APR OLS Coyne IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Guy M. Neighbors, ) Petitioner, ) Officer Robinson #1911) Officer Wech #9510, V. ) Lawrence police dept, ) City of Lawrence Kansas) Lawrence Municiple Court) Scott Miller, Steven M. Lehwald, ) Case No. Respondent) |OTICE OF CLAIM ‘Come Now Petitioner Guy M. Neighbors to give “Notice Of Claim” to whom it may concern, and states the following: Municipal employees are generally immune from personal liability for discretionary actions they take, or do not take in the performing their official duties, unless their actions are wanton, willful, or malicious or they act negligently when they could have for seen imminent injury to a specific person. This action is brought forth to address the continued Harassment and “Constitutional” right violations perpetrated on the Neighbors by and through a collective conspiracy by the Lawrence Police, and other officers of the court. PelCount One Lawrence police officer Wech # 9510 wrote a citation to Neighbors for an alleged seat belt Violation on 11-24-14 Citation # A121247 see: Exhibit “a’, Neighbors explained to officer Wech that unless that citation was signed be a judicial officer of the court prior to issuing it to Neighbors, the officer would be violating Neighbors constitutional right to “due process” the officer replied,” he did not know about that and Neighbors would have to take it up with the court, During the trial, Neighbors was allowed to view the officer’s dash cam video of the traffic stop. The dash cam video showed the officer could NOT see inside of Neighbors vehicle from the side view due to the tinted windows. The video appears to show the officer doing something in the police vehicle and when the Neighbors approached, even though the officer could not see who was driving the vehicle, he immediately started up his police vehicle and proceeded to perform a traffic stop on the petitioner without “Probable Cause” Neighbors believes officer Wech who had been on the police dept, for 20-yrs knew the petitioner's vehicle and the officer knew that the petitioner beat one seat belt ticked some months earlier. Also Neighbors believes officer Wech is aware of the many Fraudulent Federal Criminal Cases (See; Exhibit “e” The chronological history of the federal criminal cases) that had been filed against Neighbors and his wife by the Lawrence police dept. in 2005. Officer Weeh’s action on 11-24-15 were consistent other corrupt Lawrence Police officer who were responsible for the police misconduct in the federal cases and multiple arrests of the Neighbors. ‘This petition is to specifically to address the lack of “probable Cause” for the traffic stops, and the continued harassment at the hands of officers from the Lawrence Police Department and other officers of the traffic court. The issue of the corrupt Federal Criminal Cases will be addressed in a different action in Federal Court in a few months. Pg.2Count Two (due process violations Lawrence police officer Robinson preformed a traffic stop on petitioner on 4-28-13 citation # A023469 sce: Exhibit “b” for a allege seat belt violation and the case was dismissed upon a motion to dismiss due to Neighbors “due process” violation . The officers of this court have trespassed upon Neighbors in that the officers of this court is well aware the Municipal Court receives its jurisdiction from statute and Not the Constitution or Congress, and therefore it has no “ Subject Matter Jurisdiction” whereby the police action turns into harassment, violation of Neighbors “right to due process”, and a violation of racially profiling, Count Three (conspiracy against Officers of the court, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Lehwald are aware of the fact that forcing Neighbors into these unlawful proceedings without his consent or jurisdiction is a violation Neighbors civil rights, and Neighbors, states that Mr. Miller (judge) failed to be impartial and was harsh with Neighbors during the hearing at one point the judge stated that Neighbors was boarder line contempt of court because Neighbors wrote a letter to the court explaining how the officer had violated Neighbors right to due process, and that if this violation continued Neighbors would be forced to file a tort claim against the officers of the court for redress. Neighbors files several pleading addressing the issues civil rights violation in the 1* citation and the matter was dismissed, now the officers of the court are trespassing on Neighbors again. See Exhibits “d” and « Pg.3Count Four (lack of jurisdiction’ ‘This Court is defined under FRCP Rule 4 (j) as a FOREIGN STATE as defined under 28 USC, CHAPTER 97—JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES, Sec. 1602 -1611 ‘The FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT (SIA) allows the Neighbors to challenge jurisdiction, and fall disclosure of the true jurisdiction of this Court was ignored. Any failure to disclose the true jurisdiction is a violation of 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27, 1868 Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27, 1868 Any MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, OR STATE COURT lacks jurisdiction to hear any case under the FOREIGN STATE definitions. This jurisdiction lies with the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT under the FSIA Statutes pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1330. Because the Neighbiors is a non-corporate entity, and is not registered with any Secretary of State as a CORPORATION, the Prosecution has FAILED to state a claim to whieh relief can be granted under 12(b) (6). Therefore this matter must be dismissed for lack of political, personam, subject matter jurisdiction, and Venue under the 11th Amendment, and damaged granted in full Summary ‘Municipal employees can be held personally liable for: 1. Negligence in performing a ministerial act. 2. Negligence in executing a governmental act where imminent injury to a specific individual was foreseeable. 3, Wanton, willful, or malicious misconduct(acts manifesting a reckless disregard or the consequences or rights and safety or others. Kansas courts have ruled that individuals aggrieved by certain violations of State Constitutional Pedrights may pursue a damaged action in State or Federal Court, whereby Petitioner brings his claim 50,000.00. for violations of his constitutional rights that were violated during the traffic stops that were performed without probable cause and in violation of Neighbors rights and the continued malicious harassment from City of Lawrence employees. The harassment Neighbors has endured has spanned over a 10 year period and it is now time to put an end to the police harassment. April 1 2015 ruy Neighbo 1309 Sunchase dr. Lawrence, Kansas 66044 913-240-0227_ AWRENCE,KANSAS - CITATION ated bain te undereignee cerifies hat helshe ha aon A121247 Coun Dale. 12/1072014 Court Time: 9:00 AM SUNCHASE DRIVE NCE State: KS Zip. 66044 50x. Weight 255 7 ‘ko0181283 OL state: KS DLN et 2000 Veh. Tag: PPDAT ike FORD Yr TagEwpres 2015 State: KS 260 SUPER OUTY ‘VIN 1FTNW21F3YEDE2557 onsructon ne N 7en7h INICIPAL COUR’ Finest: 10 IS NEW HAMPSHIRE, P.0. BOK 1698 Fiefi2 WRENCE, KS 66046 Finer. 1795) 892-6190 CourtCosts INWW.LAWRENCEKS.ORGIATTORNEY otal 10 SNS TESi ORae MMU LEG Digna af Detendant. . — i ‘y ificer I 9510 ENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT aTice: THe OPERATORS LICENSE aa Be SUSPENDED ator THE se lt ISSUE AWIARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF RNY DEFENDANT Ghibhas eaiceo rocoMPLY WiTmanoTice To APPEARDULY 1 ‘SUS IED Upon nia avo Upon von A COMPLAINT FAB BEEN FILED.zee 3 Qo ET 2 / ove ‘a3en LON TwNoIS NUN NOUWTOIA 1736 vas vizeh ove BONVUNENION, "au07 POS "#9800 981910, ‘su0z uogenssvoo poo eon Neuatem, 4 sur peeds Neeoed 8c ‘spsuay ‘soueine7 Jo hi eta 0 seauaupio eyo uanROR UI '(s)esuEHo Suey au yRIwO0S AnoNBN AO 1 10UzeH NavePDOV 1g #0] JO NOLLOBSUALNI peow BBP EATS 19 KewuBj 018028 245 oUod WN BDHEN eR UAUIUOD THN 2° yd CAL “{SS28SACIZNNLAL ‘Abn wadns 0823 1900"% ewes B10 aL UA ‘auoa xe Lyrada 881 -V9N, ‘0002 U0 JA Nao 8 8189710 ‘82184000 #30 09 16H eee wubeM, Cea) W198 dzzoovecte eva rove iz. SW 8181S ZONBUMYT AIO ana 36vHONAS GOEL 59.904 ne ‘SWON 8. syORHDIaN swt Wid 00:1 91 uno srozrezgo 9120 709 Ivo “awiL1ea WIAD sytonoa “unos sayezoy ACTA, joq s09p pute 994000, SHUNGID BIELOSEE pe pau eiapunan} noToq PeVBUBISED N09 6 + SUSNUVM'ZONSUMVT JO ALID —————E—veoeMUNICIPAL COURT Fine: 41006 NEW HAMPSHIRE, P.0.B0X1695 Fine#i2: KB 66046 Firat: a Ea eae ‘Signature of Offer: ficer name: ROBINSON: on officer 1119 ‘Agency Name: LAWRENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT MAILALL PAYMENTS TO: _ sieaenents ortega MANDATORY COURT APPEARANCE REGLIRED (x) Velo Hae FAikeD To COnPLY WITHANGTICE TO APPEARULY. ‘SERVED UPON HIMMER AND UPON WHICHA COMPLANT HAG BEEN FLED.Chronological History of Indictments 1). December 12, 2006: Case no. 06-20171-cm; One count indictment citing: 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) and 924(a) "Unlawful user with Firearms". May 4, 2007, Indictment withdrawn by Government with 2 days left on Speedy trial Act time limitations. 2). June 20, 2007: Case no. 07-20073-01/01-JWL,; citing 18u.s.c. 922(g)(3) and 924{a)(2) Count 2, and 2 counts under Title 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) and 48 USC sec. 2; Knowingly and Intentionally Manufacturing, marijuana November 16, 2007 Case no. 07-20073-01/01-JWL, the District court dismissed counts 1 and 2 citing a speedy trial act violation. April 16, 2012: Remaining 2 counts on Indictment (20073-01/01-JWL) dismissed citing second Speedy Trial Act Violation. 3), September 13, 2007: Case No. 07-20124-cm-jpo; Document 1 Indictment citing 18 USC 1343 Wire Fraud, 18 USC 1341 Mail Fraud, 18USC 1956 Money Laundering {a)(1)(A)(i) and 2 |. FORFEITURE UPON CONVICTION PURSUANT TO: 18 USC 982(a)(1) [which is not a forfeiture statute] and |, WIRE FRAUD FORFEITURE: Pursuant to 18 USC sec. 981(a)(1)(c) and 28 USC sec. 2461(c)..[there is no such thing as a WIRE FRAUD. FORFEITURE!) 4), February 27, 2008: Superseding Indictment Document 38: Case No. 07- 201248-cm-jpo; this indictment deletes count 20. . td geht & fy [of I?5). June 18, 2008 Second Superseding indictment Doc. 93: Case No. 07-201240- cm-jpo. This Indictment adds the previously deleted count 20, not based on new evidence, changes the element of Money Laundering to "Profits". May 19, 2014 Document 681: Indictment dismissed with prejudice citing Due process violation-Speedy Trial Act violation. 6). August 8, 2008, Case No. 08-mj-077-01-jpo: citing Obstruction of Justice 18 USC 1512(c) August 18, 2008 Dismissed by court citing "an absence of an essential element". 7). August 20, 2008, Case No. 2:08-cr-20105: Citing 18 USC 1512(c) Obstruction of Justice Indictment March 6, 2014 Indictment Dismissed with Prejudice. No federal Proceeding had been obstructed "there was an absence of Essential element. History of Each Indictment part 1 1) Two State issued Search Warrants executed on December 2, 2005 and Two Federal Search Warrant obtained by Postal Inspector David Nitz on July 7, 2006, 2). March 06, 2006, Neighbors is informed by witnesses that LKPD officers John Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz are impersonating FBI agents during the course of the investigation. naib On Cn 83). April 2006, Defense Attorney Sarah Swain hires private investigator Cecilia Woods to investigate the complaints and document interviews with witnesses. 4). April 20, 2006, Defense Attorney Sarah Swain communicates her concerns in emails to the police dept. that 2 Lawrence Police Officers Micky Rantz and John Jay Bialek are violating federal law during the course of the investigation. Ron Olin responds in the April 20th letter that they are not going to reveal the identity of the federal agents in the case, and that he has forwarded the complaint to AUSA Marietta Parker. 5). June 2006, AUSA Marietta Parker directs Special Agent Bob Schaefer (interfering with the Topeka FBI to investigate the matter under their jurisdiction) to act outside of his jurisdiction (which he testified is the Western District of Missouri) to conduct an investigation into the allegations and report back to her. 6). July 7, 2006, FBI Special Agent Bob Schaefer refuses to take phone calls from Swain, he refuses to meet with the private investigator, Absent any interviews, or documentation review, Bob Schaefer through FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza announces to the media he has "cleared the Police of impersonation allegation." The same day AUSA Marietta Parker has the Postal Inspectors office assisted by Lawrence Police and the Internal Revenue Service, Serve two more federal warrants on Neighbors home and business. Even though there was no probable cause, and there had been no new incidents. 7). December 12, 2006, Case No. 06-20171-cm: Neighbors is falsely indicted and arrested without probable cause, for being an "unlawful User with Firearms" by the Postal Service and Internal Revenue Service. He and his wife Carrie Neighborsare placed in a holding cell at the Department of Justice and held for 8 hours without food. Other prisoners in the same cells were fed twice in the same time period. Marietta Parker told Neighbors and their attorney Swain "they brought this on themselves for accusing her boys of the FBI impersonations." Lack of Essential Element and Probable Cause: Citing 27 C.F.R. section 478.11 which states: "Unlawful User of or addicted to any controlled substance...[to define user] eg., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.” Neighbors had no criminal history, no prior convictions or arrests, and he had never failed or submitted to a drug test prior to his arrest. The government lacked probably cause and an essential element to arrest, indict or convict Neighbors under this statute. 8). May 4, 2007, Government files Motion to Dismiss Indictment 06-20171-CM with 2 days left on the Speedy Trial clock. They falsely allege there is "additional evidence discovered during the ongoing investigation, 9). May 10, 2007, Judge sustained the Motion, Dismissing the indictment without prejudice. aie oe Eth a010.) June 20, 2007, absent any new incidents or evidence, Neighbors is served a Four count Indictment: Case No. 07-20073-01/01 JWL. The first (2 counts) are the original counts from case 07-20171-cm with 2 additional counts of Knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana. This superseding indictment is presented as a new case by the government in a strategic move to circumvent the Speedy Trial Act. On June 25, 2007 Neighbors is again arrested at his home for being an Unlawful User by the Postal Inspectors led by David Nitz and IRS Agents led by Robert Jackson. Neighbors is not given the opportunity to self-surrender even though he already has appointed counsel. The case is assigned a new case number and new ing charges even after judge. The government continued to prosecute the remait the KBI Lab report tests came back "negative for any THC’ in the degraded junk the government called “evidence of drugs" that was seized from Neighbors home. 11). FROM 2006-2008 Neighbors is hit with a barrage of frivolous search warrants and arrests lacking probable cause: Monday May 8, 2006, five Lawrence police officers J. Rozell, T. Haak, J Bialek, A. Heffley and Sgt. Monroe serve a state issued search warrant on Neighbors business after the Neighbors had already provided a statement and turned over all information and paperwork relating to a $30. air compressor that was allegedly stolen and sold to Neighbors business. June 25, 2007, 8am, Postal Inspector David Nitz and his assistant along with IRS Agents Robert Jackson and Osborne, LKPD police officers Matt Sarna and Eric Barkley, serve a federal arrest warrant on Neighbors at his home for being an Unlawful User with Firearms. During the arrest, several incident searches were executed. One sweep search including the basement by Sarna and Barkley, and then a second search by Agent Jackson which included kitchen cabinets, Neighbors bedroom, dressers, Office space including the desk, and enclosed storage area. Agent Osborne searched Mrs. Neighbors purse even though Ms. Neighbors was not allowed to bring her purse, cell phone or money with her. The Exhut %Neighbors were stripped of their shoe laces and belts, and transported to the Department of Justice in Kansas City, Kansas by the Postal Inspector David Nitz in handcuffs. The Postal Inspector laughed and informed the Neighbors this was 2 one way ride. ‘After sitting in a cell all day, Neighbors was released at 6pm with no money, vehicle, no contact with family and no way home. 12). July 2006: Neighbors along with his attorney Sarah Swain, is invited by officer to come down to the police station for return of some of the seized property. Also in attendance that day was several uniformed officers and City of Lawrence ‘Attorney Jerry Cooley. It was discovered during this meeting that certain items including at least 3 laptops were missing from the property room. 13). October 19, 2006: Officers Bialek and Rantz stopped in the Yellow House store to question Mrs. Neighbors without her attorney present. They brought along a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-p200 7.2 MP digital camera that they claimed was seized during the execution of the warrants but never logged into the evidence room. 14). December 14, 2006: Neighbors files a formal complaint with Internal Affairs Set. Dan Ward alleging various acts of police misconduct, theft of his seized property, and mishandling of evidence. 15). July 9, 2007 Guy Neighbors files a complaint against Jerry Cooley via registered mail #RB43085265705 alleging a failure to investigate the seized evidence missing from the LKPD property room. wile! eves16). July 8, 2007: Guy Neighbors filed a complaint (Registered mail # 700702200003015186) with Internal Affairs for Obstruction of Justice for failure to properly investigate his December 14, 2006 Police Misconduct complaint. 17). September 13, 2007: Government files its 3rd Indictment against Neighbors: :07-cr-20124-CM-JPO-2 Citing Money Laundering, Mail Fraud and Wire case No. Fraud. 18) September 27, 2007: Government places illegal Lis Pendens against Neighbors residential property at 1104 Andover, Lawrence Kansas, and business property at 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence, Ks. with the Douglas County Register of Deeds. No certificate of service was attached to the lis pendens, no notification was ever served on Neighbors or his counsel as required by State law. Nothing was entered on the Federal Court Docket regarding the Lis Pendens. 19). February 25, 2008: Document 37: Counsel for Carrie Neighbors file a Motion to Release the Lis Pendens which was discovered at the closing of the sale of the residential property, thus blocking the sale. The court ordered the defense to submit a proposed order. See document 40. 20). February 27, 2008: Document 38: The AUSA Marietta Parker quickly file a Superseding Indictment adding count 20s to Guy Neighbors charges and changing the fraudulent Lis Pendens to an "Amended Lis Pendens" forfeiture.( However something procured in fraud cannot be amended). See Document 44: Notice of Lis Pendens filed March 6, 2008. 21). May 01, 2008: AUSA Marietta Parker file "Motion TO REVOKE BOND". Document 65-66. The Motion includes exhibits of Guy Neighbors internet Blog. fusit C eas 8(Exhibit 8g) specifically shows the editing icons which only appear to a logged in user that has made changes to the blog. (See page 4 of 4). Parker served a subpoena on Neighbors internet provider Sunflower Cable and obtained his user name and passwords for all his internet accounts. Using this information, Marietta Parker edited the blog, then inadvertently printed the pages off prior to logging out. This act constitutes manufacturing and submission of false evidence and violates the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse act. 22), June 02, 2008: Document 89: Neighbors notified his legal counsel Cheryl Pilate of the issues with the governments Motion re 65. Counsel files Motion to continue and assure Neighbors it will be taken care of. 23). June 02, 2008: Document 90: Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse sets defendant's response to document 65 Motion To Revoke Bond due on 6/23/08. Bond Revoke hearing set for /7/15/2008. 24). June 18, 2008 Document 93: Without probable cause or any new incidents AUSA Marietta Parker files Second Superseding Indictment. Charging the same counts as the first indictment but redacting count 20s, adding "profits" in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Santos, 533 U.S. 507 (June 2, 08). 25). July 18, 2008: Document 104: Arraignment hearing on the Second ‘Superseding Indictment held before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Motion to Revoke Bond Re-65 hearing continued to 7/21/08. seelabid c ge oH26). July 21, 2008: Document 101: Closed [off the record] In Chambers Conference held before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara regarding Motion to Revoke Bond (Document 65) (Neighbors was not allowed to attend the hearing.) 27). July 23, 2008: Document 107: Telephone Conference hearing (counsel only) before Judge James P. O'hara regarding the Motion to Revoke Bond Re-65. 