Marietta Parker Disputing John Duma's Withdraw In The Case Against Guy And Carrie Neighbors And The Yellow House Store
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Marietta Parker Disputing John Duma's Withdraw In The Case Against Guy And Carrie Neighbors And The Yellow House Store as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,366
- Pages: 14
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City Docket) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v.
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07-20124-01-CM
UNITED STATES’ SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT Comes now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Acting United States Attorney and herein offers the following suggestions in opposition to the motions to withdraw as counsel for the defendant filed on April 25, 2009, in the above-referenced case: Relevant Procedural Background 1. On May 1, 2008, the United States filed a Motion to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124 (Document [Doc.] 65). The United States moved for the revocation of the defendant’s bond on the grounds that his publication of false and defamatory allegations of misconduct by case agents, witnesses and the prosecutors in this case constituted violations of federal and state criminal statutes including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, Tampering with a Witness; Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.), § 21-4004, Criminal Defamation, and 18 U.S.C. § 1503, Influencing an Officer. 2. On May 22, 2008, John M. Duma was appointed to represent the defendant, 1
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 2 of 5
Carrie Neighbors in Case No. 07-20124. (Doc. 86). This case along with two other cases now pending against this defendant are currently set for trial beginning on October 5, 2009, with the oldest case to be tried first and the others tried serially, immediately thereafter. (Doc. 158). 3. On July 18 and July 21, 2008, Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara conducted a hearing on that motion1 but before a decision was rendered on the issues, the parties submitted an agreed-upon temporary restraining order “which specifically prohibits all parties in this matter from making any statements, other than to members of the defendants’ immediate family ... in writing, orally or by electronic dissemination, either personally or indirectly through any party, including but not limited to any internet sites or through any form of communication whatsoever which mentions the names of any witnesses, attorneys, potential witnesses or of any persons associated with the investigation or prosecution” of Case No. 07-20123 and Case No. 07-20073. (Doc. 118, p. 1-2). 4. On August 18, 2008, the provisions of the temporary restraining order were made part of the conditions of the defendants’ bond in the cases styled United States v. Guy and Carrie Neighbors, Case No. 07-20124 (Doc. 132), and Case No. 08-2010501/02-CM/JPO. (Doc. 27). Each of those orders provided in pertinent part: “Conditions of release in the Obstruction Case will track those [which] have been previously set in Case No. 07-20124 (the “EBayCase”) (Docs. 5 and 9). In addition to those conditions, defendants shall comply with the agreed restraining order in the EBay Case (Doc. 118).”
1
The United States requests the Court take judicial notice of all of the evidence received at the hearing on that Motion. (Docs. 65, 66, 67 and 150). 2
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 3 of 5
(Doc. 132 and Doc 27, respectively, at p. 2). 5. The defendant, has repeatedly2 failed to comply with the conditions of her bond by aiding and abetting her co-defendant, Guy Neighbors, in the continued publishing of false and defamatory statements about several of the witnesses and about the prosecutors. As a result her attorney, John Duma, has filed a motion in this case to withdraw on the ground that “ [t]he defendant has been previously examined and determined to be competent to assist her attorney in this matter. Accordingly it can only be presumed that the defendant continues to ignore the advice of her attorney for reasons best known only to her. As the defendant continues to ignore the advice of her attorney it is impossible for her attorney to continue to represent her in this matter.” (Doc. 163 at pp. 1- 2). 6. Throughout the pendency of these cases, the defendant and her codefendant/spouse, Guy M. Neighbors, have been represented by numerous attorneys. They have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the quality of their legal representation (see Exhibit 1, attached) and have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to subject themselves to the orders of the court. (See Doc. 128, Government’s Second Motion to Revoke Bond, and Doc. 142, Government’s Motion to Revoke Defendant’s Bond). Additionally, the defendant has filed pro se motions, despite the fact that she has been represented by competent counsel since the earliest stage of the proceedings in this case. (See Doc. 143, Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Vindictive Prosecution; Doc. 151, Motion to Dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction; and Doc. 153,
2
See Doc. 128, Doc. 142 and Doc. 165, Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124. 3
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 4 of 5
