Motion Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond Attempt #8 By Lanny D Welch And Marietta Parker
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 Motion Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond Attempt #8 By Lanny D Welch And Marietta Parker as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,973
- Pages: 70
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City Docket)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v.
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07-20124-02-JPO/CM
UNITED STATES’ RENEWED MOTION TO REVOKE DEFENDANT’S BOND or, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION AND FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Comes now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Acting United States Attorney and herein moves this honorable court to revoke the defendant’s bond for failure to comply with the terms of his pretrial release order in the above-referenced cases or, in the alternative, moves for an order for a mental examination of the defendant. In support of this motion, the government offers the following: Relevant Procedural Background 1. The United States incorporates by this references all claims and allegations set forth in it’s Motion to Revoke Bond (Document [Doc.] 65) and the exhibits filed 1
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 2 of 9
thereto (Docs. 66, 67), filed on May 1, 2008. 2. On July 18 and July 21, 2008, this Court conducted a hearing on that motion
1
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). 3. 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).” (Docs. 132 and 27, p. 2). The defendant, Guy Neighbors, has again2 failed to comply with these conditions of his bond
1
The United States requests the Court take judicial notice of all of the evidence received at the hearing on that Motion. 2
See Doc. 128 and Doc. 142, Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124. 2
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 3 of 9
Violations of Conditions of Bond 4. On Wednesday, April 22, 2009, the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors, sent by electronic mail, a message to various individuals under the heading “Lawrence Police officer Mike McAtee corruptly operates as a Federal agent crossing state lines to interrogate and harass people for federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead.” (Exhibit 1, attached). Attached to that e-mail were various documents, one of which was entitled “Notice of Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors Recuses [sic] Themselves from Said Cases as To Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of Interest.” In his e-mail message, the defendant reiterated statements that he knew to be false, to wit: 1. Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead sent Lawrence Police officer Mike McAtee across state lines to the State of Florida, to investigate with the Jurisdictions [sic] of a Federal agent. 2. Lawrence Kansas Police officers Jay Bailek and Mickey Rantz pose as FBI agents while conducting Federal investigations for Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead in the Yellow House case, to cover-up for missing evidence, search warrant & chain of custody violations and the lack of FBI involvement in the case. 3. Kansas city FBI agent Walter Schaefer, poses as FBI agent Bob Shaefer, to conduct fake FBI investigations outside of his agencies [sic] juristictions [sic] to cover-up for Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, who is conspiring to cover-up police misconduct. The defendant is fully aware that all of the individuals mentioned in these paragraphs are witnesses in the case or are attorneys representing the government. In light of the un-controverted evidence received at the hearing on the government’s first motion to revoke bond and by his own admission that the allegations of sexual misconduct are 3
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 4 of 9
mere rumors, it is clear that the defendant intentionally and purposefully violated the conditions of his bond. Therefore, the United States respectfully submits that Guy M. Neighbors continues to engage in conduct that constitutes a violation of § 21-4004, K.S.A., criminal defamation; of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, influencing an officer3; and of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, witness tampering. Without question, the e-mail sent by the defendant on April 22, 2009, constituted a violation of the conditions of the defendant’s bond and establishes that he is unwilling to conform his behavior to the order of the court. Therefore, the government requests that the defendant’s bond be revoked and that he be detained until the completion of the trial of this case. Motion for Mental Examination Should the Court determine that there is insufficient evidence of the intentional violation of the terms of Guy Neighbors’ supervised release, the United States respectfully submits that the false statements the defendant published in his e-mail of April 22, 2009, gives rise to the inescapable conclusion that he is currently suffering from a mental disease or defect that prevents him from conforming his conduct to the requirements of the terms of his pretrial release or that he suffers from a mental disease or defect that causes him to be subject to delusions. Clearly, the defendant should know that several of the above-referenced statements are not true because at the
3
The false allegations of professional and sexual misconduct by the prosecutors taken together with the demand in the attachment to the e-mail, entitled “Notice of Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors Recuses [sic] Themselves from Said Cases as To Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of Interest” indicates that the defendant continues in his attempts to prevent the attorneys for the government from prosecuting the cases now pending against him, a clear attempt to corruptly influence these officers of the Court in the lawful performance of their duties. 4
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 5 of 9
hearing on the government’s first Motion to Revoke Bond, it was established that: all physical evidence recovered during the investigation of this case is either in the custody of the Lawrence, Kansas, Police Department or has been returned to the rightful owners (Doc. 150, Transcript of Motions held on July 18 and 21, 2008, testimony of S.A. D. Nitz, at pp. 217-18); that neither Officer Bailek nor Officer Rantz posed as FBI agents during the investigation of this case (Doc 150 at p 37-38, testimony of P.O.M. Rantz); and that F.B.I. S.A. Walter Robert “Bob” Schaefer conducted an investigation of those allegations and was unable to corroborate the allegation. See (Doc. 150 at p 186-192, testimony of S.A. W. Schaefer). In addition to the reassertion of these allegations, the defendant made false and defamatory allegations of misconduct by the prosecutors in this case without any basis in fact to support those allegations. In his e-mail of April 22, he states: Where is the oversight of Government spending and constitutional law that would allow Federal Prosecutors in an abuse of power spend millions of tax dollars investigating and prosecuting meritless cases, using defense attorneys and law enforcement as their own personal pawns, operating outside of their agencies jurisdictions and the law, crossing state lines, City officers acting as Federal Investigators, repeatedly violating citizens [sic] Constitutional rights without consequence. Now we are hearing rumor of a sex scandal involving high ranking officials, the same officials who are the alleged violator [sic] of human rights. Please we need a complete investigation into these two prosecutors and the cases they have prosecuted.4 Ex. 1. These statements establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect such that he rendering him currently unable to assist in his defense.