28). July 30, 2008: Document 117: Order by Magistrate Judge O'Hara denying as moot without prejudice Document 65 Motion To Revoke Bond. 29). August 8, 2008: Case no. 2:08-Mj-08077-JPO: Neighbors is falsely arrested in a Federal Arrest Warrant signed by Judge O'hara, obtained by Postal Inspector David Nitz (acting outside of his jurisdiction over the US Mail) at the direction of Marietta parker and held in the Douglas County Jail. Parker files criminal Complaint for “Obstruction of Justice". The case was filed without presentment to a grand jury. (see doc. 24 pg. 120 lines 9-12) The obstruction case originated when Carrie Neighbors unknowingly purchased a stolen computer from a customer at the Lawrence store. The original owner saw it advertised and called police. Mrs. Neighbors returned the computer to the police and provided them with the sellers form. This incident did not involve Guy Neighbors or the United States Mail. 30). August 12, 2008: Document 128: AUSA Marietta Parker files Motion to Revoke'Bond, As to Guy Neighbors ("second motion"). case 2:07-cr-20124-cm 31). August 11, 2008: Neighbors picked up from the county jail and is illegally transported (designated as a federal prisoner in custody 4 days) by the arrestingofficer Postal inspector David Nitz without benefit legal counsel, to the Department of Justice in Kansas City. August 11, 2008: Document 10: Obstruction Case: Neighbors remanded to Federal Detention Center in Leavenworth Kansas. 32). August 13, 2008: Document 20: Obstruction Case: Warrant for Arrest of Guy Neighbors executed 8/08/08. 33). August 15, 2008: Document 23: Joint motion to dismiss on failure to establish probable cause. No "Official Proceeding" was pending, thus there was an absence of an essential element under 18 USC 1512(c). 34), August 18, 2008: Document 27: Joint motion dismissed with prejudice, governments (8) motions for detention denied. It was established no obstruction of an official proceeding took place. Neighbors was released on the stipulation he sign an agreement not blog or discuss his case on the internet, and he agree to undergo a mental evaluation. 35). August 20, 2008: Case No, 2:08-cr-20105-cm-jpo document 28: AUSA Marietta Parker file 1 count indictment for Obstruction Of Justice Title 18 USC 1512(c) based on the same incident that was dismissed. Absent probable cause. 36). September 22, 2008: Document 31: Arraignment/Discovery hearing on Obstruction indictment case no. 20105-cm-jpo. 37). September 25, 2008: document 34: AUSA Marietta Parker file Motion to REVOKE BOND as to Guy Neighbors.38). October 29, 2008: Document 147 case No. 20124-cm (Doc. 34 Obstruction case): Magistrate Judge O'hara denies Motion to Revoke Bond re-34. 39). April 27, 2009: Document 165 Case no. 20124: Motion to REVOKE BOND by Marietta Parker as to Guy Neighbors. USA alleges that Neighbors sent an email to the FBI requesting an investigation into the prosecutorial misconduct in the prosecution of his case. 40). April 27, 2009: Doc. 164: Neighbors Legal Counsel has had enough and responds to the motion for revocation with a motion to withdraw as attorney. May 11, 2009: Doc. 170: Motion to withdraw denied. 41) May 20, 2009: Document 174: Motion before Judge O'hara, for pretrial detention granted (on ground he sent the email) as to guy Neighbors. 42). May 21, 2009: Document 175: Order of Detention as to Guy Neighbors. 43). June 1, 2009: Document 176: Neighbors counsel files motion for order Reinstatement of pretrial release. ‘August 7, 2009 Document 199: (day of hearing) Counsel files Notice of withdrawal of 176 Motion for Reinstatement of Pretrial Release. Claiming that the motion will piss off the judge and make him rule against Neighbors in the other pending motions.44). August 10, 2009: Document 204: (Neighbors has maxed out the time for the contempt of court charge and is about to be released). AUSA Parker files Motion For Order Mental Exam as to Guy Neighbors. 45) August 11, 2009: Document 206: Court grants Motion and Neighbors is sent to a federal Prison in Colorado. 46). December 8, 2009: Document 219: Neighbors is transferred from federal prison to the federal detention center in Leavenworth Kansas, for competency hearing. The exam in Colorado comes back inconclusive. The court finds Neighbors incompetent and orders further evaluation. 47), December 9, 2009: Document 220: Order for Mental Exam. Neighbors is shipped off to federal prison in Butner North Carolina. 48). June 23, 2010: Document 247: Competency hearing. Doctor Lucking in North Carolina prison finds Neighbors incompetent in a bogus report that includes a finding that Neighbors Wife is also incompetent based on monitored phone calls and intercepted letters. The doctor recommends Neighbors be submitted to involuntary medication treatment. 49). July 28, 2010: Document 315: Competency hearing. Defendant remanded to custody without completed Sell hearing. Neighbors returned to detention center in Leavenworth. Then shipped back to Federal Prison in Butner North Carolina. wh fh ma el50). August 9, 2010: Document 329: Neighbors files interlocutory Notice of Appeal (pro se) to Appeal the forced medication and continued detention based on the fraudulent mental evaluation. 51). August 10, 2010: Document 337: Appeal Docketed in 10CCA: Appeal No. 10- 3202 52). August 12, 2010: Document 341: Order by District Judge Carlos Murguia certifying appeal as frivolous. 53). September 22, 2010: Document 382: Order of 10CCA as to Guy Neighbors: Notice of Appeal by Appellant Guy Neighbors...is granted. Neighbors is appointed appellate counsel on September 27, 2010, document 394 54). November 2, 2010: Document 403: Order of 10CCA Appointment of Substitute counsel to assist with appeals granted. Neighbors is found competent and released from prison. 55). May 19, 2014: document 681: Indictment case no. 20124-cr-cm dismissed with prejudice. All cases are dismissed a oe Po 13h "Certificate of Service Thereby certify that a true.and correct copy of the fore going document was mailed priority mail hhand delivered to the clerk of the clerk of the traffic court on the date noted below and a copy ‘was emailed to several of the parties. Respectfully Submitted Date_ Ly wi Aes [S efidice UCC, 1-308Filed In .,,bawrence Municipal Court if IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TOS FAY 26 aH 9 4B FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Guy M. Neighbors, ) Petitioner, ) Officer Robinson #1911) Officer Weeh #9510, V. ) Lawrence police dept, ) City of Lawrence Kansas) Lawrence Municiple Court) Scott Miller, Steven M. Lehwald, ) Case No. Respondent) ADDENDUM TO NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL 50K PER DAY FOR EACH OF THE 60-DAYS PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS IS VIOLATED BY BEING DUE PROCESS IS VIOLATED BY BEING FORCED TO WAIT FOR RELIEF [ “Cujusque Rei Potissima Pars”{The Principle Part Of Everything Is In The Beginning] Come Now Petitioner Guy M. Neighbors to file a “Addendum” to his “Notice Of Claim” That ‘was filed April 1**2015, and states: The Corporate Statutes stipulate that tort claimant must substantially comply with the 60-day waiting period, allowing the government entity time to investigate, evaluate, and settle claims. In light of the fact the Respondents have not made pg. 1contact with the Petitioner in an attempt to settle, and Petitioner has learned that the “statute” required 60 day waiting period is nothing more than Corporate Rules. The “Statutes and Revised Codes” are corporate rules that I'm not subject to follow. These Corporate Court rules are a violation of my right to due process and for being forced to wait for relief petitioner is claiming 50k for each and every day that petitioner if forced to wait for relief, plus the original 50k in the original “notice of Claim” filed April 1", 2015. 1. Propria Persona: 'm representing myself “in Propria Persona” (in your own person) or “pro-per” Qualified me as an attorney in fact, according to “Blacks Law Dictionary. By asserting my Sovereign Right to represent myself in legal matters establishes my status as my own attomey. To proceed in Pro- Per, meains that the court cannot impose the same standard up on me as are imposed on a licensed attomey. This court will treat me as my own attorney, differently that it would treat me as the accused. This also means the judge/ court cannot lawfully hold me to conduct myself or iy case as a licensed attomey. L May 26%, 2015 ay Neighbors 1309 Sunchase dr. Lavirenge, Kansas 66044 913,240-02278/10/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE One'Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278-0001 Guy Neighbors, Petitioner , CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS, ‘Demand for Jury Trial: Lawrence Police Chief, Tarik Khabit John Doe Unknown Defendants ) ) ) ) v. ) Case No. ) ) ) ) Judge, Scott Miller, ) Prosecutor, Steven M, Lehwald, ) PD Officer, Wech Id# 9510) ) Respondent’) COMPLAINT FOR DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF 42.U.S.C. 1983AND DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981 AND TITLE Vil EXSTINSIC FRAUD ON THE COURT AND MISSING EVIDENCE COMES NOW Petitioner Guy Neighbors (“Neighbors), Sui, Juris, and for his claims against Respondant’s City of Lawrence, Kansas (“City”), Judge Scott Miller, City Prosecutor Steve M. Lehwald, and Lawrence Kansas officer Wech and states and alleges as follows: I voluntarily choose to comply with the man-made laws which serve to bring harmony to 1society, but no such laws, nor their enforcers, have any authority over me I am not in any jurisdiction, for Lam not of subject status consistent with the eternal tradition of natural common law, unless 1 have harmed or violated someone or their property, I have committed no crime; and am therefore not subject to any penalty. act in accordance with the following U.S. Supreme Court case: The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights asa citizen. He sented to cary on his private business in his own “Way is power ta contract unlimited, le owes o such diy tothe State, sine he receives nothing thereom, beyond re srxcttonothis lis and prope. His rights ae such as existed by the law ofthe land {Comin Lav] Jong antecedent othe vrcanivation of he State and ean only be taken fom him by due process of aw, and in accordance with the Constitution seats rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and te immunity of himself and his propery from arrest or seizure Avoptander a warrant ofthe lw. He owes nothing tthe public so long ashe doesnot espa upon thelr rights." Hse v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905). ‘The traffic stops without “Probable Cause” is a concern and the reason for this civil action. These anlawful traffic stops were a “Continued Pattemed” of “Harassment.” The record will show the traffic cases were filed in a court without “Jurisdiction,” and when the lack of jurisdiction was brought before the Lawrence Municipal Court the facts were ignored. Both the judge and the city prosecutor perjured themselves in their attempt to convince Mr. Neighbors that the Municipal Court had jurisdiction to force Neighbors into a Criminal Trial without a “Jury” whereby Neighbors right to “Due Process” was trespassed upon. ‘The documents filed in the Federal cases will show a “Pattern of Abuse/Tarassment” and “Conspiracy” between all of the Government Agencies involved in all of the cases over the past 9 years. This is shown through the multiple federal criminal cases below that were file and used to arrest and harass Mr. Neighbors for a 9 year period. Every charge against Neighbors was dismissed and he has never beenconvicted of any crimes. Now the Government is refusing to return Neighbors property that was sized as evidence back in Dec. of 2005. Federal case numbers below came from the Neighbors Pacer Site: Guy M. Neighbors is a defendant in 4 cases. 2.07-cr-20124-CM USA v. Neighbors et al_ filed 09/13/07 closed 05/19/14 2:07-cr-20124-CM-2 Guy M. Neighbors _ filed 09/13/07 closed 05/19/14 0105-CM USA. Neighbors et al filed 08/20/08 closed 03/06/14 1 GuyM.Neighbors filed 08/20/08 closed 03/06/14 2 S-cr-2010: Guy Madison Neighbors is a defendant in 4 cases. 2:08-mj-08069-DJW USA v. Neighbors et al _ filed 07/14/08 2:08-mj-08069-DJW-1 Guy Madison Neighbors filed 07/14/08 USA. Neighbors et al filed 07/14/08 Guy Madison Neighbors filed 07/14/08 2:08-mj-08070-JPO 2:08-mj-08070-JPO-1 Guy Madison Neighbors is a surety in 3 cases. 2:07-01-20124-CM USAv. Neighbors et al filed 09/13/07 closed 05/19/14 2:07-cr-20124-CM-1 Carrie Marie Neighbors filed 09/13/07 closed 01/14/11 :07-¢r-20124-CM-2 Guy M. Neighbors filed 09/13/07 closed 05/19/14Guy S. Neighbors is a defendant in 6 cases. USA v. Neighbors et al Guy 8. Neighbors USA v. Neighbors et al Guy S. Neighbors 2:08-mj-08077-JPO USA v. Neighbors et al 2:08-mj-08077-JPO-1 Guy S. Neighbors filed 12/07/06 filed 12/07/06 filed 06/20/07 filed 06/20/07 filed 08/08/08 filed 08/08/08 Guy S. Neighbors is a surety in 6 cases. USA v. Neighbors et al Guy S. Neighbors - Carte Neighbors USA v. Neighbors et al Guy S. Neighbors Cartie Neighbors filed 12/07/06 filed 12/07/06 filed 12/07/06 filed 06/20/07 filed 06/20/07 filed 06/20/07 closed 05/10/07 closed 05/10/07 closed 04/16/12 closed 11/29/11 closed 08/20/08 closed 08/20/08 closed 05/10/07 closed 05/10/07 closed 05/10/07 closed 04/16/12 closed 11/29/11 closed 04/16/12Fatal Filing Error This alleged criminal action was intentionally filed in the wrong court, a “Non- Constitutional” to “Unlawfully” extort, harass and violate Respondent's “Constitutional Rights.” The evidence will show the Government did not file the criminal case in an “Article III Court” as directed by the “Constitution.” ‘Mr. Neighbors, and Mrs. Neighbors’ “Due Process” was clearly Trussed Passed Up. Mrs. Neighbors was convicted in the un-constitutional corporate court without due process or her constitutional rights as guaranteed by the “Law of the Land” the “Constitution.” We are here NOW before the only “Article III Court” in the Land, we demand this court provide redress/ and hear this case with an unbiased ear. Municipal Court’s Lack of Jurisdiction: ‘Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993). "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." TLatana v, Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150." The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time" and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910. "Defense of lack of 5jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Till Top Developers * Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985). The jurisdiction of the U.S federal government is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted as follows: “The Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, ver uch disthet (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the aoceptance of Congress, become the seat ofthe Government of the United States [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority overall places purchased by the consent ofthe legislature of thacats id which the same shal be, for the Eretion of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other eedful Buildings; And -'To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for earying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." [emphasis added] and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: The Congress shall have the Power fo dispose of and make all nedfil Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory ot other Property belonging tothe United States; and nothing in his Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." ‘The definition of the "United States” being used here, then, is limited to its territories: 1) The District of Columbia 2) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 3) US. Virgin Islands 4) Guam 5) American Samoa 6) Northern Mariana Islands 7) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 8) Military bases within the several states 9) Federal agencies within the several states Itdoes not include the several states themselves, as is confirmed by the following cities: 6"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States, Hach one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens ofits ‘own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of Citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). “THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT ‘TO A STATE." [emphasis added] Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. §1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 $.C1t.1973, 41 L.Ed.287. “This is further confirmed by the following quote from the Internal Revenue Service: Federal jurisdiction sineludes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and ‘American Samoa." - Intemal Revenue Code Section 312(¢). In legal terminology, the word “includes* means "is limited to." When referring to this "District" United States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "WITHIN" the United States. When referring to the several States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "WITHOUT" the United States. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of court cases prove that federal jurisdiction is limited to the few federal territory areas above indicated. For example, in two Supreme Court cases, it was decided: “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215. "We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty,jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Kansas or any of the new States were formed..." “[BJecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits ofa State or elsewhere, except in the eases in which it is expressly granted..." Kansas is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 221, 223, 228, 229. Likewise, Title 18 of the United States Code at §7 specifies that the “teritorial jurisdiction” of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the several States. I understand that any laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and procedures contrary to the U.S. Constitution, as written by its framers, are null and void, as expressed in the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, fo be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. ‘This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality datesfrom the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the’ decision so branding it, An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.” since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it." "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional Jaw cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."" [emphasis added] and as expressed once again in the U.S: Constitution, Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which sball be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” All US. and State government officials are therefore hereby put on notice that any violations of their contractual obligations to actin accordance with their U.S. Constitution, may result in prosecution tothe full extent of the law, as well as the application of all available legal remedies to recover damages suffered by any partes damaged by any actions of U.S. and State govemment officials in violation of the US. Constitution, Mr. Guy Neighbors and his wife Mrs. Catrie Neighbors were unlawfully targeted by the Lawrence Kansas Police dept., and when the police misconduct was reported to the media.The exhibits mentioned below will show a lengthy pattern of abuse that stretched many yrs. and these violations of the Law was the cause of Both Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors’ unlawful incarceration. 1. Missing Evidence. See Exhibit # E-2 The file of the missing evidence and altered evidence logs. 2. Federal Search Warrants that were illegally signed by a State Judge. See Exhibit # B 3, Officer’s Bialek and Rantz. were allegedly impersonating FBI agents during the course of the investigation. See Exhibit # L Affidavits and reports from attomey Sarah G. Swain. 4, Documents showing a Fake FBI investigation into Lawrence Kansas Police Impersonating FBI See Exhibit # M. 5, This exhibit will show the Lawrence Police Officer’s attempt to steal the Neighbors Property by seizing their home under the table. See “Lis Pendens Placed Without Legal Notice. See Exhibit A. 6. Carrie Neighbors, Notice of Claim Under Civil Action 42 U.S.C. Sec, 1983 Conspiracy Against Secured Constitutional Rights, Violations of Due Process of Law, Denial Of Equal Access to Justice, Tis civil action was filed in district court in Douglas County, Kansas. See Exhibit #N 7. The Lawrence Police Officer Write Their Own Demands On A Judge’s Subpoena. See Exhibit I 8, Department of Justice Release False Press Release Stating Neighbors had been indicted on Two Counts of Distribution. See Exhibit J 109. Document to show “Racial Discrimination” See Exhibit K 10, Complaints Regarding The Lawrence Kansas Police Dept. Mis-Conduct See Exhibit # G 11. Chronological History of Indictments. See Exhibit Q ‘The Douglas County District Attorney Refused to prosecute the case, so the Lawrence police chief called in a favor, and the Federal Government was called in to assist in the corruption and cover up. Prosecutor's Marietta Parker and Terra Morchead informed Neighbors attorneys they were going to “Teach the Neighbors who was Boss” and the misconduct quickly escalated into corruption, and conspiracy to cover up the lack of probable cause for the criminal cases. affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am of lawful age and am competent to make these statements. [hereby affix my own signature to all of the affirmations in this entire document ‘with explicit reservation of ll my unalienable rights and my specific common law right not to be bound by any contract or obligation which I have not entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and ‘without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion. ‘The use of notary below is for identification only, and such use does NOT grant any jurisdiction to anyone. aDue Process Violation For Lack of Access to Article II Courts, Introduction of Facts: In Balzac y, People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) Chief Justice William Howard Taft ‘The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, ofthat instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes clatifies the distinetion between "United States District Court” and "District Court of the United States” in Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 20) (1938) The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States". 