Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84

Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 24

Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [IJ / 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 08-20105-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,
GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,
DEFENDANT [lJ'S MARSDEN MOTION
[Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970)]
COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is
filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss counsel of record, for being inadequately represented,
pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The Motion is As follows:
1). The Defendant [1] has made good faith attempts to address her concerns in recent
letters to her counsel. [See reference Attachments 1 - 4]
2). The Defendant [1] can show that her attorney of record is inadequately representing her
by both his proffer to the court on case no. 07-20124-01-CM-JPO on 08/25/09, (In which makes
him a witness) as well as, his recent responses letter to her concerns. [see ref Attach 5 & 6]
Defendant [l]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of
Page 1
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 24

3). Also on 08/25/09 the attorney of record [John Duma] failed to object to the Motion for

Mental Examination, without any supporting evidence or probable cause by the government.

4). The Defendant [1] and the attorney ofrecord have an irreconcilable conflict, and as a

result, ineffective representation is already, as well as, is the likely outcome.

5). The Defendant [1]'s counsel of record seems to be fixated on a plea agreement and

refusing to address tampered evidence, extorted witnesses, misleading information to the court

through testimony by the prosecution, as well as, speedy trial issues, in which the defense can

clearly show.

6). The Defendant [1]'s counsel refuses to file requested motions for the Defendant [1], and

has advised her he cannot defend her, if she goes to trial, as well as, the prosecutions motion for the

mental evaluation, whereby is ineffective representation, and violated Kan S. Ct. Rules Discipline

for Attorneys, whereby cannot remain attorney of record.

MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 1l1'S

MARSDEN MOTION 03116/2010Letter to Counsel

7). The Defendant has advised and / or requested the counsel of record on 03/16/2010,

03/25/2010,04/09/2010, and 04/19/2010, (Attachments 1-4) attorney violated attorney-client

privilege, when she wanted attorney to file a show cause on the U.S. Attorney, in which violated the

court order in 2008, when she recently sent out a press release on 12/17/09, that Defendant [1] was

involved in identity theft, and bank fraud. Defendant [1] requested and advised her counsel to not

have any conversation with the U.S. Attorney, but to directly file a show cause for contempt. The

Defendant [l],s counsel then proceeds to contact e-mailed the U.S. Attorney and fails to comply with

the Defendants request, in which also violated Kansas Bill of Rights § 11, in which the alleged

matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted.

Defendant [1]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of Page 2

 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 24

8). Defendant [1] requested her counsel of record contact her second attorney (Aaron McKee)

and get his notes from the proffer to discredit the officers version, in which her counsel advised her

that Aaron McKee was reluctant to discuss the matter, whereby he should have filed a subpoena to

produce the materials, in which he failed to do.

9). Defendant [1] attempted to address the release of the property, in which the counsel stated

he did not want to become a witness during the return of the property. The counsel of record expects

the Defendant to go to the police Department and retrieve 80% of her property without the bates

system, or notifying the court to go through proper procedures, in which makes the Defendant leery

of the way her counsel of record is handling this request without going through the court.

10). Defendant [1] request for Depositions of witnesses, to include the Postal Inspector, due

to the fact he was called in by the u.s. Attorney post facto, the police officers, due to the conflicting

testimony and evidence, witnesses or owners of evidence, due to the inconsistencies within this

case.

03/25/2010 Letter to Counsel

11). The Defendant [1] requests that no effort has been made to return the 80% of the seized

evidence, by any motion or order, using the bates system, as promised by the U.S. Attorney, as well

as, notifying the court in a proper forum, and no suitable provisions are in place to protect the

integrity of the case, or the Defendant [1]'s rights, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

12). The Defendant [1]'s counsel stated that these requests by Defendant [1] was frivolous

issues. The Defendant [1] then request that the counsel of record file a Motion to Suppress the

evidence, in which was not responded to by counsel of record.

Defendant [1]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of

Page 3
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 24

13). The Defendant [1] request that a certified chain of custody be produced, in which

counsel of record had failed to respond to.

