Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 11

Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [1J I Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 07-20073-CM

07-20124-CM
08-2010S-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT [ll'S REQUEST FOR WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS (in their entirety)

IN CAMERA OF ANY AND ALL INTERVIEWS WITH ANY AND ALL WITNESSES

[Pursuant to 18 USC § 3500]

COMES NOW on this 3rd day of May 2010, the Defendant [1J, Carrie Neighbors, acting

as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for any and all Transcripts (in their entirety) and in camera

under seal, of any and all Interviews with any and all Witnesses, pursuant to 18 USC§ 3500. The

Motion is as follows:

1). The Defendant [1J realizes that normally it is forbidden to request any and all

statements given by witnesses, but due to both the integrity of the case, as well as, the deals

made by either the Lawrence Police Officers, or the U.S. Attorney, during the interviews, the

Defendant [1J request that the Magistrate Judge order the U.S. Attorney to produce in camera

Motion for Any and All Transcripts during Interviews with witnesses in camera Page 1
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 11

for review any and all transcripts of any and all Witnesses (in their entirety) of any and all

Interviews with any and all Witnesses, to expedite the truthfulness of the witnesses, prior to trial.

Discovery, like cross-examination, minimizes the risk that a judgment will be predicated on

incomplete, misleading, or even deliberately fabricated testimony. [See ref. II Taylor v. Illinois,

484 U.S. 400, 411-12 (1988).]

2). Since it is well known who the witnesses are, the Defendant [lJ has a right to prepare

a Defense against the witnesses. For our adversarial system to function properly, a criminal

defendant must have a full and fair opportunity to develop and present evidence at trial. Due

process and the Sixth Amendment secure these rights.

3). The Defendant [1] is also requesting any and all prior or current criminal record police

reports on any and all witnesses to confirm and protect the integrity of their testimony. A

defendant has a legitimate interest conferred by the Constitution in unfettered access to evidence

necessary to prepare an effective defense.

4). The Defendant [IJ realizes that normally it is forbidden to request any and all prior or

current records, criminal records, police reports, on any and all witnesses, but due to both the

integrity of the case, as well as, the deals made by either the Lawrence Police Officers, or the

U.S. Attorney, the Defendant request that the Magistrate Judge order the U.S. Attorney to

produce in camera for review any and all prior or current records, criminal records, police

reports, on any and all witnesses to protect the integrity of the case.

5). During the interviews the government / or police officers had made deals with the

witnesses to manufacture a case, to include offering reduction of sentence, reduction of time, not

charging witnesses for crimes committed, reinstatement or continued freedom after violations of

bond, offered money to manufacture a case or change testimony. In furtherance ofthese deals:

Motion for Any and All Transcripts during Interviews with witnesses in camera Page 2
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 11

a.) Witnesses entering guilty pleas in 2008, remain free and or continue to negotiate terms

of freedom after bond violations in exchange for their promised testimony.(See attachment 1.)

b.)Witnesses who pleaded guilty in Federal court to Federal crimes have continued to

commit crimes and flaunt the law, and have remained free under bond, in exchange for their

promised testimony. (See attachment 2.)

c.)Witnesses have been sentenced to Federal prison, yet are currently being allowed to

enjoy their freedom pending promised testimony,

d.) Deals and ongoing preferential treatment of the witnesses have created obvious

prejudicial bias against the Defendant, in favor of the Government in which is allowed to be

challenged by Defendant [lj. [See ref United States v. Baldridge, 2009 WI 692107 (lOth Cir.

2009),]

e.) Officers lead the witnesses during interviews and provide information previously

unknown to the witnesses to supplement their answers and appearance of knowledge.

Whereby the creditability of the witnesses is at question, to tell the truth to reduce their

sentence, or time, remain free while committing illegal acts, or offered money to manufacture a

case, or change testimony creating bias. E.G. 403 FRE. Clearly testimony by witnesses and

evidence would be tainted and prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value.

6). Now this brings into question the appearance of prosecutoriaI misconduct to

manufacture a case.