211 Court Facts. “Associate Justice John Paul Stevens in Nguyen v. United States takes these precedents and ereates Article III United States District Courts: Moreover, we do not read the designation statute without regard for the "historic significance” of the term "United States District Court" used in Title 28. Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S. 201, 205 (1938), "[W]ithout an addition expressing a wider connotation," that term ordinarily excludes Article IV territorial courts, even when their jurisdiction is similar to that of a United States District Court created under Article IIL See also Summers v, United States, 231 U. S. 92, 101-102 (1913) ("[T]he courts of the Territories may have such jurisdiction of cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the circuit and district courts, but this does not make them circuit and disiriet courts of the United States") “The term "United States District Court" does not appear in Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938). The "historic significance” is of the term "District Courts of the United States" not United States District Courts. The Constitution created "one supreme Court" and left it to Congress to "ordain and establish” Judges who “hold their Offices during good Behavior" and receive "a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” Instead of completing the Constitution's Supreme Court, Congress created an Article TV U.S. Supreme Court with Justices without life tenure and compensation which can be diminished. Justices cannot be equated to Judges of the supreme Court without violating -V of the Constitution, The USDC isn't even an Article I Court, as Agencies are outside of the government. B“The constitutional origin of the USDC is the Territory Clause at 4:3:2 (INSIDE the government!); see ‘American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton and Balzac v. Porto Rico, as two Stellar Examples: One of the great masters of Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in the year 1828, Justice Marshall makes a very clear distinction between judicial courts, authorized by Article Hl, and legislative (territorial) courts, authorized by Article IV. Marshall even utilizes some of the exact wording of Article IV to differentiate those courts from Article ITI "judicial power" courts, as follows: These [teritorial] courts then, are not Constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general rights of sovereignty which exists in the government, oF in virtue ofthat clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the teritory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, butis conferred by Congress, inthe execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories ofthe United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of » 356 Bales of Cotton] [1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis the State government". [American Insurance Co. added] Lack of Article II Court Conclusion: ‘Though the judicial system set up in a Territory of the United States is a part of federal jurisdiction, the phrase "court of the United States", when used in a federal statute, is generally construed as not referring to "territorial cours." See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 8.Ct. 343, 66 L-Bd. 627. In Balzac, the high Court stated: "The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article IIT of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by Sintue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, ofthat instrument, of 4making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court". [Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312] [42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L-Ed. 627 (1921)], whereby this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case and it must be dismissed with prejudice. |, Propria Persona 1’ representing myself'“in Propria Persona” (in your own person) or “pro-per” Qualified me as an attomey in fact, according to “Blacks Law Dictionary. By asserting my Sovereign Right to represent myself in legal matters establishes my status as my own attorney. To proceed in Pro Per, means that the court cannot impose the same standard up on me as are imposed on a licensed attomey. This court will treat me as my own attorney, differently that it would treat me as the defendant. The Original Common Law Constitutional Judicial Process; ‘The unlawful Corporate Court System the plaintiff's case is currently filed in dismissed his claims without “Redress”. This court system is not a part of the “Constitution” and therefore is not bound to follow “Constitutional Law”. “The current corrupt judicial system was created with many “undisclosed jurisdietions” that are operating without “Judicial Due Process”, these courts are administrative tribunals that cannot answer questions of Constitutional Law. Mr. Neighbors brings his claim in the “Original Article HIT Constitutional Court” for the United States of America” “The Republic”. ‘The Original Article IH court, has a standard of Truth and "in" law process, upholds the Bill of Rights, and operates in a process that protects the Inherent Rights and the Authority of the People above all else, the Law according to the Bill of Rights Process. The Judges and officers of the court 15pave taken an oath, being a binding contract and bond to the constitutional state. The “Court of International Trade” is the only court to enforce “Law in Operation”. ‘When the people exercise their Inherent Rights and Constitutional Judicial Due Process in this court, it is NOT in the CIT "court jurisdiction” they are standing, but in Original Common Law process, adherent to the Constitutional Contract with sovereign People who are IT’S AUTHORITY, The Court of International Trade will hear questions of Constitutional dispute, and Violations of the Process and the Public Trust when all state level remedies have been exhausted without redress of srievances, I is called "standing in ripeness" and Neighbors claims have been ignored and his remedies have been exhausted without relief. Neighbors now bring his claim in the proper court for “Redress of Grievances” and request this court bring forth remedy. L Civil Rights Under 42 USC § 1983 Congress originally passed 42 USC § 1983 as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13; § Lof the Ku Klux Klan Act of April 20, 1871; RS. § 1979. The statute creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, abridges rights secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person 16‘within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a state law of the Districtof Columbia, Section 1983 does not create federal court jurisdiction. Rather, it creates a cause of action, an entitlement to relief, against those who, acting pursuant to state government authority, violate federal law, The jurisdiction to hear a § 1983 action exists, under the general federal jurisdiction statute, iginal statute that 28 USS.C. § 1331, and under 28 U.S.C. § 13A)(@)@), formerly part of the: contained § 1983, which grants jurisdiction to redress violations of federal laws that provide for equal rights of citizens. IL Individual Immunity a. The Supreme Court has stated that in determining the immunity accorded to a government official, the “immunity must focus on the "the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law." Imber v. Patchman, 424 U.S. 409,96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity). The nature of and officials’ immunity is determined by an examination of the law as it existed when § 1983 ‘was originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The Supreme Cours approac! based on the "important assumption ...that members of the 42nd Congress were familiar with the common law principles, including defenses previously recognized in ordinary tort litigation, and that they likely intended these common law principles to obtain, absent specific provisions to the contrary.” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247, 258, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2755, 69 L-Bd.2d 616, v7b. in Determining Any Immunity, There are Five Consideration: First, the determination of immunity as a defense in a § 1983 sut is entirely a question of federal law, Wood_v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 314, 95 $.Ct. 992,997, 43 L1Ed.2d 214 (1975). State immunities and defenses are not relevant in §1983 litigation, even when the § 1983 suit is brought in state court Martinez. v.California, 44 U.S. 277,285, 100 8.Ct. $53, 559, 62 L/Bd/2d481 n.11 (1980). Second, in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 ULS. 511, 105 $.Ct. 2806, 86 L.ed.2d 411(1985), the Supreme Court held that a court ruling denying immunity is immediately appealable. ‘The “entitlement is an immunity to suit rather than amere defense to lability, .. [and] is effectively lost if the ease is erroneously permitted to goto trial." Id. at 526. ‘Third, the issue of immunity is identical when the suit is against a federal official. The Supreme Court found that it would be “untenable to draw a distinction for purposes of immunity law between suits brought against state officials under §1983 and suits brought directly under the Constitution against federal officers." Harlow _v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2733, T3L-Bd.2d 396 (1982). Fourth, qualified immunity is a defense to lability, not an element ofthe Plaintiff's prim facie case, Thus, technically, a Plaintiff's complaint need not include allegations nevessary to overcome immunities. Issues regarding this are discussed below. Finally, a distinction frequently is dravin between suits against an officer is in his or her “official capacity “as opposed to his or her)individual capacity." Suits against officials in thei” official capacity" are actually suits against the government which they represent, while suits against government officials 18in the “individual capacity" are suits against only the individual. Brandon v, Holt, 469U.S. 464, 105 S.CL'876, 83 L-Bd.2d 878 (1985). The Supreme Court has held that absolute immunity does not exist if'a judge acting the “clear absence of all jurisdiction," even though such determination has been limited to a narrow construction. Stumps. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 357, 98 S.Ct. at1105. Where there is no authority fora judge to hear a case or issue un order, he or she may not rely on absolute immunity, and may be liable for his or her conduct with regard to judges there are two important limitations on absolute immunity Immunity extends only to judicial tasks, not to administrative or executive duties. Supreme Court of Virginia v.Consumers inion, 446 US. 719, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 64 LIBA2d 641 (1980). Second, judges do not have absolute immunity to suits for prospective relief. IIL. Immunity of Government Entity ‘The rules for governmental immunity changed on June 6, 1978, when [the Supreme Court] decided New York City \ Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 1.Ed.2d Monell 611 (1972)." Brandon y. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 469,105 $.Ct. 876, 878, 83 L-Ed.2d 878 (1985). In ‘Monell, the Supreme court held that a city could be liable under §1983, but not on a respondent superior theory. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 $.Ct. at 2036. A § 1983 Plaintiff must show thatthe government entity has a "policy" or "custom" which denied a person his constitutional or statutory rights in order to maintain an action against a municipality and even one incident. may constitute “policy” or "custom.” 19IV. Immunity Summary: In determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine the objective reasonableness ofthe official's conduct, as measured in reference to clearly established law. Ifthe law at the time was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct, Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19, 102 Sct. at 2738-39. “The Plaintiff claims the Respondent's conduct was intentional and such conduet is prohibited by the Constitution, and Federal the laws of the United States. Negligence on the part of the defendant's may serve as a basis fora Fourteenth Amendment Claim when the negligence rises tothe level of gross negligence, and willful disregard for a person’s rights. The U.S. Supreme Court said that an official *will not be immune if on an objective basis, itis obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should igove." Malley v.Briges, at 475 U.S. 341, 106 S.Ct 1096, (This is a classic negligence inquiry. Ifno police officer of reasonable competence would have requested the warrant and failed to insure that it was particularized, his warrant application would be outside the range of professional competence expected of a police officer and his actions would indicate recklessness, incompetence andlor neglect of duty (negligence). See Malley_v. Briges at 475 U.S. 345, 106 S.Ct. 1098. 20V. Municipal Courts Lack of. Jurisdiction From the Kansas Municipal Court Clerk’s Manual: ©, Jurisdiction must exist before any municipal court has authority to act. Jurisdiction is the power oF authority to hear and determine controversies involving the person before the court. A municipal court can hear only eases involving alleged violations of municipal ordinances legally enacted by the governing body of the city. The alleged violations must occur within the city limits (S.A 12-4104). A city ordinance may be the same as or quite similar toa state criminal statute on the same subject, but it should be remembered that it is the ordinance which gives the municipal court its authority. A ‘municipal court in Kansas has no iil jurisdiction; that is, a municipal court has no power to decide disputes between private parties involving contracts. property rights, damage actions. divoree actions. child custody, or cases involving juveniles except traffic cases (see 3,06), Municipal courts have no jurisdiction over violations of state statutes, Municipal judges ean now perform marriage ceremonies (KS.A.23-10da), The decision ofthe municipal court in a traffic ease, whether the accused is guilty or not guilty, does not determine who must pay for damages, The municipal court determines only questions of guilt; that is, the court decides if the accused party was guilty of violating the city ondinance. If another vehicle is involved in a traffic accident, the court does not determine that since the person before the court is “guilty,” that person is therefore liable for damages to the vehicle of the other party, A civil court would determine that issue. However, the municipal court may order restitution as part of sentencing [see 10.05 I. and K.S.A. 8-1019(¢)]. 2VI. Judge Miller/Officers of the Court have “NO” “Judicial Immunity”. 1KS.A. 75-6104 provides 21 exceptions to liability. Two (judicial function and discretionary acts) are generally used regarding negligent acts or omissions of court clerks. 2. Judicial Functioy 4. Immunity is granted to judges and other court officers when performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Pierson v.Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S. Ct. 1213, 18 L-B4.2d 288 (1967). No immunity for non-judicial functions. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). ‘This court is administrative in nature and therefore has NO “Judicial Authority” granted by the Constitution or Congress, and has acted without jurisdiction while violating Mr. Neighbors Rights as claimed. VIL. I believe this is a Non- Constitutional Court: ¢, [believe this is a non- constitutional court who is claiming to have judicial authority from Article 4 of the Unites States Constitution. Article 4 provides authority for an article IV court to have administrative authority to make rules and administration functions. The problem is since this court is Not a part of the Constitution this court has no authority to take power from the “Constitution,” perform judicial function or administrative functions and hearing, and is intruded on me. 2this type of jurisdiction is valid is if T were an ENEMY COMBATANT, in the MILITIA, or a member the MILITARY. NONE OF THESE APPLY TO ME! Conspiracy and Misconduct, A pattern of Harassment In furtherance of a possession of stolen property investigation, on December 2, 2005, the Lawrence Kansas Police Dept. assisted by the United States Postal Inspectors and IRS Agents executed a search warrant signed by a state court judge, upon Carrie and Guy Neighbors business; Yellow House Quality Appliances Inc., 1 904 Massachusetts, Lawrence, KS and theit residence at 1 1 04 Andover, Lawrence, KS, During the execution of the warrant officers planted several items including a Mossberg firearm, and seized a voluminous amount property. The seized property was not properly documented. Tt ‘was grossly mishandled and stolen by the officers executing the warrant, There were no documented victims, or theft reports, attached to any of the seized property at the time of the execution of the warrant. COVER-UP Inorder to cover-up for, missing seized property, officer Bialek and Rantz falsified evidence logs and created fictitious victim’s names. They forged signatures of signatures of victims getting returned property without authorization, leaving the box for Identification Information blank, Firearms, bikes, expensive tools and other high-end property were not documented with serial numbers. Handwritten notes were added to the logs, but was used to change information. Items left atthe business (nat seized) were given Tog in numbers. Various items were given no item number at all, 24evidence logs of seized property were entered months after the seizure, with no account of chain of custody, lems such as “ammunition” was not itemized, Items from LKPD Property room recovered in local Pawn shops. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT Immediately following the December 2005 searches, witnesses began coming forward claiming ™wo Lawrence Police officer's, Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz were impersonating Federal Bureau Investigation Agents. To date the FBI had denied any involvement in any investigation into the Neighbors or their business “The Yellow House Store”. February 2006, Neighbors Attomey Sarah Swain, advised the Neighbors to hire a private investigator. Cecilia Woods PI services. Through the PI swom statements and Affidavits were collected from appx. 10-1 2 individuals (witnesses) who claimed they had been approached and detained by two men matching Bialek and Rant, claming to be FBI and offering $50. and other incentives to individuals willing to help sell stolen property to the Neighbors business It is believed that the impersonations were to cover-up for the fact the FBI had refused to get involved with the investigation, even though one of the perspective charges would be Money Laundering. 25COVER UP AND CONSPIRACY [Neighbors attomey Sareh Swain contacted the Chief of Police Ron Ofin to find out whether or not the two men were in fact FBI agents investigating her cients. Swain requested that she be allowed to speak with the Pederal Bureau Investigations withthe investigation of her clients. The Chief didnot inform her no FBI agents were involved, The Chief Ron Olin responded in a letter dated April 20,2006, (See Exhibit) In Olin’s letter he states tha te officer suspected of Impersonation of FBI, (Bialek) assures him that officer Bialek has contacted the agents involved. He goes onto state the agents identity would not be released. Inthe second paragraph of his letter, Olin concedes that the impersonation allegation was an attempt to report potential criminal activity by one of his officers. Olin then pawns off "any further correspondence" to be directed to "U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker" who was proseeuting the case against the Neighbors, Ms. Swain then contacted Prosecutor Marietta Parker, and informed her the police officers handling the investigation were violating federal aws during the course of the investigation of the Neighbors. FAKE FBI INVESTIGATION ‘The Topeka Kansas FBI Agency is the Agency with Jurisdiction over Lawrence Kansas police matters. However Ms. Parker requested that Special Agent Walter Schaefer (His jurisdiction is the Western District of Missouri) conduct the investigation and report back to her. Several letters were sent between ‘Agent Schaefer and Attorney Swain. On June 1 5, 2006, Agent Schaefer, aka "Bob Schaefer," met with 26Swain end the Lawrence Police and announced he was investigating the police misconduct allegations On June 21, 2006, FBI Spokesman Jef Lanza made a public announcement there was no investigation because a proper complaint had not been submitted by Attomey Sarah Swain. Agent Schaefer refused 10 accept phone calls fom Swain, he refused to look at the documents obtained by the Private Investigator, and he refused to interview witnesses. Schaefer would only contact Swain through third party letter. (his supervisor) On July 8, 2006, Jeff Lanza made a public announcement that Agent Schaefer had "cleared the police of impersonation allegation.” “The same day, the Prosecutor retaliated for the allegations with more search warrants being executed ‘upon the Neighbors home and business. Mr. Neighbors'then took a binder full of documents and evidence of corruption surrounding the savestigation to the Topeka PBI. Neighbors met with Agents Gentine and Murray. Agent Gentine confirmed that AUSA Parker had sent Agent Schaefer in violation of his jurisdiction. They did not get involved with the investigation. [After allegations by Neighbors that Schaefer had staged the investigation, on July 21, 2008, Agent Walter Bob Robert Schaefer committed perjury when he testified during a hearing in District Court before the Honorable Judge O'Hara, that he had performed an investigation, but did not bring the files. Schaefer’s testimony beginning on page 189 of the transcripts [doc. 1 50} ease NO: 2:07- r-201 24-cmn- 1 US. District Court, District of Kansas, as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SCHAEFER BY PARKER: Q. And how did your involvement begin? |A-Twas contacted by you about some allegations thatthe Lawrence police were acting as FBI agents and allegations you relayed to me were made by Sarah Swain. 27DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY DUMA Q.Do you have your—with you, your case file involving this investigation? ‘A.No, I don't have the case file, no, Qs this exhibit 15 that has a couple of e-mails and a leter from Sarah swain as well as a leer from, I guess, your supervisor, that would not be the complete case file in this matter, would it? A.No it wouldn't . Where would the investigation file in this matter be currently located? A It's at our office. end. It is obvious there in fact is no file. Furthermore, during Cross-Examination by Attomey Cheryl Pilate, [Agent Schaefer testifies that he never interviewed witnesses, or examined any ofthe documents related to the allegations, nor di he review the binder given to the Topeka FBI Agents Gentine and Murray by Guy Neighbors. Finally Agent Schaefer testifies he has never investigated the Lawrence police department, other than this one investigation here. (see full transcript enclosed) 1, Camie Neighbors, called the Kansas City FBI Agency and under the FOA requested the file. Iwas told there was no file, and there had been no investigation by Agent Schaefer. Ron Knox a reporter for the Lawrence Journal World said he called and was told the same thing. I was also told by the FBI in Kansas City Mo. they did not have Jurisdiction over Lawrence police matters, there was no investigation, there would never be an investigation by their Agency, and for further assistance 1 would need to call the Topeka Kansas FBI. ‘The KS, City FBI stated the Topeka FBI was the only Agency with jurisdiction to handle our complaint of misconduct by police in Lawrence Kansas 28XI. Laws of Nature: There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2N.C. 338 (1796) 2 70, Please note; The Supreme Court in the case of Wills vs. Michigan State Police, 105 L. Ed. 24.45 (1989)... made it perfectly clear that (1) the Sovereign, cannot be named in any statute as merely "person" or Yany person'..at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved onthe people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 434, 1LEd 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472. XIL. Artificial Persons; Ins much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mnind only, @ government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. ‘The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any Jaw, agency, aspect, court etc. can concem itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." (Doan's Administrators vs. Penhallow, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, Supreme Court of the United States 1795). 29XIII. Invoking Common Law Rights: ‘Agarioved party is invoking his Common Law Rights, and since all have received sealed orders from the U.S. Attorney General, to change over to Article III Common Law Jurisdiction which has ‘Not occurred to date. This will show the courts “Jurisdiction” is ‘Colorable,’ bogus, not genuine. Agatieved Party believes this court is fraudulently operating as a “STATUTORY COURT OF COMMERCE WITH INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION” XXIII. Deliberate Usurpation; “"Usurpation is defined as unauthorized arbitrary assumption and exercise of power." State ex rel, Danielson v, Village of Mound, 234 Mina, 531, 543, 48 N.W.2d 855, 863 (1951). While error is only voidable, such usurpation is void. The boundary betiveen an error in judgment and the usurpation of judicial power is this: The former is reversible by an appellate court and is, therefore, only voidable, which the later is a nullity. State v. Mandehr, 209 N.W. 750, 752 (Minn, 1926). The court lost jurisdiction from the beginning of this ease due to the fraud perpetrated by this court, officers ofthe court, and is in Violation of Aggrieved Parties due process. See: Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019; Pare Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 IIL24 241, 245, L40.N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936); (8) Ifthe court exceeded its statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 7 8.D.N.Y. 1967) 30XV. The Petitioner Directs this Court to Take Judicial Notice Municipal Court Did Not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction. «. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving bim of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert, den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L-Ed 2d 326. |, A judge must be acting within hs jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, fo be cemtitled to immunity from civil action for his aots. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220,75 P.2d 689 (1938). k. When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697. LLNo judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any Jawful authority ouside of the limits of the jurisdiction ofthe court or judge by whom its issued; and an attempt to enforce st beyond these boundaries is nothing ess than lawless violence." Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). sn. "We Gudges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." Cohen +», Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 499 U.S. 200. 31XVI Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved: 1. The judicial Power of the United States set forth in Article II, Section 2, provides in pertinent part; "shall...extend to... Controversies... between a State and Citizens of another State....and zen thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” ".. The Trial ofall between a State, or the Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the state where the said Crimes shall have been committed...” ‘The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides in pertinent part: "No person shall be... deprived of lif, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Article IV, Section 4, provides The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of them against invasion." “The relevant statutory provisions are found under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Title 28, US.C. Sec 2201, under the heading CREATION OF REMEDY, which provides in relevant part: "any court ofthe United States, upon the filing an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or in relevant could be sought," and Sec. 2202 under the heading FURTHER RELIEF, which provide part: "further necessary or proper relief based on a dectaratory judgment or decree may be granted... against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.” And, declaratory judgment statute, which provides in relevant part: "any person whose Fights status, or other legal relations are affected may obtain a declaration by the court as to his oF her rights under the law." 32,XVII. TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW: ‘The Illinois Supreme Court has held that "i the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers.” Von Kettler etal. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870) Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar toa recovery sought, even prior toa reversal in opposition to them. ‘They constitute no justification; and all persons concemed in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Pierso, | Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) XVII. TREASON: Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v, Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cobens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law. 33,XVIII. "Fraud On The Court" Officers ofthis court are involved in fraud in that this Municipal Court Only has Administrative authority and is acting as an “Article II” court when itis Not. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, helshe is engaged in "fraud upon the court, In Bulloch v. United States 463 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cx, 1985, the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. Tt is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function - thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." “Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Cireult Court of [Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or isa fraud perpetrated by officers ofthe court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform inthe usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.LR, 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed. p. 512, Aq 60.23. The 7th Circuit farther stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is notin essence a decision at all, and never becomes final XX, The effect acts "fraud upon the court" has on court proceedings. “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that cour, Itis also clear and well settled Ilinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. ‘The People of the State of Hlinois v. Fred B. Sterling, 357 IL. 354; 192 N.B. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F, Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The 34In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters IlL.App.24 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that frqud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 ILApp. 79, 86 NE.24 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.B. 798 (1935). Under Iinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect XXI. 18 U.S.C. 1951 Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence ‘a, Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commetce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so t0 do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this ttle or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) As used in this section (1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, OF fear of injury, immediate ot future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property ofa relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining judgment therein without effect either on person or propery." Norwood v. Renfield, 4 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. ‘Due Process” which removed jurisdiction from the court. Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US. 458, 58 S.Ct, 1019; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 12d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 24289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936); 5 Cal.3d 525, 531; The search for truth is not served 35,and stay within the limitations of your constitutions create no unfounded presumptions, seek only the true facts and tell the truth at all times and respect and protect my right of personal liberty and private property and all rights antecedent thereto. The foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Constitution and Oath of Office is made explicitly without recourse and now constitutes a binding contract and any deviation there from will be treated as a breach of contract and a violation of substantive due process. may themselves be guilty of mis-prison of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382. XXII There is No Valid Law of Congress Listed on the Summons. ‘There was No valid Law of Congress listed on the summons, which makes the summons insufficient on its face, No laws have been violated because the law in question has No “enacting clause” which means it is not the law of Legislative body to which I'm constitutionally subject, and municipal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, and therefore Ihave been trespassed upon. ‘Any bill, rule, regulation, code, or other document that purports to be a Law must contain an “Bnacting Clause." Enacting Clauses are required by the Constitutions of 46 of the 50 States, and the Supreme Courts of the other 4 States have all ruled that Enacting Clauses are required, even though the Constitution doesn't require them. “The Constitution for the United States does not require Enacting Clauses, even though the Preamble to the Constitution is the Enacting Clause for the Constitution. Enacting Clauses identify the Individual, of the group, that created the Law. This information will allow everyone to determine their legal or lawful relationship is to the Individual, or group, that has created the Law. If there is 37rights guaranteed to him by the “Constitution” in violation of Neighbors Right to Due Process. “The constitution with its requirements and limitations has been avoided by creating @ nonconstitutional entity. XXIII. Summary of Missing Evidence and Fraudulent Evidence Logs. Every single item taken during the execution of the warrants had valid serial numbers. I believe the fictitious vietims were manufactured to dispose of evidence missing, or cover-up for items never officially physically Jogged into the property. These facts support my theory: 1), Evidence logs are blatant forgeries and falsfications of legal documents they Tack specific details about quantity item description, and serial numbers. Page 41 lists expensive jewelry and toys, including {family heirlooms, but lacks details or even an item number for reference, No bates system was used for authentication or chain of eustody. ‘There was no way to verify the authenticity of the evidence presented to the courtroom at trial. 2), Page 13 is futher obvious proof of the falsification of the log document. It was not derived from the physical entering of evidence into the property room, but in fact is fraudulently manufactured from notes made during the execution of the warrant atthe business property. This is explains why stem 62 (a play station 2) that was not seized or ever in police eustody was given an evidence log property number. Expensive toolkits items 65, 66, 67 were not doeumented with serial numbers and only include the e-bay auction numbers, because they were items copied from the notes, not items actually physically entered into the property room. 393), On page 26 expensive electronics are logged into the property room with no serial numbers recorded. Items 96, 105, 106, 108, 109, and item 110 an expensive Dell computer is only documented with a SVC code, not a serial number. 4), Page 14, items 54 and 55 demonstrate the vagueness and lack of specifies in documentation of the items. Page 41 Item 62: Mossberg rifle, was planted by the police and no serial number is documented. Item 63: Remington rifle with no serial number documented. Item 83: Trek bike with 2 serial numbers, one is hand written in tem $1; Trek bike, no serial number documented, yet logs claim to have returned the bike to an unidentifiable owner (victim). Page 19, Items 93 and 94, not documented with serial numbers. stem 93: Ms, Neighbors ealled Mr. Munyon to find out how he came about signing for the dsl This was his response: Store clerk Cory Munyon claimed that officer Rantz and Bialek brought the drill to the store he worked at Orschelans Farm Store, the drill had not been reported stolen by the store, and he had no way to verify ifit was even from his store. The officers pointed out a cut in the box that was the size of where a label would have been from their store. Based upon that, the officers had him sign for the drill and left it at the store. 5), Page 10, Item 24, a laptop Neighbors had documents to verify it was not stolen. Neighbors requested its retum, and the property room officer stated that it was missing from the property room. Officer Bialek said he would get back to me in 3 weeks. I’ filed a complaint with the police dept. for 40missing evidence, and it was ignored. No theft report had been filed on the laptop, Next tothe laptop on the logs a hand written note stated that a forensies found the laptop to be stolen, and it was immediately returned to the alleged owner Maria Hixon, even though she had never reported it stolen. See Exhibit Marked # Formal Complaint of Missing Evidence ‘The original formal complaint that was filed before the indictment was handed down. 6). Officers retumed a Sony Digital camera to the defendants and stated that it was never logged into evidence. 1) All of officer Bialek’s log state atthe bottom the date entered as 3-2-05, even though the warrant was executed and the property was seized on 12-02-05. A three month disparity of unaccounted time in the chain of custody. 111. STATEMENT OF THE CASE In this case the Lawrence Police dept. and the city of Lawrence Kansas, have a practice of violating citizen's rights on a daily basis. The “Constitution” provides that the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government must be separated. When these officers issue a citation prior to that citation being signed by a judicial officer of the court itis a violation of one’s “right to Due Process”, The Plaintiff claims the defendant’s conduct was intentional, a gross willful disregard for the plaintiff's rights and such conduct is prohibited by the Constitution and Federal Laws of the United States. The City of Lawrence officials forced the plaintiff into a criminal trial without a “Jury” as guaranteed by the Constitution, without having a signed criminal complaint on the record, a1"without the opportunity to face his accuser. The plaintiff challenged the courts “Jurisdiction” and the court proceeded after the prosecutor perjured himself in his effort to convince the plaintiff the court had jurisdiction. Today proof of jurisdiction is NOT placed on the record, Municipal Court is NOT acourt of record and therefore there is no court record for the plaintiff to use in appeal, @ further violation of the plaintif?' rights. Mr. Neighbors was stopped for an alleged seatbelt violation by Lawrence Kansas Police Officer ROBINSON OFFICER ID# 1119, ON 4-28-13 at 6: pm, citation #4023469. Noevidenee was placed on the record and the charges were dismissed after Neighbors filed a motion to dismiss based on “Due Process” violation. “The constitution mandated thatthe Judicial and Executive branches of Government will be separated. When an officer issués a ticket without prior have that citation signed be a “Judicial officer” of the court itis a violation of one’s Right to “Due Process” The case was dismissed. Mr. Neighbors was again stopped for the same alleged violation on 11-24-2014 by a 2oyr. veteran of the LPD, Officer, WECH (officer 1D # 9510), in conspiracy and retaliation with other corrupt Lawrence Kansas Police officer’s he issued another seat belt citation # A121247, and officer, Weeh testified in court under oath that he saw Mr. Neighbors was not wearing his seat belt as Neighbors passed in front of his police car. No evidence was ever entered into the record, except the officers perjured testimony Municipal Court is Not a “Court of Record” so there is no evidence on the record to support any erime occurred. The police car dash cam shows the officer perjured himself The still shot Picture from the police car dash cam will show the officer could not see who was diving the vehicle, and he could not see ifthe driver in fact had on his seatbelt on oF not. See: Exhibit # a still shot from the dash cam video od from the officers vehicle, it will show the officer could not see the driver nor could he see if the driver of the vehicle had their seat belt on because the truck was an 2000 Ford F-250 Diesel, with tinted windows. The truck sits pretty high up off the a2ground and the tint on the windows along with the sun refleeting off the window make it impossible to see what the officer testified to in trial, ‘This officer is a 20 veteran of the LPD and is aware of the corruption alleged by the driver of the vehicle, he was aware of the fact the driver ofthe vehicle beat one seat belt violation already, and clearly the officer did not have probable cause to stop Mr. Neighbors. Officer Wech, knew the vehicle was driven by the same black man the police dept. had been harassing forthe last 9yrs. and that continued harassment was the bases of the unlawful traffic stop. Also on page 10- of the “Notice of Claim” that was file April 1% 2015, shows the 13 page “Chronological History of The Indictments” this exhibit # will show the Patten of Abuse” that spans over 9yrs. and counting. Mr. Neighbors was a dedicated a productive citizen in the community for the past 34 years, he has never been in trouble with the aw. Mi. Neighbors and his wife Carrie Neighbors raised 3 kids, and were active Foster Care Parents for 9 ¥4 yrs. and foster 28 kids 1-2 or 3 ata time during that 9 ¥ yr. period. The Neighbors life was shattered when the police abuse started bases on false and fabricated evidence that was released in public statements 10 the media by the LI world and , Sunflower Cable/Wow. The police dept. and the City of Lawrence continued to pursue Mr. Neighbors and singled him out because of his race and the fact that he stood up to them in a prior hearing and won. Mr. Neighbors was denied his “due process” and has been harassed with traffic stops without “probable cause”. Mr. Neighbors was forced 6 time to court for trials and hearings, without any evidence against him on the record. Mr, Neighbors was forced into a “criminal trial” without a “jury” in violation of his “Constitutional Right”, Mr, Neighbors Challenged the Court’s Jurisdiction and was told by the Proseeutor that that court receives “jurisdiction” from Article 10 of the Constitution, which contradicts the Kansas Municipal Courts Clerks Manual which states the court gets its jurisdiction from the “City Ordnance” which is not the Constitution or Congress. The Neighbors family has endured the continued harassment for over 9y1s. 43‘As a result ofthese unlawul actions Neighbors brings this suit to recover equitable rele in compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Neighbors also seeks post Discharse hearing that comports with principles of due process during which Mr. Neighbors will have an opportunity to clear his good name. II. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY inthis lawsuit, Neighbors asserts claims against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of due process (Count 1 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VI fr discrimination based on race (Counts It and I1), Neighbors, also alleges the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 race discrimination claim (Countil) IV. PARTIES L.Guy Neighbors, an African American, isa resident of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. 2. Mr. Welch, Mr, Robinson, Mr. Tarik Khabit, Scott Miller, Mr. Lehwald. 4 Defendant the City of Lawrence (“City”) is a home-ule municipal corporation existing under the authority of Article 12 Séction 5 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas. 4:The City has more than 300 employees, and is an “employer” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). a4Customs Courts Act of 1980: “This legislation will offer the international trade community, as well as domestic interests, consumer groups, labor organizations, and other concemed citizens a vastly improved forum for judicial review of administrative actions of government agencies dealing with importations. The provisions make it clear to those who suffer injury inthis area that they may seek redress in a court, and if they are successful, the Court of International Trade will be able to afford them relief which is appropriate and necessary (0 make them whole." 4. Turisdiction for Neighbors claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is founded upon 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(£)3) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 5, Jurisdiction for Neighbors claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 6, Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Distriet of Kansas pursuant to 28 USC. § 1391 because Neighbors, Miller, Lehwald, Wech, Khabit, John Doe, all reside in the District of Kansas where the City is located; and the acts and omissions which are the basis for Neighbors claims arose in Douglas County, Kansas. 4614, Neighbors, has also exhausted his administrative remedies under Title VII. Count 1 Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 Denial of Due Process and Liberty Interest 15. The City’s actions entitled Neighbors to the protections of the Due Process clause, including the right to atrial by jury. 16. The fact will show the misconduct was intentional and such conduct is prohibited by Federal Laws. 17. The officers of the court acted in willful disregard for Mr. Neighbors Constitutional Rights. 18, The fact show the officers ofthe court acted out side of the range of “Professional Competency” expected of an officer of the court, and these action are the cause of damaged, and the reason for filing this civil ease. 19, Mr, Neighbors “Due process” was violated when the Lawrence Police Officer wrote him citation / warrant and served it upon Mr. Neighbors without it being signed by a Judicial Officer OF «the Court, The Constitution mandates the Judicial and Executive Branches of Government be separated. 20. Neighbors was forced into a criminal trial in Municipal Court without any evidence of guilt being placed on the record. 21. Neighbors was convicted in Municipal Court of “Criminal” charges when the court did Not have Jurisdiction. 20. This court is NOT a court of “Record” and therefore Neighbors right to “Due Process” will be violated yet again if this seat belt case is sent to district court without the ability for Neighbors 10 48present the perjured testimony from all of the officers of Municipal Court, since Municipal Court is not a court of record. 20, Lawrence Police Officer Mr. Weeh, perjured himself when he testified under oath that he could see that Mr, Néighbors was Not wearing his seat belt, The dash eam video will show, the window tinting and the suns reflection off the window made is impossible to see ifthe driver was wearing, his seatbelt, The stil shot from the potice dash cam video show one cannot tll if the driver was male or female. 21, The citation issued by officer Wech has a “Fatal Flaw” that was pointed out to the cour, and it was ignored, and covered up in order to illegally proceed in “conspiracy” withthe persecution of Mr. Neighbors in violation of his “ Right to Due Process” and “Equal Access” to the court 20, Judge Scott Miller, and Lawrence City Prosecutor Mr. Lehwald and other officers of the court are ina conspiracy o assist the Lawrence police Department in covering up the issue of evidenoe ssing from the multiple Federal Cases that was filed against the Neighbors. See exhibit # 23. Mr. Neighbors Challenged “Jurisdiction of the Municipal Court” and the prosecutor Mr, Steven Lehwald stated “The court has jurisdiction from Article 10 of the Constitution” However the Kansas Court Cletk’s Handbook states Municipal Court gets its Jurisdiction from The city Ordinance NOT the constitution. 49VERIFICATION: Guy Madison Neighbors, declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the Laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. “If This Contractual Offer Is Not Refused By Rebuttal Affidavit, Said Contract Will Be ‘Accepted As Binding, And Violation, Will Result In Request For Damages. on this th Day, of, 2015 Guy Madison Neighbors Onthis___day of, 2015 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for State of Kansas, personally appeared the above-signed, known to me to be the one whose name is signed on this instrument, and has acknowledged to me that s/he has executed the same. My Commission Expires: 50missing wideme 9 eee fase indesgahean, LAWRENCE POLIGE DEPARTMENT FORMAL GOMPLAINT OF OFFICER(S) GONDUGT oo Your Nome; 64 (Vi b6-S phone No__._— Your Address, _ Incident Ocourred: Date: Timor tion Name of Officer(s) involved: Were you arrested? Yes ne Charge(s): Court De = Gilense where you fave bean cited into cout Thay compat involving a oriminal o Sra CGnrotbe Investigated uni the offense has been resolved through the court eyatarm) Brief Statement of what happened: eee tapdep tenpuws mp —— Zuid (Ad edonal pages ote complain I neceeaar) ‘Aro you willing to testify at & hearing itneeded? Yes NO ‘Are you wiling to submit to @ polygraph fest on this matter if needed? Yes NO ro undead hereby fms tate above tus a coe Guy pails ninted Name * a Aatel-— gb sont or ing sgn nna neal le at 11 East 177 my Lawrence, KS 66044. gh » st | . 4 ple ly 6 ash qeFired Complain: Lawrence Police Misplaced Evidence in the Yellow House Investigation. ‘The owners of the Yellow House Store were ask to meet at the police station with their attomey Mrs ‘Swain to retrieve some of the items seized in the 4- searches of the yellow house business, and 2 searches of the owners home. These items were not related to the Fencing investigation, ‘The yellow house owners met with the city attorney, officer Bialek, and a few other Lawrence police officers . Carrie Neighbors noticed her 3- laptop computers were not included in the stuff being returned. ‘Mrs. Neighbors ask Officer Bialele were the 3 laptops were. Officer Bialek stated their were no laptops and this was all of the stuff, Mrs. Neighbors disagreed with officer bialek and informed bim one laptop was packed and ready to be shipped and the postal inspector David Nitz seized it during the search of our business and Lawrence police officers seized the ‘other two Laptops. Lawrence police officer Jay Bialek informed Carrie neighbors that this time her most expensive Laptop ‘was listed as stolen, he stated that the forensic investigator figured this out today. ‘Mrs, Neighbors in shock ask Mrs, Bialek “so your telling me you found out the very day we were to pick the unit up it was stolen” ‘Mrs. Neighbors was concerned the person the police thought was the victim in fact was the owner who ssold her the laptop. ‘Mrs Neighbors then ask for the other two laptops, officer Bialek, at this point officer Bialek stated he did not remember more laptop computers. ‘Catsie ask him to check his records. Jay Bialek flipped through his notes for a couple of min. and then he stated oh here itis and i quote” T ‘cant read my own writing” Officer Bialek ask one of the other officers to go to the evidence room and get the two laptops. Soon the officer returned and stated in front of the city attorney, the Neighbors atlomey and several other Lawrence police officer's that he could not find the other two laptops. Officer Bialek told us he would return the two laptops in two weeks. ‘Now it has been 7-months and we still have not received our laptops. ‘Where could these two missing laptops be?, Tim SHOCKED two attorneys witnessed this injustice, and to this day the laptops have not been retumed to the yellow house. Could this be a case of Evidence tampering? Below isa list of procedures from the Lawrence police dept. Provedure Manual, there are several checks in place to make sure the chain of chain of custody is protected, ifthe officers followed the fisted procedures one could only wonder how something seized as evidence could be missing, and ‘unaccounted for. prot So z a?Sra PEED a eT YELLOW HOUSE QUALITY APPLIANCE O* ot2679674 GUY NEIGHBORS te I BG (oF (aoe 1004 WASBACHUSETTE, PH 7e-122708 ae U-Dl(-0 ST ge Bhs Le ean : : | cbrtintes £ i @ Commerce Bank” ‘ ‘iru coreneteenr som & ‘YELLOW HOUSE QUALITY. 14082 GUY NEIGHBO! RS Ch) + : CARRIE NEIGHBORS . 7a 22705 AMEE, eign moa nassncruserrs 0 _ 1s YG” LAWRENCE, KS 606 powtans @ ERE Phase ont Copies of Ye Two Canceled Cheeks we Wale for He Awo Laptops lompulics “nek are imissing Grom Yle laacenee Pie B + the Dept Evidence floom. get (-64 :sed al ‘After viewing the Lawrence police procedure manuals Chain of Custody pol the officers followed the proper procedures during the yellow house investigation. “We have listed below some of the procedures for handling evidence. 00-16 Handling of Evidence/Recovered Property- A,B,CE (00-54 Recovery of Stolen Property- E,F,H 00-10 Evidence/Found Property Report-6,8 It's clear to me the police officer's did not follow the proper procedures: in collecting this evidence, we ‘vould like to have this matter investigated by the ety leaders, and we would like to have our laptop computers returned.Chronological History of Indictments 1), December 12, 2006: Case no. 06-20174-cm; One count indictment citing: 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) and 924{a) "Unlawful user with Firearms". May 4, 2007, Indictment withdrawn by Government with 2 days left on Speedy trial Act time limitations. 2), tune 20, 2007: Case no, 07-20073-01/01-IWL; citing 18u.s.c. 922(e)(3) and 924(a)(2) Count 2, and 2 counts under Title 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(0) and 18 USC sec. 2; Knowingly and Intentionally Manufacturing marijuana November 16, 2007 Case no. 07-20073-01/01-JWL, the District court dismissed counts 1 and 2 citing a speedy trial act violation. April 16, 2012: Remaining 2 counts on Indictment (20073-01/01-JWl) dismissed citing second Speedy Trial Act Violation. 3). September 13, 2007: Case No. 07-20124-cm-jpo; Document 1 Indictment citing 18 USC 1343 Wire Fraud, 18 USC 1341 Mail Fraud, 18USC 1956 Money Laundering (a)(1)(A){i) and 2 1, FORFEITURE UPON CONVICTION PURSUANT TO: 18 USC 982(a)(1) [which is not a forfeiture statute] and II WIRE FRAUD FORFEITURE: Pursuant to 18 USC sec. 981(a)(1){c) and 28 USC sec. 2461(c)..there is no such thing as a WIRE FRAUD FORFEITURE!) 4). February 27, 2008: Superseding Indictment Document 38: Case No. 07- 201248-cm-jpo; this indictment deletes count 20. ft sdadeh ‘By s+ Ww5). June 18, 2008 Second Superseding indictment Doc. 93: Case No. 07-201240- cm-jpo. This Indictment adds the previously deleted count 20, not based on new evidence, changes the element of Money Laundering to "Profits". May 19, 2014 Document 681: Indictment dismissed with prejudice citing Due process violation-Speedy Trial Act violation. 6). August 8, 2008, Case No. 08-mj-077-01-jp USC 1512(c) ing Obstruction of Justice 18 ‘August 18, 2008 Dismissed by court citing "an absence of an essential element". 7). August 20, 2008, Case No. 2:08-cr-20105: Citing 18 USC 1512(c) Obstruction of Justice Indictment March 6, 2014 Indictment Dismissed with Prejudice. No federal Proceeding had been obstructed "there was an absence of Essential element. History of Each Indictment part 1 1) Two State issued Search Warrants executed on December 2, 2005 and Two Federal Search Warrant obtained by Postal Inspector David Nitz on July 7, 2006. 2), March 06, 2006, Neighbors is informed by witnesses that LKPD officers John Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz are impersonating FBI agents during the course of the investigation. Lobia 8" Ryde MN3). April 2006, Defense Attorney Sa Woods to investigate the complaint: 4). April 20, 2006, Defense Attorne\ emails to the police dept. that 2 La Marietta Parker. {interfering with the Topeka FBI to to act outside of his jurisdiction (wi rah Swain hires private investigator Cecilia s and document interviews with witnesses. y Sarah Swain communicates her concerns in wrence Police Officers Micky Rantz and John Jay Bialek are violating federal law during the course of the investigation. Ron Olin responds in the April 20th letter that they are not going to reveal the identity of the federal agents in the case, and that he has forwarded the complaint to AUSA invest 5). June 2006, AUSA Marietta Parker directs Special Agent Bob Schaefer tigate the matter under thelr jurisdiction) hich he testified is the Western District of Missouri) to conduct an investigation into the allegations and report back to her. 6). July 7, 2006, FBI Special Agent Bob Schaefer refuses to take phone calls from Swain, he refuses to meet with the private investigator, Absent any interviews, or documentation review, Bob Schaefer through FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza announces to the media he has “cleared the Police of impersonation allegation." The same day AUSA Marietta Parker has the Postal Inspectors office assisted by Lawrence Police and the Internal Revenue Service, Serve two more federal warrants on Neighbors home and business. Even though there was no probable cause, and there had been no new incidents. 7), December 12, 2006, Case No. 06-20171-cm: Neighbors is falsely indicted and arrested without probable cause, for being an “unlawful User with Firearms" by the Postal Service and Internal Revenue Service. He and his wife Carrie Neighbors Bohn wh an ny? ee 2are placed in a holding cell at the Department of Justice and held for 8 hours without food. Other prisoners in the same cells were fed twice in the same time period, Marietta Parker told Neighbors and their attorney Swain “they brought this on themselves for accusing her boys of the FBI impersonations.” Lack of Essential Element and Probable Cause: Citing 27 C. R. section 478.11 which states: "Unlawful User of or addicted to any controlled substance...[to define user] eg., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year." Neighbors had no criminal history, no prior convictions or arrests, and he had never failed or submitted to a drug test prior to his arrest. The government lacked probably cause and an essential element to arrest, indict or convict Neighbors under this statute. 8). May 4, 2007, Government files Motion to Dismiss Indictment 06-20171-CM with 2 days left on the Speedy Trial clock. They falsely allege there i ‘additional evidence discovered during the ongoing investigation. 9). May 10, 2007, Judge sustained the Motion, Dismissing the indictment without prejudice. ww <9 : a \' wk @ fanny10.) June 20, 2007, absent any new incidents or evidence, Neighbors is served a Four count Indictment: Case No. 07-20073-01/01 JWL. The first (2 counts) are the original counts from case 07-20171-cm with 2 additional counts of Knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana. This superseding indictment is presented as a new case by the government in a strategic move to circumvent the Speedy Trial Act. On June 25, 2007 Neighbors is again arrested at his home for being an Unlawful User by the Postal Inspectors led by David Nitz and IRS Agents led by Robert Jackson. Neighbors is not given the opportunity to self-surrender even though he already has appointed counsel. The case is assigned a new case number and new judge. The government continued to prosecute the remaining charges even after the KBI Lab report tests came back “negative for any THC’ in the degraded junk the government called “evidence of drugs" that was seized from Neighbors home. 411), FROM 2006-2008 Neighbors is hit with a barrage of frivolous search warrants and arrests lacking probable cause: Monday May 8, 2006, five Lawrence police officers J. Rozell, T- Haak, J. Bialek, A, Heffley and Sgt. Monroe serve a state issued search warrant on Neighbors business after the Neighbors had already provided a statement and turned over all information and paperwork relating to a $30. air compressor that was allegedly stolen and sold to Neighbors business. June 25, 2007, 8am, Postal Inspector David Nitz and his assistant along with IRS ‘Agents Robert Jackson and Osborne, LKPD police officers Matt Sarna and Eric Barkley, serve a federal arrest warrant on Neighbors at his home for being an Unlawful User with Firearms. During the arrest, several incident searches were executed, One sweep search including the basement by Sarna and Barkley, and then a second search by Agent Jackson which included kitchen cabinets, Neighbors bedroom, dressers, Office space including the desk, and enclosed storage area. Agent Osborne searched Mrs. Neighbors purse even though Ms. Neighbors was not allowed to bring her purse, cell phone or money with her. TheNeighbors were stripped of their shoe laces and belts, and transported to the Department of Justice in Kansas City, Kansas by the Postal Inspector David Nitz in handcuffs. The Postal Inspector laughed and informed the Neighbors this was a one way ride. ‘After sitting in a cell all day, Neighbors was released at 6pm with no money, vehicle, no contact with family and no way home. 42), July 2006: Neighbors along with his attorney Sarah Swain, is invited by officer to come down to the police station for return of some of the seized property. Also in attendance that day was several uniformed officers and City of Lawrence ‘Attorney Jerry Cooley. It was discovered during this meeting that certain items including at least 3 laptops were missing from the property room. 413). October 19, 2006: Officers Bialek and Rantz stopped in the Yellow House store to question Mrs. Neighbors without her attorney present. They brought along a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-p200 7.2 MP digital camera that they claimed was seized during the execution of the warrants but never logged into the evidence room. 14), December 14, 2006: Neighbors files a formal complaint with Internal Affairs Set. Dan Ward alleging various acts of police misconduct, theft of his seized property, and mishandling of evidence. 415). July 9, 2007 Guy Neighbors files a complaint against Jerry Cooley via registered mall #RB430852657US alleging a failure to investigate the seized evidence missing from the LKPD property room. Shit € un Ko416). July 8, 2007: Guy Neighbors filed a complaint (Registered mail # 700702200003015186) with Internal Affairs for Obstruction of Justice for failure to properly investigate his December 14, 2006 Police Misconduct complaint. 17). September 13, 2007: Government files its 3rd Indictment against Neighbors: case No, 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO-2 Citing Money Laundering, Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud. 418) September 27, 2007: Government places illegal Lis Pendens against Neighbors residential property at 1104 Andover, Lawrence Kansas, and business property at 1904 Massachusetts, Lawrence, Ks. with the Douglas County Register of Deeds. No certificate of service was attached to the lis pendens, no notification was ever served on Neighbors or his counsel as required by State law. Nothing was entered ‘on the Federal Court Docket regarding the Lis Pendens. 419). February 25, 2008: Document 37: Counsel for Carrie Neighbors file a Motion to Release the Lis Pendens which was discovered at the closing of the sale of the residential property, thus blocking the sale. The court ordered the defense to submit a proposed order. See document 40. 20). February 27, 2008: Document 38: The AUSA Marietta Parker quickly file a Superseding Indictment adding count 20s to Guy Neighbors charges and changing the fraudulent Lis Pendens to an “Amended Lis Pendens" forfeiture.( However something procured in fraud cannot be amended). See Document 44: Notice of Lis Pendens filed March 6, 2008. 21), May 01, 2008: AUSA Marietta Parker file "Motion TO REVOKE BOND". Document 65-66. The Motion includes exhibits of Guy Neighbors internet Blog. » 4 we(Exhibit 8g) specifically shows the editing icons which only appear to a logged in user that has made changes to the blog. (See page 4 of 4). parker served a subpoena on Neighbors internet provider Sunflower Cable and obtained his user name and passwords for all his internet accounts. Using this information, Marietta Parker edited the blog, then inadvertently printed the pages off prior to logging out. This act constitutes manufacturing and submission of false evidence and violates the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse act. 22). June 02, 2008: Document 89: Neighbors notified his legal counsel Cheryl Pilate of the issues with the governments Motion re 65. Counsel files Motion to continue and assure Neighbors it will be taken care of. 23), June 02, 2008: Document 90: Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse sets defendant's response to document 65 Motion To Revoke Bond due on 6/23/08. Bond Revoke hearing set for /7/15/2008. 24). June 18, 2008 Document 93: Without probable cause or any new incidents AUSA Marietta Parker files Second Superseding Indictment. Charging the same counts as the first indictment but redacting count 20s, adding "profits" in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Santos, 533 U.S. 507 (June 2, 08). 