14). The Defendant [1] requested that the counsel of record file a motion to dismiss the case

for violations of 18 USC § 3161 (d)(2) on time limitations, in which was not responded to by counsel

of record.

15). The Defendant [1] had given her attorney 10 working days to respond to these

requests, in which he failed to comply with, as far as addressing all the issues. 04/09/2010

Letter to Counsel

16). The Defendant [1] request that her attorney file pre-trial motions pursuant to FRE

Rille 410, inclusive is to contest or quash the Defendant's proffer, in which counsel of record

advised the Defendant that the Motion in Limine will address her concerns, in which will not

address her concerns.

17). The Defendant [1] request that FRCP Rule 12 for a Motion to Dismiss based upon

defects in instituting the prosecution, shall be addressed prior to trial. The attorney claims that all

evidence is available, in which has not been produced, in which Defendant [1] can show.

18). The Defendant request that the counsel of record requests transcripts of witnesses

during their interviews (audio & video), in their entirety, in which counsel agrees with, but also

contradicts his statement that all evidence has been produced.

19). The Defendant [1] request that the investigators get background checks on witnesses,

due to their criminal history, criminal record, and pleas or deals in which were offered by the police

officers and the U.S. Attorney, in which the counsel of record had failed to respond to.
Defendant [l]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of
Page 4
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 5 of 24
04/19/2010 Letter to Counsel
20). The Defendant [1] request that her Proffer be Quashed or stricken from the record,
due to KSA 77-532(6), as well as, 77-517, for failure to provide an impartial officer (the U.S.
Attorney) in which was not present during the Proffer, nor was there properly documented record
of the proffer, in which was clearly outside the plain language rule, in which the Defendant cited
a 2005 case.
21). The Defendant [1] had also shown that the contract law was violated and had cited a
2009 case.
22). The Defendant request a list of motions for the counsel of record to file.
23). The Defendant [1] incorporates any and all motions filed by Counsel to remain in
effect and to be addressed by the court.
24). The Defendant [1] would request that the court appointed investigator (Dan Clark)
remain until the case had been resolved.
25). The Defendant [1] would like the court to appoint a counsel of record, only as a legal
advisor for the Defendant [1], until the case can be resolved and concluded.
THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, is filing a Marsden Motion to dismiss
counsel of record, for being inadequately represented, Pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d
118 (1970).

Carrie Neighbors
Defendant {1 J / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785
Defendant [1]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of
Page 5
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 6 of 24