Motion to Change Venue).3 7. The United States respectfully submits that the defendant has repeatedly demonstrated that she is unwilling to conform her conduct to the requirements set by the court or to follow the advice of counsel. She has complained about the quality of her legal representation in internet postings, regardless of which attorney represented her at any given time. (See Exhibit 1, attached). Should the Motion to Withdraw be granted, there is little reason to believe that the defendant will be any better satisfied with the representation of yet another attorney or that new counsel will be successful in in obtaining the compliance and cooperation of the defendant. 8. Furthermore, the defendants have complained on several internet sites about the government’s alleged failure to address the “actual charges” filed in this case. (See Exhibit 2, attached). Should the Motion to Withdraw be granted, the parties’ opportunity to address the “actual charges” filed in this case will be delayed even further, depriving the defendant and the government of a timely disposition of the allegations. The United States requests that the Court deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because should it be granted, there is little reason to believe that new counsel will be any more successful. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, United States respectfully requests that this Court deny the motion to withdraw filed in the above-referenced case so that
3
Documents 151 and 153 were filed on November 3, 2008, after the magistrate judge entered an order on October 28, 2008, denying the Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Vindictive Prosecution, stating clearly in the order that the dismissal was “without prejudice to the defendant’s right to reassert the same arguments through separate motions filed by their respective court-appointed defense attorneys of record.” Doc. 148, emphasis added. 4
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 5 of 5
this case can be tried expeditiously in October, 2009. Respectfully submitted,
s/ Marietta Parker, KS Dist. Ct. #77807 Acting United States Attorney 500 State Avenue; Suite 360 Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Telephone: 913-551-6730 Facsimile: 913-551-6541 E-mail: [email protected] ELECTRONICALLY FILED Attorneys for Plaintiff
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the 5th day of May, 2009, the foregoing was electronically filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: John Duma 303 E. Poplar Olathe, KS 66061 Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors Cheryl A. Pilate Morgan Pilate LLC 142 N. Cherry Olathe, KS 66061 Attorney for Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
None s/Marietta Parker Acting United States Attorney
5
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 1 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 2 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 3 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 4 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 5 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 6 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 7 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 8 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 9 of 9
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City Docket) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v.
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07-20124-01-CM
UNITED STATES’ SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT Comes now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Acting United States Attorney and herein offers the following suggestions in opposition to the motions to withdraw as counsel for the defendant filed on April 25, 2009, in the above-referenced case: Relevant Procedural Background 1. On May 1, 2008, the United States filed a Motion to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124 (Document [Doc.] 65). The United States moved for the revocation of the defendant’s bond on the grounds that his publication of false and defamatory allegations of misconduct by case agents, witnesses and the prosecutors in this case constituted violations of federal and state criminal statutes including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, Tampering with a Witness; Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.), § 21-4004, Criminal Defamation, and 18 U.S.C. § 1503, Influencing an Officer. 2. On May 22, 2008, John M. Duma was appointed to represent the defendant, 1
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 2 of 5
Carrie Neighbors in Case No. 07-20124. (Doc. 86). This case along with two other cases now pending against this defendant are currently set for trial beginning on October 5, 2009, with the oldest case to be tried first and the others tried serially, immediately thereafter. (Doc. 158). 3. On July 18 and July 21, 2008, Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara conducted a hearing on that motion1 but before a decision was rendered on the issues, the parties submitted an agreed-upon temporary restraining order “which specifically prohibits all parties in this matter from making any statements, other than to members of the defendants’ immediate family ... in writing, orally or by electronic dissemination, either personally or indirectly through any party, including but not limited to any internet sites or through any form of communication whatsoever which mentions the names of any witnesses, attorneys, potential witnesses or of any persons associated with the investigation or prosecution” of Case No. 07-20123 and Case No. 07-20073. (Doc. 118, p. 1-2). 4. On August 18, 2008, the provisions of the temporary restraining order were made part of the conditions of the defendants’ bond in the cases styled United States v. Guy and Carrie Neighbors, Case No. 07-20124 (Doc. 132), and Case No. 08-2010501/02-CM/JPO. (Doc. 27). Each of those orders provided in pertinent part: “Conditions of release in the Obstruction Case will track those [which] have been previously set in Case No. 07-20124 (the “EBayCase”) (Docs. 5 and 9). In addition to those conditions, defendants shall comply with the agreed restraining order in the EBay Case (Doc. 118).”