25). July 18, 2008: Document 104: Arraignment hearing on the Second Superseding Indictment held before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Motion to Revoke Bond Re-65 hearing continued to 7/21/08. ° « X Fh aed! Fhe26). July 21, 2008: Document 101: Closed [off the record] In Chambers Conference held before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara regarding Motion to evoke Bond (Document 65) (Neighbors was not allowed to attend the hearing.) 277), July 23, 2008: Document 107: Telephone Conference hearing (counsel only) hefore Judge James P. O'hara regarding the Motion to Revoke Bond Re-65. 28). July 30, 2008: Document 117: Order by Magistrate Judge O'Hara denying as moot without prejudice Document 65 Motion To Revoke Bond. 29), August 8, 2008: Case no. 2:08-MJ-08077-JPO: Neighbors is falsely arrested in 5 Federal Arrest Warrant signed by Judge O’hara, obtained by Postal Inspector David Nitz (acting outside of his jurisdiction over the US Mail) at the direction of Marietta parker and held in the Douglas County Jail. Parker files criminal "The case was filed without presentment to Complaint for "Obstruction of Justice a grand jury. (see doc. 24 pg. 120 lines 9-12) The obstruction case originated when Carrie Neighbors unknowingly purchased a stolen computer from a customer at the Lawrence store. The original owner saw it advertised and called police. Mrs. Neighbors returned the computer to the police and provided them with the sellers form. This incident did not involve Guy Neighbors or the United States Mail. 30), August 12, 2008: Document 128: AUSA Marietta Parker files Motion to Revoke Bond. As to Guy Neighbors ("second motion"). case 2:07-cr-20124-cm 31), August 11, 2008: Neighbors picked up from the county jail and is illegally transported (designated as a federal prisoner in custody 4 days) by the arresting 4 Fx 2, y Sebi ord teofficer Postal Inspector David Nitz without benefit legal counsel, to the Department of Justice in Kansas City. August 11, 2008: Document 10: Obstruction Case: Neighbors remanded to Federal Detention Center in Leavenworth Kansas. 32). August 13, 2008: Document 20: Obstruction Case: Warrant for Arrest of Guy Neighbors executed 8/08/08. 33). August 15, 2008: Document 23: Joint motion to dismiss on failure to establish probable cause. No "Official Proceeding" was pending, thus there was an absence of an essential element under 18 USC 1512(c). 34). August 18, 2008: Document 27: Joint motion dismissed with prejudice, governments (8) motions for detention denied. It was established no obstruction of an official proceeding took place. Neighbors was released on the stipulation he sign an agreement not blog or discuss his case on the internet, and he agree to undergo a mental evaluation. 35). August 20, 2008: Case No. 2:08-cr-20105-cm-jpo document 28: AUSA Marietta Parker file 1 count indictment for Obstruction Of Justice Title 18 USC 41512(c) based on the same incident that was dismissed, Absent probable cause. 36). September 22, 2008: Document 31: Arraignment/Discovery hearing on Obstruction indictment case no. 20105-cm-jpo. 37), September 25, 2008: document 34: AUSA Marietta Parker file Motion to REVOKE BOND as to Guy Neighbors.38). October 29, 2008: Document 147 case No. 20124-cm (Doc. 34 Obstruction case): Magistrate Judge O'hara denies Motion to Revoke Bond re-34. 39). April 27, 2009: Document 165 Case no. 20124: Motion to REVOKE BOND by Marietta Parker as to Guy Neighbors. USA alleges that Neighbors sent an email to the FBI requesting an investigation into the prosecutorial misconduct in the prosecution of his case. 40). April 27, 2009: Doc. 164: Neighbors Legal Counsel has had enough and responds to the motion for revocation with a motion to withdraw as attorney. May 11, 2009: Doc. 170: Motion to withdraw denied. 41) May 20, 2009: Document 174: Motion before Judge O'hara, for pretrial detention granted (on ground he sent the email) as to guy Neighbors. 42). May 21, 2009: Document 175: Order of Detention as to Guy Neighbors. 43). June 1, 2009: Document 176: Neighbors counsel files motion for order Reinstatement of pretrial release. August 7, 2009 Document 199: (day of hearing) Counsel files Notice of withdrawal of 176 Motion for Reinstatement of Pretrial Release. Claiming that the motion will piss off the judge and make him rule against Neighbors in the other - pending motions.44), August 10, 2009: Document 204: (Neighbors has maxed out the time for the contempt of court charge and is about to be released). AUSA Parker files Motion For Order Mental Exam as to Guy Neighbors. 45) August 11, 2009: Document 206: Court grants Motion and Neighbors is sent to a federal Prison in Colorado. 46). December 8, 2009: Document 219: Neighbors is tra! nsferred from federal prison to the federal detention center in Leavenworth Kansas, for competency hearing. The exam in Colorado comes back inconclusive. The court finds Neighbors incompetent and orders further evaluation. 47), December 9, 2009: Document 220: Order for Mental Exam. Neighbors is shipped off to federal prison in Butner North Carolina. 48). June 23, 2010: Document 247: Competency hearing. Doctor Lucking in North Carolina prison finds Neighbors incompetent in a bogus report that includes a finding that Neighbors Wife is also incompetent based on monitored phone calls and intercepted letters. The doctor recommends Neighbors be submitted to involuntary medication treatment. 49). July 28, 2010: Document 315: Competency hearing. Defendant remanded to custody without completed Sell hearing. Neighbors returned to detention center in Leavenworth. Then shipped back to Federal Prison in Butner North Carolina. w Vv vba’ bY ba NP50). August 9, 2010: Document 329: Neighbors files interlocutory Notice of Appeal (pro se) to Appeal the forced medication and continued detention based on the fraudulent mental evaluation, 51). August 10, 2010: Document 337: Appeal Docketed in 10CCA: Appeal No. 10- 3202 52), August 12, 2010: Document 341: Order by District Judge Carlos Murguia certifying appeal as frivolous. 53). September 22, 2010: Document 382: Order of 10CCA as to Guy Neighbors: Notice of Appeal by Appellant Guy Neighbors...is granted. Neighbors is appointed appellate counsel on September 27, 2010, document 394 54). November 2, 2010: Document 403: Order of 10CCA Appointment of Substitute counsel to assist with appeals granted. Neighbors is found competent and released from prison. 55). May 19, 2014: document 681: Indictment case no. 20124-cr-cm dismissed with prejudice. All cases are dismissed vl vk e WesIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v) ) GUY M. NEIGHBORS, ) ) Defendant. ) Case No. 07-20124-CM NOTICE OF ERROR, DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS. EXCEPTIONS, DEMANDS TO JUDGE'S MENORANDUM/ ORDER. DOC. #707 Comes Now, Guy Neighbors Via, Special Appearance, reserving all of his rights, to object 10 ‘The Judge’s order Doc. 707, as its an attempt to Obstruet Justice, and clear violation of ‘Neighbors right to “Due Process”. The judge in this ease is Obstructing Justice by Tenoring the law, cited invalid law, ignored the facts ignored the issues, denied Neighbors constitutional tights, violated and or ignored FRCP, violated his oath of office and code of judicial conduct, conspired with fellow judicial employee, and allowed perjury, and Mr. Neighbors is demanding a full review. The following facts support the above; 1. Néighbors objects to the Judges contention that the hearing will be held only 10 decide What evidence will be retumed to Mr. Neighbors due to his wife's possible pending appeal. “The Judge cited part of the FRCP in support of his decision to violate Mr. Neighbors “ri to due process”. eaea, Rule 41(g) states: 41g motion to return evidence 1 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) provides: Motion to Return Property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must r evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, ‘but may impose reasonable conditions to protect acoess to the property and its use in later proceedings. 2, "This rule of criminal procedure clearly states the court “must receive evidence on Any Factual issues Necessary to decide the motion, Neighbors filed a motion for an evidence hearing Pursuant 19 Federal Rule Rrim. P.41 doe. 700 and provided copies of search warrants that were used in the beginning of the case in Dec. 2005. Neighbors has reason to believe these search warrants were forged by Lawrence police officers, and Neighbors filed an affidavit stating to the fact he was NOT ‘presented with a search warrant atthe time his Hlome was searched, and the only search warrant left at the residence was the «pigay back” search warrant thats timed stamped 1:30, The officers began the ilegal search at 10:00 am without presenting the Mr, Neighbors with any warrant. The exhibits attached to doc. 700 clearly show definite discrepancies in the signatures, the warrants appear to be templates off a computer program, and the government failed to properly respond to the issue ofthe search warrants invalidity, whereby( the gov. waves any right to argue in future hearings) The judge is acting in conspiracy to cover up the fact the original search warrants in the “Yellowhouse” investigation were forged by the Lawrence police officer’s, due to the fact the local District Prosecutor Mr. Branson refused to prosecute the case against the business owners. These forged search warrants are relevant to the return of the property inthe fac thatthe court would like to return only the property it would not be using in any appeal by Neighbors co-defendant, however Neighbors demands thatthe cout retum ALL of he evidence because the search warrant was forged and therefore the government is not entitled to retain any & of the evidence, and charges should be filed against the lead officers involved in this unlawful x x apersecution in the interest of Justice this cout is ordered to hear, and conduct ts own investigation into this issue of the forged search warrants. 5, "The Judge argues Mr. Neighbors is Not allowed to “collaterally attack" a search and seizure through a post-conviction Rule 41g, as it related to his wife. This argument is rnisplaced based on the fact that Mr. Neighbors was NOT convicted of any crimes after -yr5 of harassment at least 7 arrests, 6-9 federal indictments, 33 months of incarceration. Fact is the government separated the cases fo gain an unfair advantage in prosecuting Mrs. ‘Neighbors, ignoring these very serious injustices, and now Judge Carlos Murguia has a «Conflict of Interest” in his case because he convicted a defendant after ignoring the facts, ‘and now is working in an effort to cover up the fact he wrongfully convicted Mrs. Neighbors. Mr. Neighbors did not file this pleading in Mrs. Neighbors Case! The issues with the evidence has absolutely nothing to do with Mrs. Neighbors ease, other tha if the original search warrants were fraud, then her conviction is fraud! That issues is Not Mr. Neighbors problem, The gov. separated the cases to gnin an unfair advantage, and now they have filed Mr. Neighbors pleadings in Mrs. Neighbors case in an effort to make this weak argument that the court will not hear weather the search warrants were forged. This is such a blatant Violation of “Obstruction of Justice” and a clear violation of “Due process”, and opposes the interest of justice. These issues were mentioned to this judge some years ago and were jgnored at that time as wel, The issue of Mr. Neighbors co-dependent’s convietion is Nor the issue here. The issue here is if the search warrants were in fact forged than Mr. Neighbors has a legal right to all of his property to be returned to him ASAP! The issue ofthe co- defendant's conviction based of fraudulent search warrants is the problem of the court. tis rot the issue here at this time. There is No attempt ata collateral atack just an attempt to get justice, and this judges “conflict of interest” on the record, and a request for review.4, Rule 41(g) permits the return of property that was seized either illegally or legally, see Wacker, 903 F. Supp. At 1414 n.1; Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 € advisory committee's note (1989) (providing that the rule- now 41(g) —was changed to allow a person whose property had been lawfully seized to seek return, This ease law was included in the Judge’s order, proving Mr. Neighbors has the right to challenge validity the of the search warrant despite the Jndge’s refusal based on the fat that he is responsible forthe wrongful conviction of Mrs ‘Neighbors, and through further fraud in his attempt to cover up his unlawfol actions in her case. The government made the decision to separate these defendant's cases, and now itis jncconvenient for the government to have the cases separated so they have made an attempt to put the two eases back together to support the argument that (Mr. Neighbors who was never taken to trial and all charges were dismissed after 33 months of incarceration) should not be allowed to prove tothe court that the original search warrants were forged in his effort to get all of his property back. This order Judge Murguia filed is a disgrace tothe legal profession and isa clear attempt to manipulate the justice system and circumvent the interest of justice”, and in violate his Oath Of Office to up hold the United States Constitution 5, The search warrants show a State Judge’s signature which raises the question of fraud, due to the fact that a State Judge does not have Jurisdiction to sign a Federal warrant, except shen requested by a Federal Law Enforcement Officer (FBI) or atthe request of the U.S. ‘Attorney in the event no magistrate is available, This case did NOT involve the FBI or the USS. Attomey until 7-9 months after the search warrants were served, where by the State Judge Steven Six did not have Jurisdiction to issue the warrants in this case and we are requesting judicial review. nN er(©) Authority to Issue a Warrant. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attomey for the government: (1) a magistrate judge with authority in the distriet-—or if cue is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record inthe district-—bas authority to issue a warrant to search for rand seize a person or property located within the district; 6."The government makes a conclusory unsupported allegation that some of the property in question is “stolen property”, however to date the government failed to produce any “verifiable vietims, fled theft police reports, vietims affidavits or impact statements directly Linked to any of the said property. There have been no hearings before & federal judge or state judge for any ofthe vctim’s to identify, prove ownership rights or move for return of any of the property and the original evidence logs show property retumed to citizens without any of the above documentation. The only property that could retum to third parties was property that is listed as « forfeiture inthe indictment, None of defendant’ property was listed as forfeiture, and no hearing was held for people to present proof of ownership. ‘The statute showing a hearing has to be held is 21 U.S.C:S. Section 853(@)}(@), 41(g) also states: "The claimant must prove only aright to lawful possession ofthe property and equitable right to its return, No presumptions exist in favor of the government". ‘In Conclusion: ‘This is an evidentiary hearing it would be a waste of judicial resources and give the appearance of facilitation ofthe furtherance to cover-up RICO violations, if the court were 19 hold an evidentiary hearing without al ofthe evidence presented in court, The court is making an attempt to prevent Mr. Neighbors from presenting his evidence of ‘unlawful improprieties at the evidence hearing this would be prejudicial to the Mr. Neighbors, and would bave the appearance of'an attempt to “Obstruct of Justice” illegally seized evidence is “Fruit from the poisonous tree" svhereby Mr. Neighbors would be entitled his property tin its entirety without question. Ww roe 4Mr. Neighbors has aright to demand the government meet their burden of proof at this hearing. Mr. Neighbors Demands to have all ofthe physical property brought to the courthouse, and not just some newly manufactured lists the government concoets to group non-exisistant evidence together. The government submitted newly manufactured evidence logs to the court that are ‘fraud and some of the evidence is missing from the newly manufactured evidence logs. Mr. Neighbors is requesting All of bis property to be vetumed and of a judicial review ofall of the issues list here within. Inthe interest of Justice Me. Neighbors is requesting the court consider This Judges conflict of interest and provide a different Judge to hear conduct the heating, See exhibit “A” email to and from Mr. Six verifying he signed the 4 search warrants, also see exhibit “B” The chronological History of the indictments, Do you think this History shows the vinditive nature ofthis Persecution? Certificate of Service Thereby certify that the foregoing document was hand delivered to the clerk of the court on the date mentioned below, to be emailed to all parties. i )- B/S Guy Neighbors DateGuy Neighbors 8/15/14 BsixGul edoornbos Hello, Mr. Six My name is Guy Neighbors, co-owner of the yellowhouse store (business) here in Lawrence. Gun case began in Dec. of 2005 and Ihave had 5 indictments, and 2 superced, all of oe ie petamissed, and the Federal Judge in his order stated that My "speedy trial” and my "Due Process” were violated. Mr. Six, Miy eaestion to yous did you sign these warrants that are attached to this email? 1fyou did nat glease email me back and say as such and I wil fill out an affidavit my self and e Your response with my affidavit and addendum supporting an evidence hearing, Your Jeaponse will allow me to avoid a request of you to attend the evidence hearing. Also attached are a few other documents that may be of interest. fi conside is matter, Guy Neighbors 913-240-0227 Preview attachment 1 Scanned Pages.pdf 4 Scanned Pages.pdf Proview attachment 2 Scanned Pages.pdfPreview attachment 3 Scanned Pages.pdf 3 Scanned Pages pdf Preview attachment 4 Scanned Pages.pdf & 4 Scanned Pages.paf preview attachment MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE CRIM.doox: W MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE CRIM.docx preview attachment ADDENDUM TO MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT.docx W ADDENOUMATO MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT docx ( N ansma G g edt Be Six, Steve &me Mr. Neighbors, that is my signature on the four documents you attached. Steve Steve Six Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 816-714-7190 tel 816-714-7101 fax Visit us on the web at www.stuevesiegel.com “The information contained in this message from Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, any attachments thereto and any information contained in messages replying to this message is privileged and confident. This aon is intended onl forthe use ofthe named recipients) and the attorney-client and attorney work- troduct privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by e-mail. if you recelve this meses rrerror you are stiely prohibited from, and it may be Hilegal to, copy, distribute or use the information, & ‘You have received the foregoing emailin error, please contact the sender immediately by return ft land vetete the orginal message. Bar Disiptinary Counsel requires all Missour lawyers to notify al recip sei thet (1) e-mail communication isnot a secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that sent fe youor by you may be copied and held by various computers t passes through 2st goes from use You cerice vores (a) persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by Ghproperty accessing your computer or Our computers or even some computer unconnected to either of Ws ore ne mall passed through, We are communicating to you via e-mail because you have consented to vansive communications va this medium. Ifyou change your mind and want future communications sent ina different fashion, please let us know AT ONCE From: Guy Neighbors [mailte .guysmileys52@amail.com] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3 AM 7 six, Steve; Guy Neighbors; 3 wray; cdaornbos@ljworld.com Subject: Search warrants in the “yellowhouse Case" ehhh febt f aiformabvint de an gad We file exist, RENCE POLIGE DEPARTMENT L FORMAL COMPLAINT OF OFFICER(S) CONDUCT v ; Your Name: Coy fhatellbors phone No. ao Your Address:_}4ou was _ \ Incident Occurred: Date: Nuh "06 Time: 5 al i = Locatio . K ea ea etre ye ke z Ken 2. 