4_26_2010 Carrie Neighbors Motion

8/9/2019 4_26_2010 Carrie Neighbors Motion

1/24

Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 24

Carrie Neighbors Defendant [IJ / Pro Se Litigant

1104 Andover

Lawrence, Kansas 66049

(785) 842-2785

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 07-20073-CM

07-20124-CM

08-20105-CM

CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT [lJ'S MARSDEN MOTION

[Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)]

COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is

filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented,

pursuant toPeople v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows:

1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent

letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4]

2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her

by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes

him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 &6]

Defendant [l]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of Page 1


2/24


3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for

Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government.

4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney ofrecord have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a

result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome.

5). The Defendant [1]'s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and

refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court

through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can

clearly show.

6). The Defendant [1]'s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1],

and has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion

for the mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules

Discipline for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record.

MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT 1l1'S MARSDEN MOTION

03116/2010 Letter to Counsel

7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010,

03/25/2010,04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client

privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated

the court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant

[1] was involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her

counsel to not have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for

contempt. The Defendant [l],s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and

fails to comply with the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights 11, in

which the alleged matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted.

Defendant [1]'s Marsden Motion / wMemorandum in Support of Page 2


3/24


8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron

McKee) and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel

advised her that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed

a subpoena to produce the materials, in which he failed to do.

9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel

stated he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of

record expects the Defendant to go to the police Department and retrieve 80% of her property

without the bates system, or notifying the court to go through proper procedures, in which makes

the Defendant leery of the way her counsel of record is handling this request without going

through the court.

10). Defendant [1] request for Depositions of witnesses, to include the Postal Inspector,

due to the fact he was called in by the u.s. Attorney post facto, the police officers, due to the

conflicting testimony and evidence, witnesses or owners of evidence, due to the inconsistencies

within this case.

03/25/2010 Letter to Counsel

11). The Defendant [1] requests that no effort has been made to return the 80% of the

seized evidence, by any motion or order, using the bates system, as promised by the U.S.

Attorney, as well as, notifying the court in a proper forum, and no suitable provisions are in place

to protect the integrity of the case, or the Defendant [1]'s rights, pursuant to the 14

th

Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution.

12). The Defendant [1]'s counsel stated that these requests by Defendant [1] was frivolous

issues. The Defendant [1] then request that the counsel of record file a Motion to Suppress the

evidence, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.

Defendant [1]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of Page 3


4/24


13). The Defendant [1] request that a certified chain of custody be produced, in which

counsel of record had failed to respond to.

14). The Defendant [1] requested that the counsel of record file a motion to dismiss the

case for violations of 18 USC 3161 (d)(2) on time limitations, in which was not responded to by

counsel of record.

15). The Defendant [1] had given her attorney 10 working days to respond to these

requests, in which he failed to comply with, as far as addressing all the issues.


16). The Defendant [1] request that her attorney file pre-trial motions pursuant to FRE

Rille 410, inclusive is to contest or quash the Defendant's proffer, in which counsel of record

advised the Defendant that the Motion in Limine will address her concerns, in which will not

address her concerns.

17). The Defendant [1] request that FRCP Rule 12 for a Motion to Dismiss based upon

defects in instituting the prosecution, shall be addressed prior to trial. The attorney claims that all

evidence is available, in which has not been produced, in which Defendant [1] can show.

18). The Defendant request that the counsel of record requests transcripts of witnesses

during their interviews (audio &video), in their entirety, in which counsel agrees with, but also

contradicts his statement that all evidence has been produced.

19). The Defendant [1] request that the investigators get background checks on witnesses,

due to their criminal history, criminal record, and pleas or deals in which were offered by the

police officers and the U.S. Attorney, in which the counsel of record had failed to respond to.

Defendant [l]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of Page 4


5/24



20). The Defendant [1] request that her Proffer be Quashed or stricken from the record,

due to KSA 77-532(6), as well as, 77-517, for failure to provide an impartial officer (the U.S.

Attorney) in which was not present during the Proffer, nor was there properly documented record

of the proffer, in which was clearly outside the plain language rule, in which the Defendant cited

a 2005 case.

21). The Defendant [1] had also shown that the contract law was violated and had cited a

2009 case.