4
Counsel for the United States categorically and unequivocally deny each and every one of the allegations made against them in the defendant’s e-mail of April 22nd. 5
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 6 of 9
Title 18, United States Code, Section 4241(a) provides in pertinent part: (a) Motion to determine competency of defendant – At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, ... the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. (b) Psychiatric or psychological examination and report.-Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of 4247(b) and (c.) Title 18, United States Code, Section 4247 provides in pertinent part: (b) Psychiatric or psychological examination. – A psychiatric or psychological examination ordered pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted by a licensed or certified psychiatrist or psychologist, or if the court finds it appropriate, by more than one such examiner.... For purposes of an examination pursuant to an order under section 4241, ... the court may commit the person to be examined for a reasonable period, but not to exceed thirty days, ... to the custody of the Attorney General for placement in a suitable facility. Unless impracticable, the psychiatric or psychological examination shall be conducted in the suitable facility closest to the court.. The director of the facility may apply for a reasonable extension, but not to exceed fifteen days under section 4241, ... upon a showing of good cause that the additional time is necessary to observe and evaluate the defendant. (c) Psychiatric or psychological reports. – A psychiatric or psychological report ordered pursuant to this chapter shall be prepared by the examiner designated to conduct the psychiatric or psychological examination, shall be filed with the court with copies 6
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 7 of 9
provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the attorney for the Government, and shall include-(1) the person’s history and present symptoms; (2) a description of the psychiatric, psychological, and medical tests that were employed and their results; (3) the examiner’s findings; and (4) the examiner’s opinions as to diagnosis, prognosis, and-*** (A) if the examination is ordered under section 4241, whether the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.... Because of the defendant’s most recent publication of information he knows to be false, in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of the temporary restraining order and the orders of the court relating to the terms of his pretrial release, the United States submits that this conduct gives rise to a reasonable belief that the defendant is currently unable to understand the proceedings and to assist in his own defense. Therefore, the United States moves this Court for an order directing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 4247 for a mental examination to determine if the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this defendant be found in violation of the terms of the temporary restraining order and his pretrial release conditions and, for the reasons stated in this motion and in the
7
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 8 of 9
government’s prior Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124 (Docs. 64 - 66 and 129) and that he be detained. In the alternative, the United States respectfully requests an order directing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4247 for a mental examination to determine if the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. 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 27th day of April, 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
8
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 9 of 9
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
9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 1 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 2 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 3 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 4 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 5 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 6 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 7 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 8 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 9 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 10 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 11 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 12 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 13 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 14 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 15 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 16 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 17 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 18 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 19 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 20 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 21 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 22 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 23 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 24 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 25 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 26 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 27 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 28 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 29 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 30 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 31 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 32 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 33 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 34 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 35 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 36 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 37 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 38 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 39 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 40 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 41 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 42 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 43 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 44 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 45 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 46 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 47 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 48 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 49 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 50 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 51 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 52 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 53 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 54 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 55 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 56 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 57 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 58 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 59 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 60 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 61 of 61
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (Kansas City Docket)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v.