"The government must act with great care when engaging in the practice of paying witnesses for
more than expenses. A defendant's right to be apprised of the government's compensation
arrangement with the witness and to inquire about it on cross-examination, must be vigorously
protected United States v. Lipford, 203 S.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000). "

Motion for Any and All Transcripts during Interviews with witnesses in camera Page 3
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 11

"The bribery statute 18 US.CA. A§201(c)(2 proscribing giving a thing of value for a witness's
testimony does not prohibit the United States from acting in accordance with long-standing
practice and statutory authority to pay fees, expenses, and rewards to informants even when the
payment is solely for testimony, so long as the payment is not for or because of any corruption of
truth of testimony. "

7). If it is found out that the government had made deals with the witnesses to obtain false

testimony of witnesses, and the government fails to produce pursuant to 18 USC§ 3500 (d), If the

United States elects not to comply with an order of the court under subsection (b) or (c) hereof to

deliver to the defendant any such statement, or such portion thereof as the court may direct, the

court shall strike from the record the testimony of the witnesses, and the trial shall proceed

unless the court in its discretion shall determine that the interests of justice require that a mistrial

be declared.

11.) Pursuant to the Confrontation Clause which guarantees effective cross examination

and presentation of evidence, is the right to cross-examination. [See Ref. Kentucky v. Stincer,

482 U.S. 730, 736 (1987).] Precluding defendant [1]'s access to this information before trial

may hinder Defendant [1]' s opportunity for effective cross-examination at trial.

12.) Pursuant to the Compulsory Process Clause (6th Amendment) it is mandated that a

criminal defendant have the right to the government's assistance in compelling the attendance of

favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the

determination of guilt [See Ref." Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 56 (1987).]

13). The Defendant [1J is attempting to make a good faith attempt to avoid any potential

element of surprise to the court, as well as, any and all parties involved in this cause of action,

whereby, the only recourse is to have an evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the

evidence, prior to any trial to avoid any unnecessary delay or confusion, as well as, make the

court aware of the evidence being tainted or coerced against the Defendant [1J, alleviating the

Motion for Any and All Transcripts during Interviews with witnesses in camera Page 4
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 5 of 11

courts waste of time through unnecessary, tainted, perjured or coerced evidence, being presented

in which may prejudice the case.

" If there is any reasonable likelihood that the government knowingly relied on perjury to obtain

a guilty verdict, reversal is required". [See ref Knighton v. Mullin, 293 F.3d 1165, 1174 (lOth

Cir. 2002)].

THEREFORE the Defendant [1J, Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a

Motion for any and all Transcripts (in their entirety) and in camera, of any and all Interviews

with any and all Witnesses, pursuant to 18 USC§ 3500.

CarrIe Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pr e Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Motion for Any and All Transcripts during Interviews with witnesses in camera Page 5
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 6 of 11

Case 2:08-cr-20001-KHV Document 38 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No. OS-20001-001-KHV
)
STACT LYN BARNES-CATLETT, )
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT BARNES-CATLETT'S MOTION FOR HEARING

TO RECONSIDER APPROPRIATENESS OF DETENTION

COMES NOW defendant Stacy Lyn Barnes-Catlett, by and through her attorney,

Patrick E. D' Arcy, and respectfully moves this court for a hearing to consider the

appropriateness of her continued detention. In support of said motion, the defendant

asserts as follows:

1. That on July 21,2008 the defendant plead guilty and was released from detention.

2. That the defendant, upon her release, continued to reside at the address she

provided but her cellular phone broke and she did not have the resources to replace it

until just before her arrest. Furthermore, she did not receive a letter from the Probation

Office, causing her to fail to maintain appropriate contact and thereby violated her

Conditions of Release. In addition, she herself signed up for appropriate treatment but

failed to attend the first appointment because she had injured her head in a fall and was

not functional for three days.

3. That on September 11,2008 the defendant was arrested at the house address she

had provided upon her release.

4. That on September 11,2008 Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara sustained the

Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 7 of 11

Case 2:08-cr-20001-KHV Document 38 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 2 of 3

government's motion to revoke the defendant's bond while leaving open the option for

the defendant to petition for reconsideration once appropriate plans had been made for

her release.

5. That on September 11,2008 the defendant had a scheduled Settlement Hearing in

Johnson County, Kansas that would have resolved her Workers' Compensation case and

resulted in a net award, to her, of$4,038.75 (please see attachment), but she could not

attend due to her arrest. Her Johnson County Settlement Hearing has been rescheduled

for November 7,2008 at 11:00 a.m ..

6. That the settlement amount will ensure that she can remain in appropriate contact

and otherwise meet her Conditions of Release.