22). The Defendant request a list of motions for the counsel of record to file.

23). The Defendant [1] incorporates any and all motions filed by Counsel to remain in

effect and to be addressed by the court.

24). The Defendant [1] would request that the court appointed investigator (Dan Clark)

remain until the case had been resolved.

25). The Defendant [1] would like the court to appoint a counsel of record, only as a legal

advisor for the Defendant [1], until the case can be resolved and concluded.

THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss

counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d

118 (1970).

Carrie Neighbors

Defendant {1J / Pro Se Litigant1104 Andover


(785) 842-2785

Defendant [1]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of Page 5


6/24


/

TO: Mr. John Duma LLP

303 East Poplar St.

Olathe, Ks. 66061

Date 3/16/2010

From: Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

RE: The evidence

Dear John,

There seems to be some complications with our communications. One issue I

have is the ex parte communications with the u.s. Attorney Marietta Parker after Istrictly advised you not to discuss with her my communication with you regarding

the recent press release, which I felt was just cause for a motion before the court. I

am requesting that there be no more communications ex parte with the Prosecutors

Marietta Parker or Terra Morehead relating to my communications with you,without my approval, or me presence during these conversations. This violates

lawyer client professionalism. Attorneys involved in this case have violated Rule

226 Kansas Rules of Professional conduct 1.4, 1.6, (1.15: Violated specifically by

Aaron McKee claiming he no longer can provide Proffer notes). 3.4, &4.1.

In regards to the return of my evidence,

You will need to write a letter to the u.s. Attorney officially requesting an orderof release of property from whoever has these items in their possession, including a

time, date and location to pick it up. This will be accompanied by the batesnumerical system, as well as, I want an official certified chain of custody

"unaltered" list (Iogsj.for whom ever handled, checked in or out, or had any possession of, or any property in question, from the beginning of the case, up until

the current date. (Inclusive with the required procedural photo affidavits of the

rightful owners linked to returned evidence or property verified through serial

numbers and previous theft reports or paperwork.) I expect you to request on my

behalf, detailed verification in writing be presented to my counsel by the U.S.

Attorney listing the exact property that is intended for pick-up. This will protect

my interests as your client and enable my defense counsel to remain apprised

atrinonro


7/24


without risking becoming a witness in the case.

I also want you to depose the Federal Postal Inspector David Nitz, The Police

Department, (Inclusive of any officers involved in my case), as well as any and allwitnesses to the evidence, or owners of the evidence, due to the inconsistencies,

misleading information, as well as coercion, extortion, and total mishandling of the

case, evidence and property, and violations in the chain of custody by the

Lawrence Police Department.

I want to know by what Authority; based on legal statute, jurisdiction and by what

complaint, brought the Postal Inspector into the cases, and when it was done, and

especially if it was post facto.

There has been documented prejudicial gross mishandling of this case, returning

and storing evidence, and violations of the chain of custody.Police Officers have repeatedly brought their credibility into question by way of

their own inconsistent testimony. Micky Rantz testified under oath that the Sony

Camera was never logged into the evidence room and that it was returned absent of

the Police dept. procedures. This pattern of inconsistency in following procedure is

found throughout the falsified evidence logs, lack of photo affidavits of "rightful

owners" in the discovery, planted evidence lacking serial numbers, and chain of

custody verification, withholding of discovery, fabricated police reports, and

falsified victims names.

Officer Mike Riner gave testimony under oath he destroyed his notes; which

constitutes destroying records; evidence in an ongoing Federal Investigation. Then

Terra Morehead claimed in the following hearing that he had found the notes he

had formerly testified were destroyed.

These issues give rise to the fact this case is a fraud and I am requesting that these

serious issues be brought before the court.

evidence Page 2


8/24


Like you said "we have to prove nothing, but they have to prove their case with a

preponderance of the evidence." The evidence in this case is a fraud; therefore the

entire case being presented before this court is a fraud.

I hope I have made myself very clear in this letter. I expect a written answer fromyou within 10 legal days. I want you to comply with all the problems I have

pointed out with your involvement and 'your participation as my counsel before the

courts in this matter.