/
TO: Mr. John Duma LLP 303 East
Poplar St. Olathe, Ks. 66061
Date 3/16/2010
From: Carrie Neighbors Yellow
House store 1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
RE: The evidence
Dear John,
There seems to be some complications with our communications. One issue I have is the ex
parte communications with the u.s.Attorney Marietta Parker after I strictly advised you not to
discuss with her my communication with you regarding the recent press release, which I felt
was just cause for a motion before the court. I am requesting that there be no more
communications ex parte with the Prosecutors Marietta Parker or Terra Morehead relating to
my communications with you, without my approval, or me presence during these conversations.
This violates lawyer client professionalism. Attorneys involved in this case have violated Rule
226 Kansas Rules of Professional conduct 1.4, 1.6, (1.15: Violated specifically by Aaron
McKee claiming he no longer can provide Proffer notes). 3.4, & 4.1.
In regards to the return of my evidence,
You will need to write a letter to the u.s. Attorney officially requesting an order of release of
property from whoever has these items in their possession, including a time, date and location
to pick it up. This will be accompanied by the bates numerical system, as well as, I want an
official certified chain of custody "unaltered" list (Iogsj.for whom ever handled, checked in or
out, or had any possession of, or any property in question, from the beginning of the case, up
until the current date. (Inclusive with the required procedural photo affidavits of the rightful
owners linked to returned evidence or property verified through serial numbers and previous
theft reports or paperwork.) I expect you to request on my behalf, detailed verification in
writing be presented to my counsel by the U.S. Attorney listing the exact property that is
intended for pick-up. This will protect my interests as your client and enable my defense
counsel to remain apprised
1.
atrinonro
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 7 of 24
without risking becoming a witness in the case.
I also want you to depose the Federal Postal Inspector David Nitz, The Police
Department, (Inclusive of any officers involved in my case), as well as any and all
witnesses to the evidence, or owners of the evidence, due to the inconsistencies,
misleading information, as well as coercion, extortion, and total mishandling of the
case, evidence and property, and violations in the chain of custody by the Lawrence
Police Department.
I want to know by what Authority; based on legal statute, jurisdiction and by what
complaint, brought the Postal Inspector into the cases, and when it was done, and
especially if it was post facto.
There has been documented prejudicial gross mishandling of this case, returning
and storing evidence, and violations of the chain of custody.
Police Officers have repeatedly brought their credibility into question by way of their
own inconsistent testimony. Micky Rantz testified under oath that the Sony Camera
was never logged into the evidence room and that it was returned absent of the Police
dept. procedures. This pattern of inconsistency in following procedure is found
throughout the falsified evidence logs, lack of photo affidavits of "rightful owners" in
the discovery, planted evidence lacking serial numbers, and chain of custody
verification, withholding of discovery, fabricated police reports, and falsified victims
names.
Officer Mike Riner gave testimony under oath he destroyed his notes; which
constitutes destroying records; evidence in an ongoing Federal Investigation. Then
Terra Morehead claimed in the following hearing that he had found the notes he had
formerly testified were destroyed.
These issues give rise to the fact this case is a fraud and I am requesting that these
serious issues be brought before the court.
evidence
Page 2
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 8 of 24
Like you said "we have to prove nothing, but they have to prove their case with a
preponderance of the evidence." The evidence in this case is a fraud; therefore the entire
case being presented before this court is a fraud.
I hope I have made myself very clear in this letter. I expect a written answer from you
within 10 legal days. I want you to comply with all the problems I have pointed out with
your involvement and 'your participation as my counsel before the courts in this matter.

l~J:t- -
Re~ctfuilY Submitted

Carrie Neighbors Yellow House Store 1904 Massachusetts Lawrence, Ks.

66046
evidence
Page 3
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 9 of 24
C E R T IF IC A T E O F S E R V IC E
[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:
Mr. John Duma llP
303 East Poplar street
Olathe KS. 66061

j3 1 1 1 o ! ; Z o ( O
R e c : t_: _$ _C__:_
Date 0

Carrie Neighbors
Yellow House store
1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
evidence
Page 4
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84
Filed 04/26/10 Page 10 of 24