7. That the defendant agrees to stay in a half-way house until she finds approved

housing, to wear an electronic bracelet, to undergo drug and alcohol counseling, and to

meet the rest of her Conditions of Release.

8. That the defendant requires medical attention that is not being provided to her at

cc.x,
9. That the government does not oppose the defendant's release as long as certain

conditions are met.

10. That the interests of justice require that this request be granted.

WHEREFORE, the defendant prays that this court schedule a hearing to reconsider

her continued detention and release her under appropriate conditions.

2
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 8 of 11

Case 2:08-cr-20001-KHV Document 38 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted,

sl Patrick E. 0' Arcy

Patrick E. 0' Arcy

KS SC No. 13339
623 Tauromee Avenue
Kansas City, KS 6610 1
(913) 269-1401
FAX: (913) 371-1983
e-mail: PDARCY@KC.RR.COM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 3, 2008 I electronically filed the foregoing with the
clerk of the court using the CMlECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing
to the attorneys of record including Marietta Parker, Assistant Untied States Attorney.

sf Patrick E. D'Arcy

Patrick E. D' Arcy

3
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:08-cr-20020-KHV Document 17 Filed 07/06/2009 Page 1 of 2

PSI
(II")
')(00 JUL -6 PM t: 55
UNl'fED STATES DISTRICf COURT 1
'or
,.1
the TlM{i f:i-r t1. C·?RIEK
CLEK)(
DISTRlCf OF KANSAS

U.S.A. vs. Lewis B. Parsons, IT Docket No. 2:08CR20020-00J

Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release

COMES NOW Mel Marsh, PROBATION SERVICES TECHNICIAN, presenting an

official report upon the conduct of defendant Lewis B. Parsons, Il, who was placed under pretrial
release supervision by the Honorable James P. O'Hara sitting in the Court at Kansas City.
Kansas, March 13, 2008, under the following conditions:

1. The defendant shan not eommit any offense in violation of federal, state, or local law
wbile on release in tbis case.

1. The defendant shall report u soon a. possib~ to the pretrial se."lces omcer any
COD tact witb auy law earoreement personnel. including. but lot limited to, any
arrest, questioning, or traffie stop.

Respectfully presenting petition for action of Court and for cause as follows:

J• The defendant was arrested on March 8, 2009 by the Topeka, Kansas Police Department
for Theft. The circumstances of the offense being that the defendant was stopped by a
Walmart security guard while attempting to shoplift a camera. The Topeka Police were
called and arrested the defendant. On March 31, 2009 the defendant pleaded no contest
in Topeka, Kansas Municipal Court to Theft of Property Under $1,000 and was fined
$293.00.

2. The defendant failed to report his arrest for Theft on March 31,2009 by the Topeka.
Kansas Police Department to his pretrial services officer. The arrest was discovered
during a routine six month record check.
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:08-cr-20020-KHV Document 17 Filed 07/06/2009 Page 2 of 2

PRA YING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER the:issuance of a Summons for Lewis B.
Parsons, II, and he be brought before the court to show cause why his bond should not be
revoked.

Respectfully,

1f/..tJt1JM,f
Me'fMarsh
U.S. Probation Services Technician

Place: Kansas City, Kansas

Date: June 26. 2009

REVIEWED: Trey W Burton =..~="-

OigbIr••••••.,TnyW_

Trey Burton, Supervising U.S. Probation Officer

THE COURT ORDERS

[] No Action
[] The Issuance of a Warral\t Petition and warrant sealed and not to be distributed to
counsel ofrecord, Unsealed upon arrest
[X] The Issuance of a Summons
[] Other

sjJ!!J!eS ,P. ·O.'Hara

~Df)udiciaJ .,. Officer

Defendantto appear on ~ JUly 6./ 2009

at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable James Pj'O!Hara
Magistrate Judge, Courtroom Number 236.
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 232 Filed 05/04/10 Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Pursuant to KSA 60-205]

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class
postage prepaid, addressed to:

Cheryl A Pilate
Melanie Morgan LLC
Defendant [2J counsel of record
142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061

Guy Neighbors 11520031

Federal Medical Center
P.O. Box 1600
Butner, NC. 27509

Marietta Parker
Terra Morehead
u.s. Attorneys
500 State Ave.
Suite 360
Kansas City, KS 66101

On this 3~ day of May 2010.

Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [1J / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Motion for Any and All Transcripts during Interviews with witnesses in camera Page 6