4 Si Were you arrested? Yes O. Gaur Da! wi Name police. be. or iadestrelng me Conplinl s {(4ay complaint volving criminal oF| offense | ‘you have besn cited Into court ou pereiquinent spe nn ne hn Biel eA by athe Fe eB tattle afdtert nd Zoe Valitse and ees B men El a naechgehon 7a weed, Jar abou’ Zhe Pepe Polis fesuy a BE fel aL 1s ail withing Are you willing to testify at a hearing if needed? Ye~, Are You wiling to submit to a polygraph test on this) 2 Tho undersigned herby afi thet the above kin We Mf Hach Shas malhr Be tues: G buy be Ge foal! — Zhibik ae \O ‘Send or bring signed form to Internal Atfairs _.. IBZ KS 66044. (ec haley Sel fomp\ac a L ‘ BoA Us hb rege 5+ a7 endeeaetts scr i Tats Poste trees [$39 FO 7007 o@20 | ‘0003THE SWAIN LAW OFFICE Sarah G. Swain, Attorney at Law “Theno Office Complex Park Cherry Building 601 Missouri, Suite 8 110 N. Cherry, Suite 240 Lawrence, KS 66044 Olathe, KS 66061 (785) 842-2787 866-550-2787 June 14, 2006 Bob Schaefer, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation 1300 Summit Kansas City, MO 64106 ‘Dear Mr. Schaefer: Enclosed please find the affidavit that we executed with Ms. Helm. We are still working on getting other affidavit's executed, but as I'm sure you are aware, many people are too scared to come forward and go public with their accusations against the Lawrence Police Department. We appreciate your efforts in investigating what we believe to be police misconduct, If there is anything that I can do to assist you with your investigation, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the numbers or addresses listed above. Th dew Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law — Sxchibh RAWLSWOOD INVEST. IGATIVE AEFIDAYIT SERVICES, INC. 1, Laura Helm, of awful age, being fully sworn upon ath, states: ‘That, in early March 2006, brother’s (Ray unsure of the date, was March 6, 2006 between 9:00 a.tn. - 10:00 am, “That these two men, approached my residence ane asked to alittle belly and short ‘most of the talking during our contact Y recall, and said they worked with the “Pederal Bureau i second man was a Wi, y best deseribe 3705", ‘This man did the first man as a wim, bureau name, ‘The ‘build than the first man. The FBI and he said the entire 670" and a bigger Second man did tell me Twas not in men were similarly meng gun in holsters mace of light color leather me I “had to talk to to be today and “That, the first man told today.” He said it did not have day, These officers retuned the next day vehicle, did not want to go with them, but felt wet have a choice. They drove me ‘6 the police i ‘They questioned me L int bout items I had sold ‘me they obtained my name thro ugh checks ‘That, after they me back to my house. Jettering on it, Thave ‘misplaced that card. ‘They ‘them on the willing to = Fhibit POY questioned ‘During ‘Yellow House case. ‘They spt to sell stolen items tO second man trouble, but Guy dressed in slacks and shirts. They they agreed to ‘and picked me up in @ from the way they were acting fice Department at i and ‘Street, Lawrence, KS. oe oie the bsldingthoueh nous i i allowed us inside iterview room where io the Yellow House in the past ‘that were written by the ¥« me for an hour to the drive home they to fered me $50.00 for exch tine ‘Lawrence, ‘men contacted and He said his name, of Investigation.” and Carrie wore @ them.” 1 asked him if it “had to be ‘come back the following dark blue SUV ‘an hour and a half, they then fave me a business card with {ne to eal if ended 10 Wor ‘the Yellow House. {was contacted by two men wiile Twas staying af Mayberry) residence located at 2200 Harper, C-44 rr T do rocal it was several weeks ago and , ‘twas during the week. beliove, but Iam not certain, thatthe date these to i speak with me, Ioan spiky blonde hair. which I do not Hie did not say short dark hair, ‘did not say much. The ‘Neighbors were. Both ‘badge on their belts that was also worn on their waist. ‘thatpapal 72 eb ‘That, I did not feel like I had a choice in talking with these mon and Lhhad 10 60 0 the station with them or I would have been in trouble. “That, because I am on probation, I contacted my Probation Officer, Harley Edis, after this contact t0 advise him what had occurred. He told me that T could not be involved in this type of work for the police if I wanted to due to my probation order. T vever had any intentions of working with the police and told them I would not, “That, Iam certain I have seen these men before and I believe they are Lawrence Police Officers and not federal agents. The first man clearly identified himself as the “Federal Bureau of Investigation.” AFFIANTY SAYS NOT ) / [ ‘Subscribed and sworn to me before wieFormal Complaint & Request for FBI Investigation Guy and Carrie Neighbors 1904 Massachusetts Lawrence, Kansas, 66046 785-842-2785 785-760-0412 Attn. FBI Agent Scott Gentine cc. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius Office ce. Justice Dept Main office Washington Bureau cc. Eric F. Melgren Kansas Justice Department ce. Kansas Disciplinary Administrator Stanton A Hazlett ce. Mark Vukelich FBI Chief Civil Rights Unit Merrily A. Friedlander FBI Chief, Coordination & review Civil Rights division. Formal complaint alleging Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, Falsification of an investigation, Impersonation of an FBI agent, submission of False written Statements by a Government official's. Persons Named in this Complaint for Questioning are lawrence Police officer Jay Bialek, Mickey Rantz, Sgt. Michael Patrick, Chicf Ron Olin, Ransas Justice Department Assistant Prosecuting attorney Marietta Parker, Terra Morehead, Jim Cross, and Kansas City FBI spokesperson Jeff Lanza, Agent Bob (Walter) Shaefer, Kevin I Stafford, and Timothy A Gallagher Supervisory Special Agent tn June of 2006, Sarah G, Swain, attorney for Guy and Carrie Neighbors submitted a complaint alleging that Lawrence Police officers Jay Bialek and Mickey Rantz were posing as FBI agents during the course of an investigation involving the Yellow House Store in Lawrence Kansas. The allegations involved Officers following people leaving the store or approaching customers of the store end making them believe they were the FBI, Or in some instances that the investigation was being handled by the FBI as a form of intimidation. ‘This allegation had been investigated by a private investigator Cecila Woods, and in the course of ‘her investigation several written statements, interviews and affidavits were collected to substantiate the claims. Some correspondence fook place betwoon Sarah Swain, Ron Olin, officer Bialek, Kevin Stafford « ‘Timothy A. Gallagher for agent Shaefer, and Marietta Parker. (see documents) on April 19, 2006 A person posing as FBI Special Agent Bob (Walter) Shaefer from the Raneas City FBI office visited Attorney Swain at her office accompanied by Lawrence Police Sgt. Michael Patrick. Agent Shaefer informed Swain he would be dnvestigating the complaints. The Lawrence Journal world did a story about the Gnvestigation into the police misconduct. (see document) In the June 15, 2006 JW, story Jeff Lanza is quoted as saying: We are attempting to resolve Whether or not a person or persons falsely represented themselves as FBI Agents, FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza confirmed Wednesday, The FBI is also quoted ae saying: "he sources also said the FBI was never involved in the actual fencing investigation, but was only involved because of allegations against the police.” & Bolsce-" og, necording to an article in the L J.World, Jeff Lanza announced the C [Investigation was stalled due to a lack of a formal complaint. Bven though it is documented that Sarah Swain had made numerous attempts to meet with Agent Shacter, Had made a many as 6 phone calls in one day attempting to contact hin ‘ and had correspondence with him through several letters and faxes both written N -#\o, EX -inquiry uiuer way ws womans vt LJWorld.com Comments (44) « iPod friendly FBI inquiry under way in conduct of police Some allege that officers posed as federal agents By Ron Knox Thursday, June 15, 2006 ‘The Federal Bureau of Investigation is questioning whether Lawrence Police officers have imoropery posed as federal agents when interrogating suspects, the Journal-World has learne The FBI inquiry stems from allegations that Lawrence Police claimed to be agents from the FBI when questioning people during the police investigation of an alleged fencing operation at the Yellow House ‘secondhand shop, 1904 Mass. We are attempting to resolve whether of Not 8 POISCT or persons falsely represented themselves as FBI agents,” FBI spokesman “Jeff Lanza confirmed Wednesday. Lanza would not comment further. But sources with knowledge of the investigation told the Journal-World the FBI inquiry wes prompted by complaints from Sarah ‘Swain. attorney for the secondhand store, and others close to the fencing probe. ‘The sources also said the FBI was never involved in the actual fencing investigation, but was only involved because of allegations against the police. ‘The Lawrence Police Department would not comment for this article because it involved ere her agency's investigation, spokeswoman Kim Murphree said Wednesday. Agents from the FBI have already met with Swain and the police department, in part to oe blish that the FBI was not actually toived in investigating the Yellow House: The meeting between Lawrence Police Sgt. Mike Pattrick and FBI Special Agent Bob Shaefer Was at the request of Swain, ‘who had heard from Yellow House ‘owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors and others that FBI agents were using the Douglas County Law Enforcement Center to interview people who sold 4 merchandise to the store. x % “That allegation culminated in ‘worn affidavit from Lawrence _ ¥ \oy & a esr 1008 AMinquiry under way in conduct of police | LIWorld.com, — psa w2. world cor/news/2006jun/|5/Pi_Inguiry_ wader ay resident Laura Helm, who said two men identifying themselves | Photo by Thad Allender as FBI agents had taken her from her brother's home to the police etation to interview her. ales wats ‘According to the affidavit, the men questioned Helm for 90 s inside het minutes before driving her back to her brother's home. secondhand store, The Yellow House, 1904 They questioned me about items Ihad sold to the Yellow Mass. The Federal Houge in the past” she said in the affidavit. "They told me they Bureau of Investigation obtained my name through checks that were written by the is looking into the Yellow House.” Lawrence Police Department because of Helm said in the affidavit that the men had guns and badges allegations that officers on thelr bolts, and that at least one of the men knew the door were posing as federal code needed to enter the Law Enfercement Center. agents in a fencing probe involving Yellow Heim is 0” probation for attempted forgery and reported He House. ineigent to Harley Eddis, her probation officer, the affidavit sai During the meeting of Swain, Patrick and Shaefer, Swain said both men told her the FBI had no involvement in the Yellow House investigation. ghaefer told me that the FBI would not be involved," Swain said. “There is. no interagency task force or anything like that.” volvement in the ‘Nhen Swain contacted the police department to confirm the FBI's In investigation of her clients, Lawrence Police Chief Ron Olin would only confirm that the appropriate federal agents had been contacted, according to a letter from Olin to Swain, a copy of which was obtained by the Journal-World. (UPD) Officer (Jay) Bialek assures me {el he has contacted the agents involved and has informed them of your wish to be contacted,” he wrote ‘Swain. Bialek is involved in the investigation of the Yellow House. Olin said in the letter that he would not name any federal investigators involved, but did mention the meeting between ‘Swain, Pattrick and Shaefer, and ‘said that all further questions should be addressed to U. 's. Atty. Marietta ‘Parker, who is handling prosecution on the federal level. Jim Cross, spokesman for the U.S. ‘Attomey's Office, would not cormment on whether his office was involved in the fencing investigation. Revenue Service and the U.S. Postal Police acknowledged assistance from the Internal iial Search warrant Service in a news release from December when police served an ini against Yellow House. x ‘The release called the alleged fencing operation, which entails the purchase and resale of x "stolen goods, “one of the largest, set sophisticated fencing operations we have seen in Lawrence.” VY i b ~ 6/15/2006 10:08 AM.THE SWAIN LAW OFFICE Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law 601 Missouri, Suite 3 110 N. Cherry, Suite 240 Lawrence, KS 66044 Olathe, KS 66051 (785) 842-2787 866-550-2787 ww lavrencecriminalattorncy.com swainlawoffice@gmail.com FAX COVER SHEET DATE: 6-30-06 FAX TO: Bob Schaefer / FBI FAX NUMBER: (816) 512-8545 SENDER’S NAME & FAX NUMBER: Sarah G. Swain @ (785) 842-2787 RE: PAGES: 1 COMMENTS:2 THE SWAIN LAW OFFICE Sarah G. Swain, Attorney at Law Theno Office Complex Park Cherry Building 601 Missouri, Suite 3 110 N. Cherry, Suite 240 Lawrence, KS 66044 Olathe, KS 66051 (785) 842-2787 866-550-2787 June 30, 2006 Bob Schaefer, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigations 1300 Summit Kansas City, MO 64106 Dear Agent Schaefer: On June 14, 2006, | forwarded you a copy of a sworn affidavit that alleged illegal police conduct on the part of the Lawrence Police Department. Since that date, | have tried contacting you on at least six occasions to set up a meeting with you, Ms. Helm, and myself. At this point, | have been unable to speak with you on the phone, and I have not received replies to the numerous voice messages that | have left for you. | contacted you twice regarding setting up a meeting with Ms. Helm. | told you that ! would be available to meet with you and Ms. Helm regarding your investigation on Thursday June 29, 2006. Obviously, that meeting didn't take place. At this point, | am unsure about your intentions regarding this investigation. While you seemed concerned about these issues during our first meeting that involved Sgt. Patrick from the LPD, | am certainly not convinced from your actions or lack of investigation during the last two weeks that this is something that you intend to pursue in any sort of meaningful manner. 1am currently pursuing possible other avenues for an investigation of the LPD, and ! would appreciate some clarification from the FBI about the manner and/or extent of any investigation that your agency intends to pursue. Certainly, | will keep you apprised of any further developments on my end, and | will be awaiting a call from you regarding a meeting with Ms. Helm. dhbd, J 2 Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law XU HteloykpeAttention Bob Schaefer ( FBI) 06-21-06 "Formal Complaint" We would like to let you know about our concems regarding the conduct of the Lawrence Police Dept. in the investigation of our business “The Yellow House" We believe there are some issues with the way the Search and Seizure was handled. We are concemed with the fact that some personal belongings, along with merchandise were taken, and we were not given an itemized list of specific items. Some of the items mere very expensive. ‘We believe the police have been very aggressive in making people believe this was an PBI investigation, and using this as a form of intimidation. Many people were lead to potieve that this was a federal ease, including our attomey, our associates atiormey Shelly Bock, and at least 10 customers. We would like to see a complete investigation into these serious charges. We also had a customer that was offered to have his municipal charges dropped, (he Signed an affidavit) if he were to sell stolen items to our store, he also stated he was offered $50 each time he could get stolen goods brought into our store. ‘We have also had several other customers that have informed us they were offered $50 every time they could bring stolen goods into our store. It is hard enough to run a business like curs, and knowing the officers who are sapposed to protect us are trying to pay people to bring in stolen property into our business. Regards Guy and Carrie Neighbors This is one of two formal complaint filed by the owners of the yellow house store with ‘the FBI so they may proceed with the investigation in to the allegation of the lawrence police misconduct. ‘Many people in lawrence hope the fbi completes the investigation into the lawrence police dept. it has been # long time comming. a, ast inquity stalled by lack of formal complaint | LJWorld.com Page 1 of 10 a (i Cunnuenis (64) FBI inquiry stalled by lack of formal complaint By Wednesday, June 21, 2006 A federal probe into possible misconduct within the Lawrence Police Department has stalled as the FBI waits for a formal complaint to be filed. FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza said no one had come forward with a formal complaint alleging anyone posed as FBI agents when questioning people in relation to a police investigation of an alleged fencing ring at the Yellow House secondhand shop, 1904 Mass. “We cannot move forward without a formal complaint,” Lanza said. Lanza previously said the FBI was looking into the matter. Sarah Swain, attorney for Yellow House, said she and a private investigator were’ Working to \ set up a meeting between the FBI and people who allegedly have been interrogated by police officers claiming to be federal agents. ‘Swain also said a private investigator sent the FBI at least one sworn affidavit that should serve as a formal complaint. ‘The Lawrence Police fencing investigation, which began last year, has focused on the alleged purchase and resale of stolen goods through the secondhand store and online sales, according to a police news release from December 2005. Police have served search warrants at the Yellow House and at the home of Guy and Carrie Neighbors, the store owners, in relation to the case. No charges have been filed as a result of the monthslong fencing investigation. The police department has declined comment about the FBI inquiry, saying it was against department policy to discuss another agency's prob~ sea ie HU PRY Note: LsWosdcom does’ necessary condone the commons her, nor does review every post For more & infomation seo » ‘ Posted by vn « ) on June 24, 2006 at 2:22 aam. (1. ) x anybody that you know has ever heen approached by x 2111/2007 htip:/Awww2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jun/21/fbi_inquiry_stalled_lack_formal_complain\/ leo1st clears Lawrence Polieg of impersonation allegation | LJWorld.com Page 1 of 8 fo. é Connucints (62) FBI clears Lawrence Police of impersonation allegation Yellow House Store, owners’ residence served with two more search warrants in ongoing fencing investigation By ( ) Saturday, July 8, 2006 ‘The FBI says it's cleared Lawrence Police of an allegation that an officer impersonated an FBI agent during the investigation of an alleged fencing operation at the Yellow House used appliance store. “We looked into the situation and found no evidence to indicate that anyone impersonated an FBI agent,” FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza said Friday, “The news came the same day the U.S. Postal Inspector's office, assisted by Lawrence Police and the internal Revenue Service, served two more search warrants at the store at 1904 Mass., and at the home of owners Guy and Carrie Neighbors in the 1100 block of Andover Street. . ‘Authorities said they were looking for e-mail records, surveillance tapes, receipts, computers, Sealed merchandise and sales records from the online auction service eBay. Its the latest twist in an investigation that's been going on since December, when Lawrence Police said they'd uncovered what they describe as a large-scale, sophisticated fencing operation. So far, there have been at least five search warrants served, but no one has been arrested and no charges have been filed. +1 think this whole thing is around our eBay sales," Guy Neighbors said on Friday as he stood outside his store, which was surrounded by yellow police tape. “It's been, ‘what, eight months now? | don't know, Maybe they have more than I know.” ‘The Neighborses maintain their innocence and have been critical of police at every turn. "t committing any crimes, why would *1 fee! lke if you don't have anything to hide, you weren’ you need to be quiet?” Guy Neighbors said. 1 affidavit eailier this surnmer from a woman who said ‘They went as far as to produce @ swor > get her to take stolen ~ ~ X Lae snes Police officer had impersonated an FEI agent in an effort to property into the store. That prompted the investigation that Lanza sai no*frding of wrongdoing-by police. — GW canve_ponrce_ampersonation_all id Fridav had anded with 2/10/2007 http: Avww2.ljworld.com/news/2006,jul/08/foi_clem.U.S, Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation la Reply, Phase few : FieNo. 194-KC-C81080 1500 Sunmit July 7, 2006 Sarah G. Swain 604 Missouri suite 3 Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Dear Ms. Swain: The Kansas City Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (£BI) is in receipt of your letter to Special Agent Walter R. Schaefer, which was facsimiled to the Kansas City Division of the FBI on June 30, 2006. The Kansas City Division of the FBI is also in receipt‘of a facsimiled Affidavit which was allegedly prepared by Laura Helm on April 22, 2006. This Affidavit was received by the Kansas City Division of the FBI on dune 15, 2006. As you are aware, Special Agent Schaefer visited your office on April 19, 2006, as a result of your public allegations and correspondence to Assistant United States Attorney, Marietta Parker, that members of the Lawrence Police Department were conducting an investigation and identifying themselves as FBI agents. On April 19, 2006, when SA Schaefer visited you in your office at 601 Missouri, Suite 3, Lawrence, Kansas 66044, you advised him that you had ten to twelve witnesses who claimed that members of the Lawrence Police Department identified themselves as FBI agents during an investigation. On April 19, 2006, SA Schaefer requested those names and you advised him that you did not have the names and that your investigator, Cecilia Wood, had those lists of names.