..
C O N F I D E NF ITLI BA CJ .O, P Y
To: Mr. John Duma LLP 303 East Poplar St. Olathe, Ks. 66061
Date 3/25/2010
Dear John,
There still seems to be a complication with our ability to communicate. It is evident to me that no effort has been made on
my behalf to expedite the return of the 80% of the seized evidence currently being held, by any motion or order, using what
is defined as the bates system. And no suitable provisions are in place to protect the integrity of the case or my rights
through due process oflaw, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with the arrangements for pick-up that
are currently being offered by the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.
I do not agree with you that these are frivolous issues. When a person whose property is taken wants to challenge the
validity of the search, a motion to return the evidence can be made. See, e.g., Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 (g). Failure to file pre-trial
motions in regards to the return of the evidence could result in the loss of the claim absent a good reason for the failure. See
Fed.R.Crim.P 12
(b )(3)(C). I would request that you file a motion to suppress the evidence, due to the fact the Federal Government
cannot show that I had any knowledge that the evidence was stolen.
Therefore I am again requesting that you file a pre-trial motion on my behalf officially requesting the return of my property,
and that you include in that motion to require the U.S .Attorney turn over to the court and or defense a detailed list of the
property to be returned, using the bates system, along with a certified chain of custody for whom ever handled, checked in or
out, or had possession of any property in question from the beginning of the case up until the current date; any and all
property in question. Due to the fact I still have a legal right to some of the property that may no longer be in the possession
of the Government I am also requesting that a certified chain of custody be provided to the defense inclusive of all theft
reports, serial numbers, signatures and identification, and procedural photo affidavits of all conclusory "rightful owners" that
have received Yellow House Property, or any & all other property seized and no longer in the Governments possession, as
well as, the Motion to Suppress.
I want to make it clear that I am aware that my 180 days from which the Government had to bring me to trial has
surpassed. I am requesting that you address that issue with the courts by filing a motion to dismiss on my behalf, for
failure to comply with 18 USC § 3161 (d)(2) on statutory time limitations.
I have in no way agreed to give up my constitutional right to a speedy trial. I have signed nothing to waiver my rights to a
speedy trial, nor have I caused any unnecessary time delays. I feel the Government has sought numerous unnecessary delays
under the guise to meet the justifiable ends to their satisfaction, but in actual reality in order to prejudice my defense with
mounting
Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010
Page 1
A1l,4cJ1~
1-
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 11 of 24
C O N F ID E N T IA L
. frivolous indictments that should not be brought to trial. Two mental competency tests, one of which
resulted in unlawful prison incarceration. These also includes multiple court orders that if violated or if
the Government accuses me of violating would result in incarceration without conviction. (As is the
case with my co-defendant Guy Neighbors, and was also the case with the frivolous Obstruction case,
in which mirrors the first case, in which now constitutes res judicata and collateral estoppel)
The following rules of statutory interpretation provide guidance in interpreting 65-4162(a). "'It is a
fundamental rule of statutory construction, to which all other rules are subordinate, that the intent of the
legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.'" City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, 253 Kan.
434, 436, 855 P.2d 956 (1993). "When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to
the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not
be." Martindale v. Tenny, 250 Kan. 621, SyI. ~ 2,829 P.2d 561 (1992). "The legislature is presumed to
intend that a statute be given a reasonable construction, so as to avoid unreasonable or absurd results."
Todd v. Kelly, 251 Kan. 512, 520, 837 P.2d 381 (1992).
There is a frivolous undertone to this case, but I am not the one that is frivolous, as you make reference
to in your contentions! This entire case is not only frivolous it's a fraud upon the courts. The
indictments are frivolous, the prosecutions repeated delays through motions concerning the blogs have
been frivolous, the arrests and incarcerations have been frivolous, and my detainment for 8 hours
without food was frivolous. It's frivolous that my guaranteed constitutional rights have been repeatedly
violated. I hope I have made my contentions very clear. I also hope your legal degree doesn't cloud
your judgment in this matter. The U.S. codes are very clear and ambiguous.
I would like a written answer regarding my requests for action in the above matter within 10
working days.
R~~bmitted_

Carrie Neighbors

Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010
Page 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVJ ~
. - = l"'-
!
[Pursuant to KSA 60-20~
2. rn o o o
..1 Jru ::t" ru
Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84
Certified Fee
$2.30
The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and corre ~
the above captioned matter was deposited in the United St ~
addressed to:
Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)

Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)

1·2.30
$0.00
Total Postage & Fees $
tC' rl -I/.J •• yt

Mr. John Duma

co o r-

303 East Poplar Street Olathe, KS. 66061

<: -V " - . . . .
'-<) W

~ -c
r
~
~ ;;:
~
oe n ~
Date mailed out on: 03/25/2010

R~

Carrie Neighbors Yellow House store

1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence,Ks.66046
Letter to Attorney dated 03/25/2010
Page 3
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04L26i19.. Page~UJJt2"t"':=:==:==':-
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYCLIENT
COMMUNICATION
To Mr. John Duma LLP 303 East Poplar
Street Olathe, Ks. 66061
Date: 04/09120I 0
From: Carrie Neighbors Yellow House
Store 1904 Massachusetts Lawrence, Ks.
66046
RE: Request for full and complete of Witness Transcripts during their Interviews & Background checks
of Governments witnesses
Dear John;
This letter is in reference to more complications I have discovered between our communication
and the federal statutes, as well as, the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Please be advised that in accordance to Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; inadmissibility of pleas,
plea discussions etc: Anything said during the Proffer is inadmissible and cannot be used in a court of law. I am
requesting you address the court, in any pre-trial motions prior to trial, inclusive is the Motion to contest and 1 or
quash the Proffer in its entirety; because without access to the defense notes through the previous Attorney, the
Proffer is nothing but hearsay, and shows a pattern of fraud, by the fact that the Proffering ie Plea negotiations ended
when the Government committed fraud, which rendered the negotiation void ab initio in its entirety.
Pursuant to Rule 12 FRCP our motions to dismiss can be based on defects in instituting the prosecution,
defects in the indictment or information which can be challenged at any stage, but should be raised before a trial
begins. Because a criminal prosecution implicates an absolute constitutional guarantee, the discovery is more focused
on automatic disclosure principles, which if proven to be violated, will be the grounds for a dismissal of the charges.
My requests for discovery is not frivolous, under Rule 12, the Judge required them to produce the documentation
Letter to John Duma on 04/09/2010
Page 1
!I
!I
II
:1

