carrie Neighbors 08-20105-cm (2008)] . 3). COMPLAINT FILED FOR PERJURY: On September 16, 2008, a complaint detailing KU Detective Mike Riners federal perjury, ongoing unconscionable vendetta constituting harassment ofthe plaintiff and her business, along with copies of Mike Riners defamatory blogs under the user name Michael1 on the Lawrence Journal World web site was submitted by the Plaintiff to the University of Kansas Public Safety office. Captain Schuyler Bailey received the complaint on behalf of the Department. On October 8 th , 2008, in a conflict of interest due to the fact Marietta Parker was the Prosecuting attorney in the case that Riner was committing perjury for, The University Police Director Ralph V. Oliver responded with a letter informing the Plaintiff that he had allegedly forwarded the complaints to the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker. No further action was taken by the University or the Prosecutor in regards to the serious allegations against Detective Riner. With no accounting for the Plaintiffs complaints and requests for review, KU Detective Riner has escaped any accountability for his violations of both State and Federal law, he has been held above the law by his Controlling Agency as well as the Governments Prosecuting Attorney's in this matter. He has been allowed to continue to commit abuse of discretionary authority and power, violations of oath, candor, jurisdiction, selective prosecution, perjury and due process violations under color of law. Mr. Riner was repeatedly used as a witness by the Federal Prosecutors in the interrelated cases against the Plaintiff, as a staple witness to secure a frivolous Federal Indictment for "Obstruction of Justice, as well as the Federal Prosecutors have continued to use his peIjurious testimony before the Federal District court Judge and subsequent trial Jury. 5 Detective Riners false allegations have damaged the plaintiff and enabled the Prosecution to vindictively: A). Falsely arrest and incarcerate the Plaintiff. B). Force the Plaintiff into a court order to shut down her internet sales, which resulted in huge losses of profits for her business. C). Plaintiff was held in Federal Prison until she agreed under duress to sign an unconstitutional gag order to relinquish her I sl Amendment right to free speech, which prevented all parties from making public comments about the case. In violation of the court order Detective Riner continued to blog about the Plaintiff, defamatory her and her business on the internet. D). Prosecutors revoked Plaintiff's bond on September 28 th , 2010 and she was sent to Federal prison on the premise that she violated the gag order when she sent a request that the Postmaster General in Washington D.C. Review the Postal Inspectors violations of law and jurisdictional authority. E). The Federal District court used the unconstitutional Obstruction case for a 2 point enhancement on the Plaintiff's sentence. That decision is currently under appeal. CONCLUSION: The use of Kansas University Detective Michael Riners acts of Fraud upon the court have enabled the U.S. Attorney's expanded allegations of offenses against the Plaintiff well beyond the face of the indictment, in violation of statute, misrepresented the constitution, and operated outside of legal authority. The transfer of the State investigation to a Federal Prosecution violates the Constitution and Supreme court rule. In an ongoing pattern of abuse, the conspiracy to violate due process of law has caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs life, reputation, liberty, business, right of due process, and operated outside of legal authority. Rights secured by the Constitution of the United States are carved in stone, and they are cumulative, they are not independent or elective unless someone knowingly 6 chooses to forfeit one of the specified rights. Plaintiff has never forfeited her rights. If one of the constitutionally secured rights is bypassed, administrative offices, including the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney, and courts of the United States lack or lose subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff hereby requests in accordance to the Unclean Hands Doctrine, for willful misconduct motivated by actual malice toward the Plaintiff, that the controlling agency over Detective Mike Riner is Kansas University Police Department, as a result of a conspiracy against rights, resulting in monetary, punitive damages in an amount to be decided by a Jury, as well as award a compensatory general damages award to be payed to the Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors for her time, lost wages, violations of Constitutional rights, loss of liberty, defamation, false arrest, and pain and suffering, directly related to the August 8 th arrest, detainment, and vindictive prosecution, violations under color of law, for "Federal obstruction of Justice" in case 08-20105-cm. The Plaintiff hereby graciously extends an offer for the University Public Safety Police Department and Detective Michael Riner, in honor, to respond to complaint, notice of suit and attached affidavit within 30 days. As stated in Plaintiffs sworn attached notice this hereby constitutes a private contract set out in admiralty and hereby gives consideration in the form of forbearance of suit for a reasonable period of time, 30 days to respond to this sworn notice. Respectfully Submitted dated" .Dt2
1309 Sunchase Drive Lawrence, KS. 66044 7 ------------... .. ------ v IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS Civil Court Department [Lawrence Kansas] CARRIE NEIGHBORS Affiant KANSAS PUBLIC SAFETY: KANSAS UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Case No: Libellee MICHAEL RINER Libellee AFFIDAVITI AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT/AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT This sworn Affidavit is my presentment of "Official Notice ofFacts, and Demand for Answers and relief' and an administrative remedy under notary and or witness presentment, for me; the Affiant Carrie Neighbors. This is an offer for The Kansas University Public Safety Police Department and Detective Michael Riner, in honor, to respond to this Affidavit within 30 days to offer settlement in this dispute in the amount of Five hundred thousand dollars. ($500,000.00). Affiants sworn notice hereby constitutes a private contract set out in admiralty Due to the fact Collaborative resolution rather than continued litigation would be the most efficient way to allow healing in this matter, Affiant hereby gives consideration in the form of forbearance of suit for a reasonable period of time, 30 days to respond to this sworn notice. CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE If this affidavit is not properly rebutted with a counter-affidavit within thirty (30) days from the date of its mailing, all paragraphs not denied shall be confessed affirmed, by such default, and shall be accepted as dispositive, conclusive facts by the named Libellee's or other properly delegated authority there of, had the opportunity and "failed to plead." All Counter-affidavits must be signed with the valid legal name of the respondent. Affiant hereby states that she is