Motion to Exclude witnesses because they are convicted Felons who received generous deals in return...

8/9/2019 Motion to Exclude witnesses because they are convicted Felons who received generous deals in return for false tes

1/12

Carrie Neighbors

1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049(785) 842-2785

",' if I- 3?t: . ...

IN THE UNITED STATES COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No: 07-20073-CM07-20t24-CM08-20tOS-eM

CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

DEFENDNAT HI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO

THE DEFENDANT [lJ'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES

COMES NOW on this &th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,

is filing a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses.

The Reply is as follows:

1.) In,-r 1, The Plaintiff states that "defendant's motion is without merit and should be

denied in its entirety because rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings. However

Defendant [1] asserts that the Plaintiffs reliance on that claim is misplaced." When in actuality

the Defendant [1] can show that the Plaintiffs is both intentionally misleading, as well as,

inaccurate in her statement before the court.

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 1


2/12

a). See Ref:

v. 872 582,588-89

b). See also: v. 176 254, 256 1997)

v. 92 161, 988

2). Also note for the record, that the plaintiff has also intentionally left out 408 (b), in

which states,

In which is so in this cause of action, whereby, this would not

only disprove the Plaintiffs theory but assist the Defendant [1] in her ability to use Rule 408.

a). The Government also states: "Clearly Rule 408 does not bar evidence of offers of

leniency in exchange for truthful testimony or substantial assistance within the meaning of

USSG 5K1.1", in which states:

"Id. at 5K1.1 (a),(2).

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 2


3/12

Defendant [1] asserts that the provision of this law authorizes only that substantial

assistance can be rewarded after it is rendered; It in no way authorizes the government to make a

deal for testimony before it is given, as the Government has clearly done in this

case. Consequently this statute cannot justify the government's deals with the witnesses in this

case before the court.

3.) The Government claim's is that

Once again the plaintiff had intentionally left the rest of

v. 165 1297, 1999) in which states,

See 414

v. 364 217 v.

a.) The Government goes on to say that "Furthermore the weighing of evidence, the

reconciliation of inconsistent testimony, and the assessment of a witness' credibility is solely

within the province ofthe jury."

b.) The Government claims that defendants motion provides no grounds for the exclusion

of witness testimony and that the credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases

is clearly with the sole province of the jury and the defendants request for pretrial exclusion of

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses


4/12

evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the Government and the witnesses

have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or in law.

The Defendant [1] disagrees, see ref:

See

315 1987)]

cert. denied, 484 (1988); 785

619

see also 719 1253, 1255-57

cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 (1984).

4.) Government claims that several cooperating witnesses and an undercover police officer

are expected to testify that they informed the defendant that the items that they were offering to

sell defendant were stolen.

The Defendant [1] asserts that the items sold by the undercover officer were indeed not

stolen. Nor did the Officer state that his items were "stolen Property." Defendant is prepared to

show proof to the court that indeed the Defendant did directly question the undercover officer

about whether the items were stolen, and that parts of the conversation that would be exculpatory

for the Defendant have been edited from the Audio of the video. Tainted testimony as to

any direct conversations between defendant [1] and non-credible witnesses bribed by the



5/12

Government should be inadmissible as hearsay and has no place before ajury.

989 1993)

5.) The Government states that the issue ofthe credibility to be accorded to any of the

witnesses in these cases is clearly within the sole province of the jury and the defendant's request

for pretrial exclusion of evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the

government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in

fact or law.

a). The Defendant [1] states that the witnesses in this case before this court clearly fall

within the "Exclusionary Rule."

v.

411 423, (1973) v. 367 643, 659 (1961)).