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07-20124-02-JPO/CM
UNITED STATES’ RENEWED MOTION TO REVOKE DEFENDANT’S BOND or, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION AND FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Comes now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Acting United States Attorney and herein moves this honorable court to revoke the defendant’s bond for failure to comply with the terms of his pretrial release order in the above-referenced cases or, in the alternative, moves for an order for a mental examination of the defendant. In support of this motion, the government offers the following: Relevant Procedural Background 1. The United States incorporates by this references all claims and allegations set forth in it’s Motion to Revoke Bond (Document [Doc.] 65) and the exhibits filed 1
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 2 of 9
thereto (Docs. 66, 67), filed on May 1, 2008. 2. On July 18 and July 21, 2008, this Court conducted a hearing on that motion
1
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). 3. 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).” (Docs. 132 and 27, p. 2). The defendant, Guy Neighbors, has again2 failed to comply with these conditions of his bond
1
The United States requests the Court take judicial notice of all of the evidence received at the hearing on that Motion. 2
See Doc. 128 and Doc. 142, Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124. 2
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 3 of 9
Violations of Conditions of Bond 4. On Wednesday, April 22, 2009, the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors, sent by electronic mail, a message to various individuals under the heading “Lawrence Police officer Mike McAtee corruptly operates as a Federal agent crossing state lines to interrogate and harass people for federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead.” (Exhibit 1, attached). Attached to that e-mail were various documents, one of which was entitled “Notice of Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors Recuses [sic] Themselves from Said Cases as To Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of Interest.” In his e-mail message, the defendant reiterated statements that he knew to be false, to wit: 1. Federal Prosecutor Terra Morehead sent Lawrence Police officer Mike McAtee across state lines to the State of Florida, to investigate with the Jurisdictions [sic] of a Federal agent. 2. Lawrence Kansas Police officers Jay Bailek and Mickey Rantz pose as FBI agents while conducting Federal investigations for Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead in the Yellow House case, to cover-up for missing evidence, search warrant & chain of custody violations and the lack of FBI involvement in the case. 3. Kansas city FBI agent Walter Schaefer, poses as FBI agent Bob Shaefer, to conduct fake FBI investigations outside of his agencies [sic] juristictions [sic] to cover-up for Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, who is conspiring to cover-up police misconduct. The defendant is fully aware that all of the individuals mentioned in these paragraphs are witnesses in the case or are attorneys representing the government. In light of the un-controverted evidence received at the hearing on the government’s first motion to revoke bond and by his own admission that the allegations of sexual misconduct are 3
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 4 of 9
mere rumors, it is clear that the defendant intentionally and purposefully violated the conditions of his bond. Therefore, the United States respectfully submits that Guy M. Neighbors continues to engage in conduct that constitutes a violation of § 21-4004, K.S.A., criminal defamation; of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, influencing an officer3; and of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, witness tampering. Without question, the e-mail sent by the defendant on April 22, 2009, constituted a violation of the conditions of the defendant’s bond and establishes that he is unwilling to conform his behavior to the order of the court. Therefore, the government requests that the defendant’s bond be revoked and that he be detained until the completion of the trial of this case. Motion for Mental Examination Should the Court determine that there is insufficient evidence of the intentional violation of the terms of Guy Neighbors’ supervised release, the United States respectfully submits that the false statements the defendant published in his e-mail of April 22, 2009, gives rise to the inescapable conclusion that he is currently suffering from a mental disease or defect that prevents him from conforming his conduct to the requirements of the terms of his pretrial release or that he suffers from a mental disease or defect that causes him to be subject to delusions. Clearly, the defendant should know that several of the above-referenced statements are not true because at the
3
The false allegations of professional and sexual misconduct by the prosecutors taken together with the demand in the attachment to the e-mail, entitled “Notice of Motion Requesting a Change of Venue and to Have Both Prosecutors Recuses [sic] Themselves from Said Cases as To Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of Interest” indicates that the defendant continues in his attempts to prevent the attorneys for the government from prosecuting the cases now pending against him, a clear attempt to corruptly influence these officers of the Court in the lawful performance of their duties. 4
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 5 of 9
hearing on the government’s first Motion to Revoke Bond, it was established that: all physical evidence recovered during the investigation of this case is either in the custody of the Lawrence, Kansas, Police Department or has been returned to the rightful owners (Doc. 150, Transcript of Motions held on July 18 and 21, 2008, testimony of S.A. D. Nitz, at pp. 217-18); that neither Officer Bailek nor Officer Rantz posed as FBI agents during the investigation of this case (Doc 150 at p 37-38, testimony of P.O.M. Rantz); and that F.B.I. S.A. Walter Robert “Bob” Schaefer conducted an investigation of those allegations and was unable to corroborate the allegation. See (Doc. 150 at p 186-192, testimony of S.A. W. Schaefer). In addition to the reassertion of these allegations, the defendant made false and defamatory allegations of misconduct by the prosecutors in this case without any basis in fact to support those allegations. In his e-mail of April 22, he states: Where is the oversight of Government spending and constitutional law that would allow Federal Prosecutors in an abuse of power spend millions of tax dollars investigating and prosecuting meritless cases, using defense attorneys and law enforcement as their own personal pawns, operating outside of their agencies jurisdictions and the law, crossing state lines, City officers acting as Federal Investigators, repeatedly violating citizens [sic] Constitutional rights without consequence. Now we are hearing rumor of a sex scandal involving high ranking officials, the same officials who are the alleged violator [sic] of human rights. Please we need a complete investigation into these two prosecutors and the cases they have prosecuted.4 Ex. 1. These statements establish reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect such that he rendering him currently unable to assist in his defense.