of legal age and competent to state on belief and personal knowledge that the facts set forth herein as duly noted below are true, correct, complete, and presented in good faith regarding the illegal transfer of a state investigation by the above named Libellee's into a Federal complaint for prosecution that lacked jurisdiction and authority. It is now incumbent on you, the purported original Agency and oversight officials with discretionary authority to compel discovery of facts and evidence under UCC 1-308 (RSMO 400.1 207). Including but not limited to any evidence under federal statutes that supports the investigation of a stolen laptop from the University of Kansas by the University of Kansas police for a transfer to Federal Jurisdiction solely for prosecution in violation of Supreme court ruling. Affiant requests the Libellee's to provide evidence that the Plaintiff trespassed Federally under common law, constitutional law or public law and specifically identify Acts, Codes, Rules, Regulations and Statutes that support the transfer ofthe allegations from State to Federal. Claim 01) Affiant quotes: "Anything in repugnance to the Constitution is invalid or unlawful". Bond, supra. In {Bond v United States, No 09-1227 (June 16, 2011)J the Supreme court ruled in a 9-0 decision, that bond had standing to challenge the federal statute 18 USC Section 3231, on the grounds that transferring a State investigation into a Federal Prosecution interferes with the powers reserved to the States. In accordance to 18 USC Section 3231, part ofthe enactment of title 18 states: "The district courts ofthe United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive ofthe courts ofthe States, ofall offenses against the laws ofthe United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction ofthe courts ofthe several States under the laws thereof" Without the validity of 18 USC 3231 a federal court must revert the powers of the federal courts back to the states. Affiant's charges were transferred to the Federal Government in violation of Constitutional law, 2 causing affiant unconscionable harm by forcing her to be tried by the Federal Government instead of the State where she would have received less time (or never been prosecuted at all.) See [US. V Sharpnack, 355 US 286 (1957)] It further specifies that "Whoever. . .is guilty ofany act or omission which. .. would be punishable ifcommitted or omitted within the jurisdiction ofthe State .. .in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time ofsuch act or om ission, shall be guilty ofa like Uederal} offense and subject to a like punishment'. In [Carol Ann Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227], the Supreme court stated that any act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is void. Lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court rulings. Claim 02) Affiant affirms and alleges that through willful misconduct motivated by actual malice and as clearly displayed by the University of Kansas Detective Michael Riner's defamatory internet blogging on the Journal World web site in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1018 about Affiant and her business before and during the investigation, resulting in an act of contempt of a court ordered gag on all parties, conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, inequitable behavior and despicable conduct by an officer of the court including perjury and violations of discretionary authority. In a conspiracy to cover-up said misconduct the prosecution ofAffiant in the University's investigation was transferred by the controlling agency (The University Public Safety police dept.) to the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, along with Affiants complaints submitted to the University Police Internal Affairs about Detective Micheal Riner's violations of Affiants civil rights under color of law, absent the controlling agency's execution of proper disciplinary investigation or authoritative action in the matter involving their own employee Detective Mike Riner, resulting in a Federal Indictment so frivolous that the court did not even revoke Plaintiffs pretrial release. Instigated outside of the jurisdiction, rules and regulations that govern said controlling agency's personnel issues and disciplinary process, resulting in the accomplishment of a conspiracy to further harassment, false arrest, 3 false imprisonment, duress, unconstitutionally enhanced sentence on September 28,2011 and abandonment ofAffiant's protected constitutional right to due process of law. These resulting damages and injuries have bound Libellee's into a contract for restitution and reparation to Affiant. Claim 03) Since actions speak louder than words, and by actions contracts are consummated, Libellee's actions have made manifest, with open disregard for the Rule of Law, that Libellee's hadlhave at all times and in every measure, concerning their association with Affiant, operated outside the parameters of the Constitution of the United States of America, and within the bounds of treason, coercion, threat, duress, malfeasance, conspiracy, tort, unlawful conversion, theft of property and any other offenses known to be injurious to Affiant. Affiant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined. VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Carrie Neighbors, Sui Juris, solemnly affirm and verify that I have read the foregoing, and know its contents to be true to the best of my knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. This instrument is submitted upon good faith effort that is grounded in fact, warranted by existing law for the modification or reversal of existing law and submitted for proper purposes, and not to cause harassment and unnecessary delay or costs, so help me God. See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land.) I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the Republic of Kansas, that the foregoing is true oL- Ul - \ 0 d-..O \ 2 J-un-'s_______authorized representative I 1309 Sunchase Drive Lawrence, KS. 66044 4 On this day came before me the Affiant, a living flesh and blood woman to oath and attest and affirm the signature is true, complete and correct on the foregoing affidavit. Carrie Marie Neighbors, the above signed, who is personally known by me or upon proper oath and identification, personally came before me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for said County and State, and Duly Affirmed the truth of the foregoing Affidavit in my presence. The Affiant also acknowledged the signing thereof to be her own voluntary act and deed, signing the within instrument in my presence and for the purpose therein stated. I /0-/2 My Commission expires on: /VOt,) ,'Jort( I Zo J 3 Notary Public J. dD seal: l<t!l1s,as S\-g'NPi Oi'X 1-ID-IL 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled complaint and Affidavit i ~ e above captioned matter was deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, on \ C ) ~ , 2t3J2.,..addressed to the clerk of the Court including a second copy for Chambers: Clerk of the Court for: Respectfully Submitted, Carrie Neig bo s 1309 Sunchase Drive Lawrence, KS. 66044 Sworn to, before me this ~ day of :::)c.h. V--Ovf'1 ' 201'1.