1
The United States requests the Court take judicial notice of all of the evidence received at the hearing on that Motion. (Docs. 65, 66, 67 and 150). 2
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 3 of 5
(Doc. 132 and Doc 27, respectively, at p. 2). 5. The defendant, has repeatedly2 failed to comply with the conditions of her bond by aiding and abetting her co-defendant, Guy Neighbors, in the continued publishing of false and defamatory statements about several of the witnesses and about the prosecutors. As a result her attorney, John Duma, has filed a motion in this case to withdraw on the ground that “ [t]he defendant has been previously examined and determined to be competent to assist her attorney in this matter. Accordingly it can only be presumed that the defendant continues to ignore the advice of her attorney for reasons best known only to her. As the defendant continues to ignore the advice of her attorney it is impossible for her attorney to continue to represent her in this matter.” (Doc. 163 at pp. 1- 2). 6. Throughout the pendency of these cases, the defendant and her codefendant/spouse, Guy M. Neighbors, have been represented by numerous attorneys. They have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the quality of their legal representation (see Exhibit 1, attached) and have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to subject themselves to the orders of the court. (See Doc. 128, Government’s Second Motion to Revoke Bond, and Doc. 142, Government’s Motion to Revoke Defendant’s Bond). Additionally, the defendant has filed pro se motions, despite the fact that she has been represented by competent counsel since the earliest stage of the proceedings in this case. (See Doc. 143, Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Vindictive Prosecution; Doc. 151, Motion to Dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction; and Doc. 153,
2
See Doc. 128, Doc. 142 and Doc. 165, Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124. 3
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 4 of 5
Motion to Change Venue).3 7. The United States respectfully submits that the defendant has repeatedly demonstrated that she is unwilling to conform her conduct to the requirements set by the court or to follow the advice of counsel. She has complained about the quality of her legal representation in internet postings, regardless of which attorney represented her at any given time. (See Exhibit 1, attached). Should the Motion to Withdraw be granted, there is little reason to believe that the defendant will be any better satisfied with the representation of yet another attorney or that new counsel will be successful in in obtaining the compliance and cooperation of the defendant. 8. Furthermore, the defendants have complained on several internet sites about the government’s alleged failure to address the “actual charges” filed in this case. (See Exhibit 2, attached). Should the Motion to Withdraw be granted, the parties’ opportunity to address the “actual charges” filed in this case will be delayed even further, depriving the defendant and the government of a timely disposition of the allegations. The United States requests that the Court deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because should it be granted, there is little reason to believe that new counsel will be any more successful. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, United States respectfully requests that this Court deny the motion to withdraw filed in the above-referenced case so that
3
Documents 151 and 153 were filed on November 3, 2008, after the magistrate judge entered an order on October 28, 2008, denying the Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Vindictive Prosecution, stating clearly in the order that the dismissal was “without prejudice to the defendant’s right to reassert the same arguments through separate motions filed by their respective court-appointed defense attorneys of record.” Doc. 148, emphasis added. 4
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 5 of 5
this case can be tried expeditiously in October, 2009. Respectfully submitted,
s/ Marietta Parker, KS Dist. Ct. #77807 Acting United States Attorney 500 State Avenue; Suite 360 Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Telephone: 913-551-6730 Facsimile: 913-551-6541 E-mail: [email protected] ELECTRONICALLY FILED Attorneys for Plaintiff
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the 5th day of May, 2009, the foregoing was electronically filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: John Duma 303 E. Poplar Olathe, KS 66061 Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors Cheryl A. Pilate Morgan Pilate LLC 142 N. Cherry Olathe, KS 66061 Attorney for Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
None s/Marietta Parker Acting United States Attorney
5
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 1 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 2 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 3 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 4 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 5 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 6 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 7 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 8 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 169-2
Filed 05/05/2009
Page 9 of 9