{2 From April 19, 2006, until June 16, 2006, (sixty days later)the Kansas City Division of the FBI and SA Schaefer had not received any correspondence or information concerning your initial allegations. The two meetings you referenced as scheduled with SA Schaefer in your letter dated June 30, 2006, were set by you without verifying the availability of SA Schaefer. Any future meetings/interviews should be verbally verified with SA Schaefer. Simply leaving a voice mail message advising SA Schaefer that you have a meeting set up on a specific date at a specific time will not guarantee SA Schaefer's availability. SA Schaefer can be reached at 816/512-8640. Sincerely Kevin L. Stafford Special Agent in Charge mothy\A. Gallaghe! Supervisory Special Agentormal Complaint & Request for FBI Investigation ge 1 Gay'and cafeie Weiohbars ye i (nf 1904 Massachusetts Vu S Whar Lawrence, Kansas, 66046 tr \ i“ paseaear2763 as-7o0-0412 [am wee oY aeen. ae FEE Agent Scott Gentine Eb: Kanes Governor Kathleen Sebelius office Gs! dustice Dept Nain office Washington Buses Bric F. Nelgron fansas dostice Depertment Se! Kansas Disciplinary Administrator Stanten A Hazlett cc. Mark Vukelich FBI Chief Civil Rights Unit ce. Merrily A. Friedlander PBI Chief, Coordination & review Civil Rights division, Formal complaint alleging Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, Falsification of an investigation, Impersonation of an FBI agent, submission of False written Statements by a Government official's. Persons Named in this Complaint for Questioning are Lawrence Police officer Jay Bialek, Mickey Rantz, Sgt. Michael Patrick, Ron Olin, chier Kansas Justice Department Assistant Prosecuting attorney Marietta Parker, Texra Morehead, Jim Cross, . and Kansas City FBI spokesperson Jeff Lanza, Agent Bob (Walter) Shaefer, Kevin L Stafford, and Timothy A Gallagher Supervisory Special Agent. Sarah G. Swain, attorney £or Guy and Carrie Neighbors submitted ice officere Jay Bialek and Mickey Rantz were posing as FEI agents during the course of an investigation involving the Yellow House Store in Lawrence Kansas. The allegations involved Officers following people leaving the store or approaching customers of the store and making then believe they were the FBI, Or in some instances that the investigation was being handled by the FBI as a form of intimidation. ‘This allegation had been investigated by a private investigator Cecila Woods, and in the course of ‘her investigation, several written statements, interviews and affidavits were collected to substantiate the claims. Some correspondence took place between Sarah Swain, Ron Olin, officer Bialek, Kevin Stafford ¢ Timothy A. Gallagher for agent Shaefer, and Marietta Parker. (see documents) zn dune of 2006, ‘a complaint alleging that Lawrence Pol on apeii 19, 2006 A person ppsing as FRE Special Agent Bob (Walter) Shaefer fron the Kansas City FBI office Visited Attorney Swain at her office accompanied by QQ [burence Policy sgt. Michael Patrick. agent Shaefer informed Swain he would be A investigating the complaints. The Lawrence Journal world did a story about the ~ Ta ceaay sett Lansa ie quoted as saying: We are attempting to resolve v vhsthoe of nota person or persons falsely represented thenselves as FBI saeerer eer spokeonan Jeff Lenza confimmed Wednesday, The FBI to also quoted saree inge Mine sources also said the FAI was sever involved in the actuel Tendile davestigation, but was only involved because of allegations agoinat the polices" yea ei. 2006, According to an article in the L J.world, Jeff Lanza announced the Tibestigation’ was stalled due te a lack of a formal complaint, Even though it is dneewented that Sarah Swain had made numerous attempts to mget with Agent b Shacfer» fod made as nany a8 9 phone calls in one day ettenpting to contact nig JS Bt seiched’ correspondance with hiw through several letters and faxes both writt i io PF amit i. .ye 2e-e KANSAS \W. Ronald Olin, Ph.D. Chief of Police ee April 20, 2006 Sarah Swain, Attomey at Law 601 Missouri, Suite 3 Lawrence, KS 66044 Dear Ms. Swain: | am in receipt of e-nail correspondence between you and Officer Bialek regarding the ongoing investigation involving your olionts, Guy and Carrie Neighbors. Itis my understanding that you wish to speak wit the Federal Investigators involved with the investigation of your clients. Oficet Bialek aasures me that he has contacted the agents involved and has informed them of your wish to be contacted. Adcitionally, ! am aware you haye been in contact yehU-S. Attorney Marietta Parker who Is handling this case at the federal level for prosecution, The Lawrance Police Department will nt elease the identity of any Federal investigator who is involved in the case Your most racent email is of some concer, as it could be read a8 an attempt to report potential criminal activity. I this is your intention and the Sttvites In question took place in the City of Lawrence, please feel free to file a police report with our department. Hf these activities took place elsewhere, please contact the appropriate law enforcement ageney from that jurisdiction. | oreve Sergeant Mike Patirick from this department as well ae Special Agent Bob Shaeter with the FBI has spoken with you in person ‘about these very issues. nw Any further correspondence conceming this case should be directed to. v U.S. Aitomey Marietta Parker. if you need fo correspond with anyone in ‘the ¥ Lawrence Police Department, please do so in writing, instead of emailing a speatig officer so that it may be routed and handled ‘appropriately. You are welcome to address your correspondence tome. & & Very truly yours, Mnald Cor ’ ae W. Ronald Olin, Ph.D. of Chief of Police WRO:mep Investigation & Training Center + 4820 Bob Billings Pkwy * Lawrence, KS (66049 + (785) 830-7400 Law Enforcement Center, Patrol & Records Division * LIL Bast 11th Street Lawrence. KS 66044 + (785) 832-7501 City Hall « 6 East th Street * Lawrence, KS {66044 + (785) 832-3000 ‘www lawrencepolice.orgU.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation ‘Reply, Phos Refer FileNo. 194-KC-C81080 1300 Summit July 7, 2006 Sarah G. Swain 601 Missouri Suite 3 Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Dear Ms. Swain: The Kansas City Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is in receipt of your letter to Special Agent Walter R. Schaefer, which was facsimiled to the Kansas City Division of the FBI on June 30, 2006. The Kansas City Division of the FBI is also in receipt of a facsimiled Affidavit which was allegedly prepared by Laura Helm on April 22, 2006. This Affidavit was received by. the Kansas City Division of the FBI on June 15, 2006. As you are aware, Special Agent Schaefer visited your office on April 19, 2006, 45 2 result of your public allegations and correspondence to Assistant United States Attorney, Marietta Parker, that members of the Lawrence Police Department were conducting an investigation and identifying themselves as FBI agents. April 19, 2006, when SA Schaefer visited you in your office at’ 601 Missouri, Suite 3, Lawrence, Kansas 66044, you Savised him that you had ten to twelve witnesses who claimed that members of the Lawrence Police Department identified themselves as FBI agents during an investigation. on April 19, 2006, SA Schaefer requested those names and you advised him that you,did not have the names and that your investigator, Cecilia Wood, had those lists of names. Be vit a iFrom April 19, 2006. until June 16, 2006, (sixty days later) the Kansas city Division of the FBI and 5% ‘Schaefer had not neta ER any correapondence or information concerning your initial allegations. The two meetings you referenced as scheduled with SA Schaefer in your letter dated June 30, 2006, were set by you without verifying the Availability of SA Schaefer. Any future meetings/ interviews should be verbally verified with SA Schaefer. Simply leaving @ voice mail message SQvising SA Schaefer that you have @ meeting set up on a specific date at 4 specific time will not guarantee SA Schaefer's availability. SA Schaefer can pe reached at 816/512-8640. sincerely Kevin L. Stafford special Agent in Charge frothy\A. Gallaghe: Supervisory Specialas eK Qheaica, farcar 4&5-393-67 SO/195- Teo 00D “Fue eps Came So TOR ancl pollec! nu out ug ru C&D ctstin Gill tig me they wen wet th FEI and walsh fo Leder Ar te Aevat anol Hhat We Ly fe Sek I Ae Mg ELD ye nung lana yY Tesrew Farrer 2-6-OFTHE SWAIN LAW OFFICE Sarah G. Swain, Attorney at Law ‘Theno Office Complex Park Cherry Building 601 Missouri, Suite 3 110 N, Cherry, Suite 240 Lawrence, KS 66044 Olathe, KS 66051 (785) 842-2787 866-550-2787 June 14, 2006 Bob Schaefer, Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation 1300 Summit Kansas City, MO 64106 Dear Mr. Schaefer: Enclosed please find the affidavit that we executed with Ms. Helm. We are sal working on getting other alfidavit's executed, but as I'm sure you are aware, many people are too scared to come forward and go public with their accusations against the Lawrence Police Department. ‘We appreciate your efforts in investigating what we believe to be police misconduct there's anything, that I can do co assisc you with your investigation, please don't hesitate to contact me at the numbers or addresses listed above. Singerely, ‘Sarah G. Swain Attorney at Law | é sbi «' 1? 6->> fAWOOD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC. So AFFIDAVIT 1, Laura Helm, of lawfal age, being fully sworn upon cath, states: “That, in early March 2006, I was contaoted by two men while I was staying at my brother’s (Ray Mayberry) residence located at 2200 Harper, C-44 Lawrence, Ks. Lam bret he dato, but Ido recall twas several werk ago and It WH during the week. 1 unsure ft denn at date tee fo ten contacted amt eros me was March 6, 2006 between 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. “That, these two men, approached my residence and asked speak with me, Lean best deseribe the first man as a wim, 5°05", Title ‘belly and short spiky blonde hair. ‘This man did most of the talking during our coulach “He said his name, which I do not recall, and said they worked wit the “Federal Bureay of Investigation.” He did not say PBI ead he said the entire bureau name. ‘The second man was a wim, short dark hai, Fro” and a bigger build than the fst man, The ‘second man did not say much. oped man did tell me I was not in trouble, but Coy ‘and Carrie Neighbors were. Both ren were similarly dressed in slacks and shirts "They both wore a badge on their belts and had guns in holsters made of light olor Teather that was also worn on their Waist “That, the first man told me 1 “bad to tal to thes” asked him if it “had to be today.” Te said it did not have to be.today and they agsced. to come back the following day. He ot id ot Sy and pik me wp Oe vehicle. ee fies eae hn, ut rom the mY Me did ot have a choice. They drove me to ‘the Lawrence Police Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, KS. ‘We went inside the building through on outside door. [recall the men entering in 8 Pass ode to the interior door that allowed us inside the police department. ‘We went into an jnterview room where ‘both men talked to me. ‘They questioned me about items | hod sold to the Yellow House in the pest “They told ime they obtained my name through hmoks that were waiten by the Yellow Howse, “That, after they questioned me for an hour to an hour and a half, they then drove: no back to my honse. During the drive ‘orne they gave mn a business card with gold Dating That card. They sold me to call fT decided to work for them on the Yellow Howse case. They ‘offered me $50.00 for exch willing to ‘attempt to ‘sell stolen items to ‘the Yellow House. \) GW og? ie % time 1 would be ma) I~ £2 2-29Ape ‘That, I did not fel like I had a choice in talking with these men and I had to go to the station with them or I would have been in trouble. That, because I am on probation, I contacted my Probation Officer, Harley Eddis, afler this contact to advise him what had occurred. He told me that I could not be involved in this type of work for the police if I wanted to due to my probation order. I never had any intentions of working with the police and told them I would not. ‘That, 1 am certain I have seen these men before and I believe they are Lawrence Police Officers and not federal agents. The first man clearly identified himself as the “Federal Bureau of Investigation.” AFFIANTT SAYS NOT ) / [ » Subsoribed and sworn to me before thig ol day of Qa.a, 2006. Say Publ ~ CECILIA M. WOOD Nota Pb [-320 21 22 23 24 25 186 @ whole truth, and nothing but the the truth, truth, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION IBY MS. PARKER: o. Would you state your name is spell your last name for the record, please. AL Walter Robert Schaefe EFER Q Where are you employe AL With the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Kansas City division Q And in the cou of your employment, did you conduct an investigation of allegations that Officers Jay the Lawrence Pol Bileck and Mickey Ran ice Department were impersonating FBI officers? a Yes Q. And how did your involvement begin? A. I was contacted by you about some allegations that Lawrence PD were acting as FBI agents and the allegations you relayed to me were made by Sarah Swain(ph) . a. And did I tell you how to investigate? a. No. Q. Did I tell you what the conclusion of your investigation should be? Qo. What did I ask you to do? ICIAL COURT ene Zhe @24 25 as7 A. You asked me to investigate the allegation a. And report back? A. Yes. Q. you do that? AL Yes Q. What did you do? AL I went to Lawrence and met a Lawrence PD officer We -- Q. Do you remember the name of that Lawrence PD officer? A. Not off top of my head, no Q. Was not Officer Rantz of Officer Bileck, was A No Q. oft ~- Detective McAtee? A. No. Q. You met an officer and what did you and the officer do? A We went over to Sarah Swain's office, si there, we waited until she showed up. When she showed up, we went inside, identified ourselves, told her I was there regarding the allegations that she had made in an e-mail, I believe, to you that she had a list of several people who had been interviewed by the Lawrence PD who claimed that the Lawrence PD was FBI agents. I asked her for that list. She said she didn't have a list, that her ~ S53 le. 2? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER ee g ee ev.ul 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 188 investigator, Cecelia Wood, had the list. I asked if I could talk to Cecelia Wood. o. What did she say? A. She said that she was out of town. So after that I went back to Kansas City. I think it was about a day or two later I got a call from Cecelia Wood, I said I'd like to see the list of the people who claim that Lawrence PD were impersonating FBI agents. Q. And why did you want that list, way was it important to your investigation? aA. Well, I had to talk to them to ver allegations that were being made. Q. Did you ever receive a list from either Miss Swain or Ms. Wood? AS No o. Did you have any contact with anybody in Lawrence about these allegations? a. What do you mean? 2. Well, anybody with the police department? R bid T -- was I in contact with them? . Well, did you interview anybody, did you review any evidence, did you -- A I talked -- Q -- did you you listen to AL Yeah, I talked to some of the police department crricins coums ansorsee SNS PIF 27189 1 | individuals and they all claimed that they had not 2 | identified themselves as FBI agents. 3 Jo. Did you review a tape recording of the interview 4 | with the person that they claimed had been saying that s | PBI -- they were told that they were FBI agents? 6 fa. Sarah Swain sent an affidavit of someone who -- and 7 | ser -+ if 1 remember correctly, the affidavit stated that 8 | an individual from the Lawrence PD -- who they later 3 | learned was from Lawrence PD identified themselves as @ 10 | federal agent or working with federal agents. ul vhat affidavit I got several weeks after my| 12 | initial meeting with Sarah Swain. 13 Jo. Was that the affidavit from Ms. Helm? 14 Ja. yes. as jo. Were you ever able to make contact with Ms. Helm? ! 16 fa. No. a7 fo. Why not? ae la. Sarah Swain called and left me a voice mail message 1s | on my voice mail saying I've set up a meeting in my office 20 | with Ms. Helm on such-and-such date at such-and-such time. 21 | t called her back, I said I was busy that day, I'd have to nN 22 | reschedule. I never heard back from her. She sent a N 23 | letter to our office saying that I had stood her up at S 24 | this meeting, claimed that we weren't interested in & 25 | investigating this. My boss sent her a letter back saying] v OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER ) spi & gu we19 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 if you want to set up a meeting with Agent Schaefer, you have to do it verbally, you know, you can't just leave a voice mail message. I never heard back from her since then. bo you believe that you have done everything you can to determine the truth of the allegations? Yes. And after your investigation what conclusion did you reach? Lawrence PD did not act as FBI agents in their investigation. All right. (Inaudible)? No udible) file on this? Did you put together a ( Yes I'm going to show you what's marked as Government's hibit 15, can you identify that? This is the initial e-mail from Sarah Swain to you as well as Mr. Bileck making the allegations that -- well I'll read it. "I have been contacted by numerous individuals who have reported to me that they have been accosted by federal agents or held against their will and/or interrogated” Before you read from that MS. PARKER: Your Honox, the government OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER20 a1 22 23 24 191 would offer Government's Exhibit 15. (By Ms. Parker) These are all documents that are (inaudible)? Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Duma, any objection? MR. DUMA: No objection, Your Honor. COURT: Ms. Pilate? u PILATE: No objection. THE COURT: Exhibit is received (By Ms. Parker) All right. Now you can read it. This is from Sarah Swain. "I have been contacted by numerous individuals who have reported to me that they have been accosted by, quote, federal agents and held against their will and/or interrogated against their will I have been in contact with numerous community organizations. I would appreciate any help you could give me getting to the bottom of this.” (By Ms. Parker) And that was the initial complaint that you tried to follow up on? But you were never able to obtain the necessary information from Ms. Swain to support the allegations that she or Ms. Helm were making? No Now, have you been foll OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER ma1 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 192 are you aware of certain blogs that the Neighbors have made alleging that you have not done your duty in this case? B No, T haven't. Q All right. Let me your turn attention, there's a notebook in front of you. If you would go to Exhibit 8A. Okay. On the second page -- the top of the second page of that exhibit, do you see where it said, "It is confirmed by the Kansas City FBI that complaints involving Lawrence, Kansas are only handled by the Topeka FBI and are not within the jurisdiction of the Kansas City FBI agencies. FBI agencies will only handle cases within their jurisdiction. That that rule has been disregarded in this case." Is that a true statement? ae No. Why not? I investigate cases anywhere in the Western District of Missouri or all of Kansas.. There are agents in the Topeka RA that handle a certain territory, but that does not confine them just to that area. They can still work cases in other -- in other parts of the Kansas City division's territory. Q. And was there a coverup in this case? A. No. MS. PARKER: Thank you. I have nothing OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER ye12 13 14 15 193 further. THE COURT: Cross-examination. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DUMA: My understanding is that entire content of this investigation done at the request of Sarah Swain who is a licensed attorney in the state of Kansas, is that a correct statement? AL She's the one who made the initial allegations t Marietta who then relayed them to me Q. And Ms. Swain is a licensed attorney, to your knowledge? A yes. @. And as such ig an officer of the court? a. yes. Q. All right. So when she makes those sorts of allegations, that something that typically that your office would take fairly seriously because as an officer of the court she makes allegations frivolously she could lose her license to practice law? A. I guess so, yeah. Q. Are you an attorney? A. No. a. Okay. 1 apologize for making that assumption. In any event, you did want to follow OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER ye1o 1 13 14 1s 16 a7 18 1s 20 a1 22 23 24 28 194 through with that -- with these allegations because there was an attorney that had specifically said I have information that Lawrence PD are impersonating FBI agents, correct? aA. Correct. Q. Now, this Cecelia Wood, did you get her address or did you get her cell phone or get any information where you could contact her directly without having to go through this attorney, Sarah Swain? A. Yeah, I got her -- I believe it was her cell phone number. 2. Did you talk Wood? a ves, I did. 0. Hand did Ms. Wood advise you that she had information that she had received at the request or on. behalf of Ms. Swain about -- that would support the allegations that the Lawrence PD had, in fact, been impersonating FBI agents? a ane said she had a list of about 10 to 12 names of individuals who claimed Lawrence PD identified themselves as FBI agents. Q And did you request that list from her? A, Yes. a. Did you receive that list? a, No. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER10 un 13 14 18 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a. A a. Okay. Is there a reason why you wouldn't have gone Q. Was Ms. Wood an attorney? BL Uh, I don't believe so, no. Q. okay. $0 did you ever conference with one of the bid you send hee @ subpoena of any sort, » grand jury subpoena? No. Did you have a way to contact her personally through the information that you had? yes, I had her cell phone number. Did you go and talk to her personally about that information? No, I've only talked to her over the phone. to somebody personally that supposed had the witnesses’ names of people that would support some pretty serious allegations, why you just Wouldn't have gone to her personally and asked her for that information? I did ask her for that information. She said she didn't want to give it to me because they were afraid of retributions from the Lawrence PD or someone else. As far as I'm concerned, that's an attorney-client deal and that's as far as, I could go with it. attorneys at the Department of Justice to see whether, in fact, that was an attorney-client privilege? No. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER