07911758373 Guy And Carrie Neighbors Yellow House Case

fiLED

,~.~,;.:pl~rFncr r.,:'iJ~~l

,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

cotmr prs:",,, PH !: 53

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

OF KANSAS

i·;;~<.J',

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V.

Plaintiff,

etl'-

Carrie M. NEIGHBORS

Case No. 07-2o124-0l-02-K)>I'II/DJW Defendant, Notice of Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Lack of Agency Jurisdiction, Fourth Amendment Civil Right Violation or Alternatively For Discovery and/or Evidentiary Hearing.

Comes now Carrie M. Neighbors defendant through Pro-Se action, will hereby does move to dismiss the present indictment on the grounds of Lack of agency jurisdiction, fourth amendment civil rights violation or alternatively for discovery

..

and or a evidentiary hearing in support ofthis claim. Wherefore the defendant prays that the court will consider this motion in the interest of justice and consider the special circumstances surrounding this case in that the prosecutor is now the acting District Attorney fpr the District of Kansas and has control over more 100 attorneys in all three

of the Justice Depts. The defendant prays the

court accept this motion as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the government that would prejudice the defendant in this 4-year long case.

/

BACKGROUND: On December 2,d, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts. Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Jay Bialek, jay Rozell, Lance Flacshbarth,B- Bonham, Steve Verbanic, Adam Hefley, Dave Axman, M. McNamee, Rich Britain, T. Squire, J. Stiponavich, A. Wilson, A. Mcgowen, D. Drug taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States Postal agents David Nitz, IRS agents Rob Jackson and also Juan Ngunyen executed a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104 Andover. (The warrantless Illegal searcl1 allegation issecurely supported by dOQ.lmentatlon which the defendants are preparedto provide through an evidentiary hearing) Upon discovery at the residence of several small plants in a back room of the residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so called "piggy back" warrant signed by Judge Stephen SiX, at 1:30 pm that afternoon. legally A "Piggy back" warrant would not have been necessary since the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the searches. Also seized from the residence and poorly documented were the defendants legal valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and under Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were

unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe. (One year later) On December i

h ,

2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested

by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service,

and the IRS, headed by IRS Agent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from

the IRS, for being "unlawful users in possession of firearms" United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections

9 22 (g)(2) .

The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs. Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the first indictment (as

Count 2) as well as additional charges,( based on the original search and absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing marijuana. On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at 1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and attending Lawrence police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC, Sec. 846. On the aist day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrom dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the.

3

remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution. Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to wit; KBI, DEA. FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in tbe investigation or arrests.

LEGAL STATEMENT Guy and carrie Neighbors request the charges be dismissed with prejudice, and that the arrest for the Gun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law. In other cases involving the application of Kansas Statute, it was held that assistance by authorities possessing jurisdiction can serve to validate a search, even if the officers acting outside their jurisdiction also participate. See See United States v. Price, 7S F.3d 1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti, 998 F.2d 791,798-99 (10th Cir. 1993). However that was not the case in Neighbors V. USA because no officer or agent with jurisdiction over the statutes was present during the search or arrest.

The Fourth Amendment protects indIVIduals aplnst unreasonable seen:hes and seizures by the sovernment. The scope of this protection extends to any ar81 In which an Indlvldual hils 8 reasonable expectation of privacy. Further. the Fourth Amendment provld8ll that aU _rrants shall be based upon probllble cause and supported by oath or affirmation.

-----------------_._-------------_._--------POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR: The USPIS and USPS-OlG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C.,O 3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powersto "Posta! Inspectors

and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Serviceand the mail"). That grant of authority is limited to "the enforcement oflaws regarding property in the custody of the Postal Service. property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, 81'I.d other postal offenses"

and the enfon::ement of certain other federal laws determined to "have 8 detrimental effect upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(1)-(2). Title 39, section 233.1 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative Powers ofPostal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and inspectors ofthe USPS-oIG, referringto both as "Postal Inspectors," Id. 5233.1(8). While recognizing their common authority to enforcelaws related to the mails,the section circumscribes the primary responsibility ofthe USPS-oIG and the USPIS: (b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph (a) Of this section shall be exercised onIy(1) III the eDforeemeat of laws r~rding property i. the custody of

the POItal Service, property of the Postal Service, tbe use of the mlliJl, IDd other poetal olfeoses. With the exception of enfordng laws related to die -u.: (1) The Office ofInapector General wiU investigate all

allegations ofviolations of postal laws or misconduct by postal

employees, including mail theft; and (ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of

violations ofpostal laws or misconduct by all other persons. ------------~----------------------------.---------------------------------------------

POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST 9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008) IRS Agent Authority eo Arrest

The authority of .pecial agents to make arrests is provided by 28 USC 17608.

This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve search warrants and arrestwarrants; to serve subpoenas and Bummonses issued under authority of the United States; to make al'1'88ta with or without wamlnt fol.§DX 9fl'!D!! 'Hlnst tht Unlt8d State. reI.tina to 111, In_rnal Revenue laws that is committed in hi8lher presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any suchfelony 9.1.2.2 (01-18-2008) General Authority eo Enforce ln18mal Revenue Lawa .nd Related Statut8s 1. TlUe 26 United Sta_ Code (USC) f7608(b) provides the Initial authority for investigating crImes arising under the Internal Revenu. IaWlS.

----,--_.-.,

-. _-------,------_._-

. CONCLUSION The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to

the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff. 905 F.2d 1349 (loth Cir, 1990). In that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment ...." rd. at 1353-54

The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search warrants are wen established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the

warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and seized." United States v, Wicks, 995 F.2d 964, 972 (roth Cir. 1993). The repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath,

was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement. Therefore fruits from any searches should be suppressed see United States v. Pennington, 635 F.2d 1387, 1389-91 (10th Cir. 1980).

Constitudonal rights are not amenable to compromise, Jurisdictions, authority and codes ofinvestigating agencies is set forth to protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction or they are not. There are no degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion. Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the State officers and Federal Agents were acting under the color of the law outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation, any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18 USC 242, and perhaps 18 USC 241.

Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating within the color of the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or

1

presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one's oath of office to the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore Guy Neighbors respectfully requests the termination of the cases, the suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice. Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for considerations by Pro-se Defendant petitioner Carrie M. Neighbors. Signed

CA C~L

dated,_....:....:..---""''--''~ ........._

Whenever any person is roquired to take an oath before he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for any person employed to administer the oath to administer it in the following form" The person swearing, with his hand uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD

PROOF OF SERVICE FORM A copy of this fonn shall be appropriately filled out and attached when Proof of Service or statement of delivery or mailing is required.

Personal Deltverv:

I declare that on I i

~ j - 0'6 (Date)

flO'

I personally delivered the attached

LA <:1< ck JUVi5 d'u1l0n

to:

(Description of Document)

(,_R/l,LoJ'

d-AP
(Name of Recipient)

sW - $W-1-€AV-f (Location) ~ l(~NStl S Part 3

010, ](S

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was

ExecutedonJl3 (Date)

O~at~h c:rf .JvShc..t../DtsmC± o-f (City)

9

e

.Kansas,

V){--

(Signat~O