Re~ctfuilY Submitted

l~J:t--Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

evidence Page 3


9/24


C E R T IF IC A T E O F S ER V IC E

[Pursuant to KSA60-205]

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in

the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid,

addressed to:

Mr. John Duma llP

303 East Poplar street

Olathe KS.66061

Date 0j3 1 1 1 o ! ; Z o ( O

R e c : t : $ C : _Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

evidence Page 4


10/24


..

C O N F I D E N T I A J .,

F IL B C O P Y

To: Mr. John Duma LLP

303 East Poplar St.

Olathe, Ks. 66061

Date 3/25/2010

Dear John,

There still seems to be a complication with our ability to communicate. It is evident to me that no

effort has been made on my behalf to expedite the return of the 80% of the seized evidence

currently being held, by any motion or order, using what is defined as the bates system. And no

suitable provisions are in place to protect the integrity of the case or my rights through due

process oflaw, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with the arrangements

for pick-up that are currently being offered by the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.

I do not agree with you that these are frivolous issues. When a person whose property is taken

wants to challenge the validity of the search, a motion to return the evidence can be made. See,

e.g., Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 (g). Failure to file pre-trial motions in regards to the return of the evidence

could result in the loss of the claim absent a good reason for the failure. See Fed.R.Crim.P 12

(b)(3)(C). I would request that you file a motion to suppress the evidence, due to the fact the

Federal Government cannot show that I had any knowledge that the evidence was stolen.

Therefore I am again requesting that you file a pre-trial motion on my behalf officially

requesting the return of my property, and that you include in that motion to require the U.S

.Attorney turn over to the court and or defense a detailed list of the property to be returned, using

the bates system, along with a certified chain of custody for whom ever handled, checked in or

out, or had possession of any property in question from the beginning of the case up until the

current date; any and all property in question. Due to the fact I still have a legal right to some of

the property that may no longer be in the possession of the Government I am also requesting that

a certified chain of custody be provided to the defense inclusive of all theft reports, serial

numbers, signatures and identification, and procedural photo affidavits of all conclusory "rightful

owners" that have received Yellow House Property, or any &all other property seized and no

longer in the Governments possession, as well as, the Motion to Suppress.

I want to make it clear that I am aware that my 180 days from which the Government had to

bring me to trial has surpassed. I am requesting that you address that issue with the courts by

filing a motion to dismiss on my behalf, for failure to comply with 18 USC 3161 (d)(2) on

statutory time limitations.

I have in no way agreed to give up my constitutional right to a speedy trial. I have signed nothing

to waiver my rights to a speedy trial, nor have I caused any unnecessary time delays. I feel the

Government has sought numerous unnecessary delays under the guise to meet the justifiable

ends to their satisfaction, but in actual reality in order to prejudice my defense with mounting

Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010 Page 1

A1l


11/24


C O N F I D E N T I A L

. frivolous indictments that should not be brought to trial. Two mental competency tests, one of

which resulted in unlawful prison incarceration. These also includes multiple court orders that if

violated or if the Government accuses me of violating would result in incarceration without

conviction. (As is the case with my co-defendant Guy Neighbors, and was also the case with the

frivolous Obstruction case, in which mirrors the first case, in which now constitutes res judicataand collateral estoppel)

The following rules of statutory interpretation provide guidance in interpreting 65-4162(a). "'It is

a fundamental rule of statutory construction, to which all other rules are subordinate, that the

intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.'" City of Wichita v. 200 South

Broadway, 253 Kan. 434, 436, 855 P.2d 956 (1993). "When a statute is plain and unambiguous,

the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine

what the law should or should not be." Martindale v. Tenny, 250 Kan. 621, SyI. ~ 2,829 P.2d

561 (1992). "The legislature is presumed to intend that a statute be given a reasonable

construction, so as to avoid unreasonable or absurd results." Todd v. Kelly, 251 Kan. 512, 520,837 P.2d 381 (1992).

There is a frivolous undertone to this case, but I am not the one that is frivolous, as you make

reference to in your contentions! This entire case is not only frivolous it's a fraud upon the

courts. The indictments are frivolous, the prosecutions repeated delays through motions

concerning the blogs have been frivolous, the arrests and incarcerations have been frivolous, and

my detainment for 8 hours without food was frivolous. It's frivolous that my guaranteed

constitutional rights have been repeatedly violated. I hope I have made my contentions very

clear. I also hope your legal degree doesn't cloud your judgment in this matter. The U.S. codes

are very clear and ambiguous.