4
Counsel for the United States categorically and unequivocally deny each and every one of the allegations made against them in the defendant’s e-mail of April 22nd. 5
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 6 of 9
Title 18, United States Code, Section 4241(a) provides in pertinent part: (a) Motion to determine competency of defendant – At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, ... the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. (b) Psychiatric or psychological examination and report.-Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of 4247(b) and (c.) Title 18, United States Code, Section 4247 provides in pertinent part: (b) Psychiatric or psychological examination. – A psychiatric or psychological examination ordered pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted by a licensed or certified psychiatrist or psychologist, or if the court finds it appropriate, by more than one such examiner.... For purposes of an examination pursuant to an order under section 4241, ... the court may commit the person to be examined for a reasonable period, but not to exceed thirty days, ... to the custody of the Attorney General for placement in a suitable facility. Unless impracticable, the psychiatric or psychological examination shall be conducted in the suitable facility closest to the court.. The director of the facility may apply for a reasonable extension, but not to exceed fifteen days under section 4241, ... upon a showing of good cause that the additional time is necessary to observe and evaluate the defendant. (c) Psychiatric or psychological reports. – A psychiatric or psychological report ordered pursuant to this chapter shall be prepared by the examiner designated to conduct the psychiatric or psychological examination, shall be filed with the court with copies 6
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 7 of 9
provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the attorney for the Government, and shall include-(1) the person’s history and present symptoms; (2) a description of the psychiatric, psychological, and medical tests that were employed and their results; (3) the examiner’s findings; and (4) the examiner’s opinions as to diagnosis, prognosis, and-*** (A) if the examination is ordered under section 4241, whether the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.... Because of the defendant’s most recent publication of information he knows to be false, in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of the temporary restraining order and the orders of the court relating to the terms of his pretrial release, the United States submits that this conduct gives rise to a reasonable belief that the defendant is currently unable to understand the proceedings and to assist in his own defense. Therefore, the United States moves this Court for an order directing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 4247 for a mental examination to determine if the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this defendant be found in violation of the terms of the temporary restraining order and his pretrial release conditions and, for the reasons stated in this motion and in the
7
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 8 of 9
government’s prior Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No. 07-20124 (Docs. 64 - 66 and 129) and that he be detained. In the alternative, the United States respectfully requests an order directing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4247 for a mental examination to determine if the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. 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 27th day of April, 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
8
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 9 of 9
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
9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 1 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 2 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 3 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 4 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 5 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 6 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 7 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 8 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 9 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 10 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 11 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 12 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 13 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 14 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 15 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 16 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 17 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 18 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 19 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 20 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 21 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 22 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 23 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 24 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 25 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 26 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 27 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 28 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 29 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 30 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 31 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 32 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 33 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 34 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 35 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 36 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 37 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 38 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 39 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 40 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 41 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 42 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 43 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 44 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 45 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 46 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 47 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 48 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 49 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 50 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 51 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 52 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 53 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 54 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 55 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 56 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 57 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 58 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 59 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 60 of 61
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO
Document 165-2
Filed 04/27/2009
Page 61 of 61