See v. 384 251, 255

b). If the Governments Assistant U.S. Attorneys were to be allowed to present tainted

witnesses before a Federal Jury the U.S. Attorneys would clearly be in violation of Kansas

Professional Rule 3.4(b). Because clearly the promise ofleniency, years of freedom after a

Federal conviction and sentencing, or not having serious charges added to an indictment are all

an incentive to lie. The rule, adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, provides, "A lawyer shall

not ... offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Kansas Rule of Professional

Conduct 3.4(b) (1997). This court must exclude any and all of the witnesses, due to the fact they

have been tainted, in this case before this court, because clearly their testimony would be

unreliable. Agreements to seek leniency, allow freedom after bond violations and Federal crime



6/12

conviction, or refrain from filing charges in return for testimony are entered into with the

intention of presenting to a court the testimony so acquired. Excluding that tainted testimony

removes the sole purpose of the unlawful conduct and leaves no incentive to violate 201(2).

Cf. id. See Ref: v. 1999)

See v. 392 1, 12-13

367

See v.

731, (Holding that disciplinary rule applies to prosecutors upon

commencement of criminal proceedings), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855 (1990).

c.) The United states submits that the Government will be able to establish the defendant's

"habitual pattern" of purchasing new, in the box items from regular customers at prices far below

retail, allowing the reasonable inference to be drawn by the fact-finders that the defendant knew

or should have known that the items she was buying were stolen had she not deliberately closed

her eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to her.

d). The Government has presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Defendant

[1] had any knowledge that any of the items were stolen. Nor can a witness testify as to the state

of mind of Defendant [1]. As most of the witnesses did not even know Defendants [1]'s name.

The Government has already stated that the newer or new items brought in by sellers were

purchased by the Defendant [1] at 50-80% of the retail value, (which is nowhere near "far below

retail.)" All items purchased by the business were paid for by check. There is no evidence to

establish the items were stolen, or that the Defendant would have knowledge of such, there were

no theft reports or victims on file with the Lawrence Police Dept. connected to Defendant [1] or



7/12

[2] or the Business; Yellow House Quality Used Appliances Incorporated, at the time of the first

search warrants.

6.) The Defendant [1] however argues the Government has overstepped its bounds, and

made a mockery of what Congress had intended when allowing for testimony under plea deals.

See witness interrogation; (Parsons Video interrogation interviews, (Video 01)(R-1) Thurs.

Oct. 12, 2006) And Parsons Interview 01(Camera 1) Thurs Oct. 19,2006.)) This witness is a

convicted felon caught in possession of3 firearms, sold an AK-47 Assault rifle, Narcotics and

stolen property to an undercover officer and was not charged for the crimes in exchange for his

agreement to testify that he conspired to conceal the conspiracy in the property case against

Defendant [1]. To meet the ends of Justice for his promised testimony Mr. Parsons along with

other witnesses have pled guilty to Federal crimes, have already been sentenced to Federal

Prison, yet remain free, and have continued to flaunt the law with criminal acts while free on

bond as payment for their promised testimony. Our Government is like the King. It demands

respect from the people beneath it, it teaches people by its own example. If our

Government condones people to break laws, then its people will have no respect for its law. To

declare that in the administration of the criminal law "the end justifies the means" would mean

this Court condones that this Government allows criminal acts in order to secure the conviction

of a criminal would be a Perversion of everything our Forefathers stood for and our Country's

soldiers have died for.

Reply on the Footnote #2:

Footnote 2) The Government states that the defendant's claim that the government has "offered

money to its witnesses to manufacture a case" (doc. 227 at P 5) is incorrect. The Defendant

asserts that this is an attempt by the Government to mislead the court. The Defendant [1] has



8/12

been informed by a number of witnesses that money was offered to them by the Government in

exchange for their participation in the manufacturing of this case. [See ref Attach 1]

a).Laura claims in her affidavit that someone within the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered

her money to assist in the manufacturing of this case, in which is in violation ofFRE 609 (a)

(1) (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b) .

See v.

391, 396

b).

v. 322 65, 67 (1944) (quoting v. 318

345 (1943).

Whereby the Defendant [1] is correct in her Motion to Exclude Witnesses, in which need

to be either suppressed or excluded. [See ref Attachment 1- Affidavit of Laura Helm dated

04/22/06] The Defendant [1] has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses should be

excluded due to the Plaintiffs intentional misrepresentation before this tribunal.