I would like a written answer regarding my requests for action in the above matter within 10

working days.

R~~bmitted_

Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010 Page 2


12/24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVJ ~. - = !l"'-

[Pursuant to KSA 60-20~rnooo

..1J

ru::t"

ru

Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84

Certified Fee$ 2 . 3 0

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and corre ~

the above captioned matter was deposited in the United St ~

addressed to:

Return Receipt Fee(Endorsement Required)

Restricted Delivery Fee

(Endorsement Required)

12.30

$ 0 . 0 0

Total Postage & Fees $tC ' r l-I/.J yt

Mr. John Duma

c-oor-

303 East Poplar Street

Olathe, KS. 66061


13/24

Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04L26i19 ..Page~UJJt2"t"':=:==:=='

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-

CLIENT COMMUNICATION

To Mr. John Duma LLP


Olathe, Ks. 66061

Date: 04/09120 I 0


Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

RE: Request for full and complete of Witness Transcripts during their Interviews &

Background checks of Governments witnesses

Dear John;

This letter is in reference to more complications I have discovered between our

communication and the federal statutes, as well as, the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Please be advised that in accordance to Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence;

inadmissibility of pleas, plea discussions etc: Anything said during the Proffer is inadmissible

and cannot be used in a court of law. I am requesting you address the court, in any pre-trial

motions prior to trial, inclusive is the Motion to contest and 1or quash the Proffer in its entirety;

because without access to the defense notes through the previous Attorney, the Proffer is nothing

but hearsay, and shows a pattern of fraud, by the fact that the Proffering ie Plea negotiations

ended when the Government committed fraud, which rendered the negotiation void ab initio in

its entirety.

Pursuant to Rule 12 FRCP our motions to dismiss can be based on defects in instituting the

prosecution, defects in the indictment or information which can be challenged at any stage, but

should be raised before a trial begins. Because a criminal prosecution implicates an absolute

constitutional guarantee, the discovery is more focused on automatic disclosure principles, which

if proven to be violated, will be the grounds for a dismissal of the charges. My requests for

discovery is not frivolous, under Rule 12, the Judge required them to produce the documentation

Letter to John Duma on 04/09/2010 Page 1


14/24

Case 2:08-cr-201 05-GM-JpO Document 84 Flied 0 4 /2 6/1 0 Page 14ot24- -~"--~, ,"

in this case: [(Dawson, et al. v. Pittco Capital Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3148-CC (Del. Ch., Feb.

15,2010)]

Also I am requesting that you get transcripts done, in their entirety, of any & all witnesses

whose interviews were Audio or video recorded, during, before or after the Ebay Investigation.

Every transcript is to include the pre-interview discussions / negotiations contained in the audios

prior to the actual questioning, these will be used by the defense to discredit the witnesses,

therefore rendering a need for testimony by the defendant Carrie Neighbors moot.

Under Federal Rules of Evidence 609 (1) (2) & Rule 403 I am also requesting that the

defense have our Private investigators Dan Clark and or Denny Conway get background checks

on any and all of the Governments witnesses. This will enable the defense to impeach witnesses

by showing evidence of previous frauds or convictions of crimes prejudicial to my case, due to

any and all deals made with law enforcement or the U.S. Attorney. [see ref audio tapes during all

interviews with witnesses prior to the interview]

Our need to use Rule 609 outweighs 403 because it's prejudicial for the defense, that the

Government has made deals with every criminal witness in exchange for their testimony,

including but not limited to offering them a payment of money in exchange for their cooperation,

or reduction of any charge, as well as, time reduction, to assist officers to manufacture stolen

property during the course of the investigation.

Pursuant to Kansas Rule 1.01(b)(1) and Rule 1.03(a) I am requesting a written answer

regarding my requests for action in the above matter within 10 working days. Thank you for your

time and inconvenience in this matter.

R~llY

Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence,Ks.66046



15/24


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Pursuant to KSA 60-205]

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to:

Mr. John Duma


Olathe, KS. 66061

U.S. Postal Service-,

CERTIFIED MAllw RECEIPT(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)IT"

rur -= I

l..I1

Postage $

Date mailed out on: 04 /0912010

Res~l9tted,

Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence,Ks.66046

Certif ied Fee

rno Retum Receipt Feeo (Endorsement ReqUired)

o Restricted Delivery Feeo (Endorsement ReqUired)

l..I1

ru Total Postage & Fees $ru

IT"

oor-

Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete

item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Print your name and address on the reverse

so that we can return the card to . f W , Attach this card to the back of thei'imailpiece,

or on the front if space permits. ....""

1. Article Addressedto:

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

o AgentoAddreC. Date of Del i

' + - -(3-D. Is del ivery address differentfrom item 1? ~es

If YES, enterdel ivery address below: . / " " ! - No

~~~w~~

3D3e%p\cv0

(9\~) \ - < 5 ~ ~ \ ) ~ \. Service Type

oCertified Mail 0Express MailoRegistered 0Return Receipt for Merchano Insured Mail 0C.O.D.

4. Restricted D el ive ry? (E x t ra Fee) 0Yes

2. Article Number

(T ransfer f rom service labeO

PS Form 3811, February 2004

7009 2250 0003 7194 5129

Domestic Return Receipt 1025\l5-02.M.



16/24

Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 16 of 24 .

-:

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION

To Mr. John Duma LLP


Olathe, Ks. 66061

Date: 04/19/2010


Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

Dear John,

This letter is in reference to your last response on 04/14/2010. Please be advised this is my

fourth and final attempt to once again clarify what I am requesting of you.

I know that you filed a "Motion In Limine &Memorandum in Support" USA V.

Neighbors case 07-20124 July 27, 2009, Pg. 1 (E). Any Statements given by Carrie Neighbors

during her proffer. However this is an automatic contractual right if I don't testify. This request

does not eliminate the Proffer from the case, nor does it require a ruling, nor does it protect me if

I chose to testify at trial.

My request is that you file a Motion to also Quash, or strike the proffer, in its entirety from

this case. This motion can include the Governments violations of Kansas Statutes 77-532 (6), and

77-517, because the agents failed to provide an impartial Presiding officer (in which requires the

presence of the U.S. Attorney, in which was not present during the proffer) or transcriber free

from bias or prejudice to properly document the statements, in which there is no recording of any

statements taken during this proffer.

a). In ref United States v. Stein, 2005 WL1377851 (E.D. Pa. 2005), In my case

also, the Defendant made statements only to agents, not to prosecuting attorneys, leaving

statements clearly outside the plain language of the rules. Id. At 10, n.12. There are currently no

unbiased records or recordings available to the defense in the discovery that factually

documented the actual statements made by the defendants.

b). The Proffer was not recorded.the statements have been colored, and therefore

is inadmissible in its entirety and should be quashed from the record. Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d

1156,1159 (Alaska 1985) (describing law enforcement duty to preserve evidence). The court

reasoned that electronically recording a defendant's interrogation helps to ensure his right to a

Final letter to John Duma 04/19/2010


17/24


CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION

fair trial .. Id. at 1159-60. And failure to do so is a violation of his/her due process. Whereby, any

and all unrecorded statements as evidence at trial shall be excluded.

A Proffer should be construed according to principles of contract law. HUSv. Merz (WL

1183771 u .s . District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)(2009)." Whereby if the

contract is violated it becomes void in its entirety. The terms of the Proffer contract were

violated by the Government when during the negotiations the officers committed fraud by

questioning the defendant without her attorney present, while returning a seized camera, in

violation of chain of custody rules. Then furthered the violation by refusing to acknowledge any

considerations previously promised.

Evidently by now, with both your college decree and legal decree it should not take a

rocket scientist to figure out I have no intention or reason to Plea when I am not guilty, and the

prosecution has been on a illegal prosecutorial harassment, to include manufacturing evidence

against me. Whereby you have not addressed the other requests, issues and Motions, I have

brought forth, in my prior letters to you, as well as, your time limitations is expiring on the

Motions I have requested you file, to now include the Motion to Quash or Strike the proffer.

The requested Motions are as follows:a). Motion to strike or Quash the Proffer.

b). Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, due to the inconsistency in returning, and improper

handling of evidence, and conspiracy to conceal evidence.

