4 - 26 - 2010 Carrie Neighbors Motion

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 to People 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

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 / w Memorandum in Support of Page 2

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 14th 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.

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

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 Litigant
1104 Andover
(785) 842-2785

/
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 I
strictly 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 order
of 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 bates
numerical 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
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 all
witnesses 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
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 from
you 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.
l~J:t--
Re~ctfuilY Submitted
Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House Store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
evidence Page 3
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 llP
303 East Poplar street
Olathe KS. 66061
Date 0 j3111o!;Zo(O
Rec:t:$C: _
Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
evidence Page 4
CONFIDENTIAJ.,
.. FILBCOPY
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,4cJ1~
1-
CONFIDENTIAL
. 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 judicata
and 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

Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84
..1J
ru
::t"
ru
CERTIFICATE OF SERVJ ~
.-=!
l"'- $2.30
[Pursuant to KSA 60-20~ Certified Fee
rn
o Return Receipt Fee 1·2.30
o (Endorsement Required)
o Restricted Delivery Fee $0.00
(Endorsement Required)
The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and corre ~ tC' rl
Total Postage & Fees $ -I/.J •• yt
the above captioned matter was deposited in the United St ~

addressed to: c-
o
o
Mr. John Duma r-
303 East Poplar Street
Olathe, KS. 66061

<:
-V
"-....
'-<)
Date mailed out on: 03/25/2010 W
~
-c
r
o
~ ~
~
;;:
en
R~ ~
Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence,Ks.66046

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; !I
!I
because without access to the defense notes through the previous Attorney, the Proffer is nothing II
but hearsay, and shows a pattern of fraud, by the fact that the Proffering ie Plea negotiations :1
il
'I
ended when the Government committed fraud, which rendered the negotiation void ab initio in
its entirety.
II I
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

Case 2:08-cr-201 05-GM-JpO Document 84 Flied 04/26/10 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

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 U.S. Postal Service-,

303 East Poplar Street CERTIFIED MAllw RECEIPT
IT"
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
Olathe, KS. 66061 ru
r-=I
l..I1
Date mailed out on: 04/0912010

Postage $
Certified Fee
rn
Res~l9tted, o Retum Receipt Fee
o (Endorsement ReqUired)
o Restricted Delivery Fee

Carrie Neighbors o (Endorsement ReqUired)
l..I1
Yellow House store ru Total Postage & Fees $
ru
1904 Massachusetts
IT"
Lawrence,Ks.66046 o
o
r-
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ,
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete I

item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. o Agent I
• Print your name and address on the reverse o Addressee I
so that we can return the card to .¥fW,
• Attach this card to the back of thei'imailpiece,
or on the front if space permits. ...."" '+- -(3-/0
C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ~es

I
1. Article Addressed to:

If YES, enter delivery address below: ./""!- No
~~~w~~
3D3e%p\cv0 . Service Type
o Certified Mail 0 Express Mail
(9\~) \-<5 ~~\)~ \ o Registered
o Insured Mail
0 Return Receipt for Merchandise
0 C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service labeO
7009 2250 0003 7194 5129
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1025\l5-02.M.1540

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

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. H US v. 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.
,
j
Finalletterto John Duma 04/19/2010 Page 2
~
I
i!
Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Docume~ Fde§lq4J~6Jlo Pagel1S of 24
~
7010 0290 0002 8953 4361 U>
~
~ 9
CONFIDENTIAL ATT
U>
OJ
0 U>
C\I
;!
Ql'
e .-=l
i~
...ll
rn
.:r
~ rn
Rel!:lr
jj) U1
0
'0
lr
JB <0
0
'C
ru a
ma:: CJ .~
CJ a::
~ CJ E
:J
Carrie Neighbors CJ ~-
lr
Yellow House Store ru
0
CJ ~
1904 Massachusetts E
0
CJ 0
Lawrence, Ks. 66046 .-=l
CJ
r-
~
0
0
"". (\J
e-
CERTIFICATE OF
(I)
~ III
[Pursuant to KSA : (I) 2

.c
..
~ If
jo
~ (I)
.
1l E T"'
!5,g T"'
co
The undersigned also hereby certifies that a t
document in the above captioned matter was depos
~
.2 ~
.. en~
Z oj!!
"-
0
E

~c U-
en
N a.
Mr. John Duma

Olathe, KS. 66061
Date mailed out on: 04/19/2010
Respee;U~
Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
Finalletterto John Duma 04/19/2010 Page 3

Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 19 of 24
DUMA LAW OFFICES
John M. Duma Attorney at Law

Licensed in Kansas and MisSOUT'i
Ms. Carrie Neighbors

1904 Massachusetts St.
Lawrence, KS 66047
Re: United States v. Carrie Neiqhbors

All cases pending
Dear Carrie:
This is in response to your letter dated March 16, 2010. First of all I have not
communicated any information covered by the attorney client privilege to anyone. You
recently asked me to file an accusation in contempt against Marietta Parker because
the Kansas Department of Justice Web Site contained information portraying you in a
negative fashion. I advised you that I was not going to do this as I think that it would be
a waste of time and be an action that would be considered frivolous. However, I did
send an e-mail to Ms. Parker advising her that the offensive language should be
removed from their web site. Ms. Parker immediately complied with this request. In no
way did this do anything other than what you requested. Frankly, I am very tired of your
accusatory 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 the
government about resolving this matter per a plea of guilty. To date you have ignored
that advice and have asked me to proceed to trial.
I fully intend to prepare this matter for trial if necessary and will focus on your
defense 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 to
be information not based on provable facts but as the result of issues you have with
being suspicious to the point of paranoia as to everyone and everything connected with
this case.
I will not be requesting any depositions in this case as to do so would be a
frivolous 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 waste
of time.
Any serious issues to be brought before the court will be handled at the time the
court 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 not
grounds for the filing of a motion.
303 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 (913)-782-7072 fax (913)-782-1383

[email protected]
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
/ '
DUMA lAW OFFICES
John M. Duma Attorney at Law

Licensed 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 fax (913)-782-1383

[email protected]
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 prison
sentence.
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.
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
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
Cheryl A Pilate
Melanie Morgan LLC
Defendant [2J counsel of record
142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061
John Duma
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, 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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 - 26 - 2010 Carrie Neighbors Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 - 26 - 2010 Carrie Neighbors Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main issues the defendant has with their legal representation?

What are the main issues the defendant has with their legal representation?

What is the defendant requesting from their legal counsel?

What is the defendant requesting from their legal counsel?

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No: 07-20073-CM

DEFENDANT [lJ'S MARSDEN MOTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through the court.

within this case.

03/25/2010 Letter to Counsel

to the U.S. Constitution.

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

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

counsel of record had failed to respond to.

04/09/2010 Letter to Counsel

address her concerns.

contradicts his statement that all evidence has been produced.

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

04/19/2010 Letter to Counsel

effect and to be addressed by the court.

remain until the case had been resolved.

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

From: Carrie Neighbors

RE: The evidence

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

In regards to the return of my evidence,

without risking becoming a witness in the case.

[Pursuant to KSA 60-205]

Mr. John Duma llP

303 East Poplar street

Olathe KS. 66061

Yellow House store

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010 Page 1

Yellow House Store

Lawrence, Ks. 66046

Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010 Page 2

the above captioned matter was deposited in the United St ~

303 East Poplar Street

Olathe, KS. 66061

Yellow House store

Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010 Page 3

To Mr. John Duma LLP

From: Carrie Neighbors