THEREFORE the Defendant [1] is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the

Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. Wherefore for all the reasons set forth in the

above referenced Reply, the Defendant [1] respectfully requests that the court deny the

Governments response and exclude all witnesses pursuant to FRE 609 (a) (2), as well as,

FRE Rule 408 (b).



9/12

Respectfully submitted,

ca~~-

1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049(785) 842-2785

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses


10/12

1.

INC.

:"FFIDA VIT

1. Laura Helm. oflawful age. being fully sworn upon oath, states;

T ha t. i n e ar ly M a rc h 2 00 6. I w a s co nt ac te d t w o m e n w h il e I w a s st ay in g a t brother's Mayberry'} residence Ioested at 2200 Harper. C-44Lawrence. Ks, I amunsure of the date. but I dorecall it was several weeksago andit was during the week. ( believe. am not certain. that the date these two men contacted and interviewed mewas March 6. !006 between 9:00 a.m . 10:00 a.m.

Th;ll. these two men.approached m y residence and asked speak with me. 1can best describe the first man as a w/m. 5'05". a little belly and short spiky blonde hair.This man did most of the talking during our contact. He said his name. which ( do notrecall. and 'laid Ihey worked with the "Federal Bureau of Investigation." He did not say'. 3\ he ~tlid entire bureau name, The second rnan was a w/m. short dark hair.0'0" and a bigger build than the first man. The second man did say much. Thesecond man did tell me I was not in trouble. butGuy and Carrie Neighborswere. Bothmen were s imi la rty d ressed in slacks andshins. They bothw o re a ba dg e o ntheir beltsand had guns in holsters made of light color leather that was also worn on their waist.

Ther, first man told me "had to to them." I asked him ifit to betoday:' He said it did not have to be today and they agreed come back the followingdav These ,\m,"e~ retuned th.: ~le}(l ,iay imJ pick me up 'I jark Hue '1 'v !~vemcle. ~Jtdnot want ttl go with them. but fei t trom the they were acting that ( didnot have ~I choice. They drove to the Lawrence Police Department at 11 ,h andMassachusetts Street.Lawrence, KS, We went inside thebuilding through an outsidedoor. , n't'all the men entering in a :J15S code to the interior dOM that allowed us insidethe police JepilClTTlCnl. '"Yewent into an interview room where both men talked me.Thev ques(loned me about irerns I haLl sold to the Yellow House in the past. Thev toldme ;hey okained my nome through that were writtenby Yel low House .

That, after th~;' questioned me for an hour to an hour and a half. they then droveme back to my house. During the drive home they gave me a business card with goldlettering on it. I have misplaced that ':81. They (old me (0 call if I decided to work for them on the Yellow House case. They offered me $50.00 for each t ime I would bewilling to attempt se]1 stolen items to the Yellow House,


11/12

Untitled Page 20 of 20

lbIt. I didooi'r.t ~ Jhid cboieem IICIIIlldio 10 fDme __ ~ or 1\YOWdba'IC iDwubIe.

Tbtt. bec8U~ I probMil'l). I p~ Q tH c;:c .'liqrtey EddiiL . flU Q)IlI ICt .f IO ~ h&il 0GCUhd. H. 10Id AIr _ beIaYolwdil\.1 IN ~ w ot'k . dw ~ice if I to 10 order. IaeVIi'.., l1IIy or wo~ . id alilt poIioe andIO Id1blIiD11WMIld . .

11-. l blVc IbeIe -iMt\before I b elie ve ~ Lawn=ocePolice ()fflcas._ IIlltfirdmlliJp:t1t The:first mn cl_I~' idendtwctbimseir. ~

In,cl$UpllQD.

c"\ \ 0 . . .

http://docs.google.comIView?dooID=dgpt'72qd- jatalt


12/12

[Pursuant to KSA 60-205]

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

Cheryl A PilateMelanie Morgan LLC

[2]142 CherryOlathe, Kansas 66061

Marietta Parker

Terra MoreheadU.S. Attorneys500 State Ave.Suite 360Kansas City, KS 66101

On this6 th day of July 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

c.~e~~1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049(785) 842-2785


Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jones-walker
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Motion to Exclude witnesses because they are convicted Felons who received generous deals in return...

Documents