c). Motion to Exclude witnesses.

d). Motion to Request any and all transcripts, in their entirety of any and all interviews.

, e). Motion to return any and all evidence or property, by using the Numerical Bates

System, in which the Government had seized and is not related to this cause of action.

f). Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with 18 USC 3161 (d)(2) on time

limitations.

Please forward me a copy of each as soon as you have them filed. Thank you for your

time and inconvenience in this matter.

Finalletterto John Duma 04/19/2010 Page 2


18/24

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Docume~ Fdelq4J~6Jlo Pagel1S of 24

7010 0290 0002 8953 4361

CONFIDENTIAL ATT

R e l ! : l rCarrie Neighbors

Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

CERTIFICATE OF

[Pursuant to KSA :

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a t

document in the above captioned matter was depos

postage prepaid, addressed to:

Mr. John Duma


Olathe, KS. 66061

jo

Date mailed out on: 04/19/2010

R e s p e e ; U ~Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House store

1904 Massachusetts

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

Finalletterto John Duma 04/19/2010

~U>

~~9U>

0OJU>C\I

;!

Ql'

e . - = l

i...ll

rn

~.:r

~ rnjj)

U10 lr'0

J B


19/24

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 19 of 24

D U M A L A W O F F IC E S

John M. Duma At to rney a t LawLicensed in Kansas and MisSOUT'i

Ms. Carrie Neighbors1904 Massachusetts St.

Lawrence, KS 66047

Re: United States v. Carrie NeiqhborsAll cases pending

Dear Carrie:

This is in response to your letter dated March 16, 2010. First of all I have notcommunicated any information covered by the attorney client privilege to anyone. Yourecently asked me to file an accusation in contempt against Marietta Parker because

the Kansas Department of Justice Web Site contained information portraying you in anegative fashion. I advised you that I was not going to do this as I think that it would bea waste of time and be an action that would be considered frivolous. However, I didsend an e-mail to Ms. Parker advising her that the offensive language should beremoved from their web site. Ms. Parker immediately complied with this request. In noway did this do anything other than what you requested. Frankly, I am very tired of youraccusatory behavior. I have advised you on several occasions that after having viewed

the evidence in this case it would be in your best interests to try to approach thegovernment about resolving this matter per a plea of guilty. To date you have ignoredthat advice and have asked me to proceed to trial.

I fully intend to prepare this matter for trial if necessary and will focus on yourdefense in this matter i.e. you never had any intent to do anything illegal. I refuse to

waste more time and effort in frivolous attempts to chase down what I now consider tobe information not based on provable facts but as the result of issues you have withbeing suspicious to the point of paranoia as to everyone and everything connected withthis case.

I will not be requesting any depositions in this case as to do so would be afrivolous waste of time. I will not research the authority of the postal service

investigators to conduct federal criminal investigations as this also is a frivolous wasteof time.

Any serious issues to be brought before the court will be handled at the time thecourt hears the motions we have previously filed or at the trial in chief of this matter.

Every time you recount a possible discrepancy in the investigation of your case are notgrounds for the filing of a motion.

303 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 (913)-782-7072 fax (913)-782-1383

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


20/24


I am not going to waste time with chasing additional side issues that are not

directly relevant to your defense in this case.

I anticipate in the near future that the court will take up the issue of whether you

and Guy should have your cases severed for trial. To get the e-bay case resolved and

completed would be the first step towards having this entire matter behind you. I am

going to do everything to accomplish this end.

~'

J1h~DUma

JMD:jd


21/24


/ '

DUMA lA W OFFICES

John M. Duma Attorney at LawLicensed in Kansas and MisSOUT'i

April 14, 2010

Ms. Carrie Neighbors

1904 Massachusetts St.

Lawrence, KS 66047

Re: United States v. Carrie Neighbors

All cases pending

Dear Carrie:

This letter is in response to your most recent letter sent to this office dated 4/9/10.

First you quote rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as authority that anything you said during

your proffer letter cannot be used in the governments' case in chief. As I have discussed with you

on numerous occasions there is a motion in limine on file with the court to prevent the government

from using any information gained during the proffer statements. However, as I have also discussed

with you on many occasions, the proffer agreement contains specific language that allows the

government to use what you said during the proffer if you testify to some fact or event in such a way

to be different than what you said during your proffer.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that you can waive some of your evidentiary rights you

might otherwise enjoy under rule 410, and that waiver is allowable. United States v. Gary

Mezzanatto, 115 S. Ct. 797 (U.S. 01/18/1995).

The problem this presents in your defense is that if you testify at trial to anything differently than

what you said during your proffer the government would be able to use your proffer statement to

impeach your trial testimony. As you are aware the proffer has numerous instances of you making

comments that clearly indicate you were involved in illegal activity while conducting business as

Yellow House. I know you keep telling me that you did not make these statements but they would

come in to evidence nonetheless if you take the stand in your own defense.

As to your request for rule 12 motions to be filed, there currently are pending motions to suppress as

well as motions for discovery to be heard by the court. You refer to discovery motions you want

filed but as the government has an entirely open file policy all evidence has been made available to

us for review. Further, I have allowed you to review all of the evidence in my office and will

continue to allow you to do so at your request.

303 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 (913)-782-7072 fa x (913)[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


22/24


The government is required to provide any Rule 609 evidence as to any witnesses they intend on

calling at the time of trial. When we get a trial date set the court will give us a date by which that

evidence is to be given to the defense. Further, I have received plea agreements for several potential

witnesses and will be able to use these against those witnesses if and when they testify.

As to transcripts of statements, I believe I will ask the court for authorization of funds to be allocated

to transcribe the various audio and video statements of the witnesses in this case. I do not know

what the courts position will be on this matter but I believe it would be helpful at trial.

While I am writing you I want to once again comment on the case and potential sentence that you

face in case 07-20124 (e-bay case). Many times I have advised that you approach the government

about a possible plea that would put you in the position to keep your sentence as low as possible.

I know that you have reiterated over and over that you have done nothing wrong, and when you

observed the many video statements of persons that say differently, you simply repeat over and over

that they are lying.

However, I am duty bound under the circumstances to advise as to how the sentencing guidelines

could work in your case.

First the government is intending on presenting evidence that you were involved in illegal activity

that resulted in total losses of approximately $525,000.00. Pursuant to United States Sentencing

Guideline (D.S.S.G. sec. 2Bl.l) you would start with an offense level of 21. This could be

increased by 2 levels if the offense involved 10 or more victims, or 4 levels if it involved 50 or more

victims. If you were to be determined to be in the business of receiving stolen property you would

get a 2 level increase.

Also, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 you could receive another 2 level adjustment for impeding the

administration of justice because of the problems created by all of the internet blogging that you and

your husband did during the course of this matter.

If the losses are correct, and there were 10 or more victims and you received a two level increase for

impeding justice, and you were found to be in the business of receiving stolen property your base

offense level would be 27. With no prior criminal history your sentencing range would be 70-87

months. If you pleaded guilty, you would be eligible for a three level reduction of your sentencing

level .pursuant to U.S.S.G. sec. 3E1.1. This could bring your offense level down to 24 with a

resulting sentencing range of 51-63 months. Further, if you plead guilty without a plea agreement,

we could contest the amount of loss that could considerably reduce your exposure to a prisonsentence.

As an example if the court found that the loss was only $50,000.00 with the other adjustments set out

above, your sentencing level if you plead guilty could be 16 with a resulting sentencing range of21-

27 months.


23/24


Ultimately, you are the one that has to decide whether or not to plead guilty or take the matter to

trial. However, I have repeatedly given you my opinion that the likelihood of you being found not

guilty at a jury trial is very slim.

With all of the above having been said if you have any questions please advise.

~~ly,_

JJ~.Duma

JMD/jd


24/24


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Pursuant to KSA 60-205]

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to:

Cheryl A Pilate

Melanie Morgan LLC

Defendant [2J counsel of record142 Cherry

Olathe, Kansas 66061

John Duma

303 E. PoplarOlathe, Kansas 66061

Guy Neighbors # 11520031

Federal Medical Center

P.O. Box 1600

Butner, NC. 27509

Marietta Parker

Terra Morehead

U.S. Attorneys

500 State Ave.Suite 360

Kansas City, KS 66101

On this 26th day of April 2010.

Carne Neighbors

Defendant [1J / Pro SeLitigant

1104 Andover


(785) 842-2785

4_26_2010 Carrie Neighbors Motion

Documents

Transcript of 4_26_2010 Carrie Neighbors Motion