il II
'I

I
Case 2:08-cr-201 05-GM-JpO Document 84
Flied 0 4 /2 6 /1P0age 14ot24- -~"--~, ,"
in this case: [(Dawson, et al. v. Pittco Capital Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3148-CC (Del. Ch., Feb.
15,2010)]
Also I am requesting that you get transcripts done, in their entirety, of any & all witnesses whose
interviews were Audio or video recorded, during, before or after the Ebay Investigation. Every
transcript is to include the pre-interview discussions / negotiations contained in the audios prior to the
actual questioning, these will be used by the defense to discredit the witnesses, therefore rendering a
need for testimony by the defendant Carrie Neighbors moot.
Under Federal Rules of Evidence 609 (1) (2) & Rule 403 I am also requesting that the defense
have our Private investigators Dan Clark and or Denny Conway get background checks on any and all
of the Governments witnesses. This will enable the defense to impeach witnesses by showing evidence
of previous frauds or convictions of crimes prejudicial to my case, due to any and all deals made with
law enforcement or the U.S. Attorney. [see ref audio tapes during all interviews with witnesses prior to
the interview]
Our need to use Rule 609 outweighs 403 because it's prejudicial for the defense, that the
Government has made deals with every criminal witness in exchange for their testimony, including but
not limited to offering them a payment of money in exchange for their cooperation, or reduction of any
charge, as well as, time reduction, to assist officers to manufacture stolen property during the course of
the investigation.
Pursuant to Kansas Rule 1.01 (b)(1) and Rule 1.03(a) I am requesting a written answer regarding
my requests for action in the above matter within 10 working days. Thank you for your time and
inconvenience in this matter.

R~llY

Carrie Neighbors Yellow House Store 1904 Massachusetts Lawrence,Ks.66046

3.
Letter to John Duma on 04/09/2010
Page 2
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 15 of 24
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:
Mr. John Duma
303 East Poplar Street Olathe, KS. 66061
U.S. Postal Service-, CERTIFIED MAllw RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
IT"
4. rur-=Il..I1
Postage$
Date mailed out on: 04/0912010

Res~l9tted,

Carrie Neighbors Yellow House store 1904 Massachusetts Lawrence,Ks.66046

Certified Fee
rn
o Retum Receipt Feeo (Endorsement ReqUired)
o o (Endorsement ReqUired)
Restricted Delivery Fee
l..I1
ru Total Postage& Fees $
ru
IT" o o r-
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to .
¥ fW ,
• Attach this card to the back of thei'imailpiece,
or on the front if space permits. ....""

5. Article Addressed to:

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ,
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
6.
I
ο Agent I
ο Addressee I

D.
C.
'+ -(3-/0
-Date of DeliveryI

Is deliveryaddress different from item 1? ~es If YES, enter deliveryaddress below: . / " "No
!-

~~~w~~

3D3e%p\cv0
(9\~) \- < 5 ~ ~ \) ~ \
. Service Type
ο Certified Mail 0 Express Mail
ο Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise
ο Insured Mail 0 C.O.D.
4. Restricted D elivery? (Extra
Fee) 0 Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer fromservice labeO
PS Form 3811, February 2004
7009 2250 0003 7194 5129
Domestic Return Receipt
1025\l5-02.M.1540
Letter to John Duma on 04/09/2010
Page 3
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 16 of 24 .
-:
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
To Mr. John Duma LLP 303 East
Poplar Street Olathe, Ks. 66061
Date: 04/19/2010
From: Carrie Neighbors Yellow
House Store 1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
Dear John,
This letter is in reference to your last response on 04/14/2010. Please be advised this is my fourth and
final attempt to once again clarify what I am requesting of you.
I know that you filed a "Motion In Limine & Memorandum in Support" USA V.
Neighbors case 07-20124 July 27, 2009, Pg. 1 (E). Any Statements given by Carrie Neighbors during her
proffer. However this is an automatic contractual right if I don't testify. This request does not eliminate the
Proffer from the case, nor does it require a ruling, nor does it protect me if I chose to testify at trial.
My request is that you file a Motion to also Quash, or strike the proffer, in its entirety from this case. This
motion can include the Governments violations of Kansas Statutes 77-532 (6), and 77-517, because the agents
failed to provide an impartial Presiding officer (in which requires the presence of the U.S. Attorney, in which
was not present during the proffer) or transcriber free from bias or prejudice to properly document the
statements, in which there is no recording of any statements taken during this proffer.
a). In ref United States v. Stein, 2005 WL1377851 (E.D. Pa. 2005), In my case also, the
Defendant made statements only to agents, not to prosecuting attorneys, leaving statements clearly outside the
plain language of the rules. Id. At 10, n.12. There are currently no unbiased records or recordings available to
the defense in the discovery that factually documented the actual statements made by the defendants.
b). The Proffer was not recorded.the statements have been colored, and therefore is inadmissible
in its entirety and should be quashed from the record. Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156,1159 (Alaska 1985)
(describing law enforcement duty to preserve evidence). The court reasoned that electronically recording a
defendant's interrogation helps to ensure his right to a
Final letter to John Duma 04/19/2010
7.
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 17 of 24
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
fair trial .. Id. at 1159-60. And failure to do so is a violation of his /her due process. Whereby, any and all unrecorded
statements as evidence at trial shall be excluded.
A Proffer should be construed according to principles of contract law. US v. Merz (WL 1183771 u .s.District
H

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)(2009)." Whereby if the contract is violated it becomes void in its entirety.
The terms of the Proffer contract were violated by the Government when during the negotiations the officers committed
fraud by questioning the defendant without her attorney present, while returning a seized camera, in violation of chain of
custody rules. Then furthered the violation by refusing to acknowledge any considerations previously promised.
Evidently by now, with both your college decree and legal decree it should not take a rocket scientist to figure
out I have no intention or reason to Plea when I am not guilty, and the prosecution has been on a illegal prosecutorial
harassment, to include manufacturing evidence against me. Whereby you have not addressed the other requests, issues
and Motions, I have brought forth, in my prior letters to you, as well as, your time limitations is expiring on the Motions I
have requested you file, to now include the Motion to Quash or Strike the proffer.
The requested Motions are as follows: a). Motion to strike or
Quash the Proffer.
b). Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, due to the inconsistency in returning, and improper handling of evidence, and
conspiracy to conceal evidence.
c). Motion to Exclude witnesses.
d). Motion to Request any and all transcripts, in their entirety of any and all interviews. , e). Motion to return any and all
evidence or property, by using the Numerical Bates System, in which the Government had seized and is not related to
this cause of action.
f). Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with 18 USC § 3161 (d)(2) on time limitations.
Please forward me a copy of each as soon as you have them filed. Thank you for your time and inconvenience
in this matter.
Finalletterto John Duma 04/19/2010
Page 2
,
j
~
Ii !
 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Docume~ Fde§lq4J~6Jlo Pagel1S of 24

7010
0290
0002
8953 4361

R e l!:lr
8. CONFIDENTIAL ATT

Carrie Neighbors Yellow House Store

1904 Massachusetts
Lawrence, Ks. 66046
9.
CERTIFICATE OF [Pursuant to KSA :
The undersigned also hereby certifies that a t document in the above captioned matter was depos
postage prepaid, addressed to:
Mr. John Duma
303 East Poplar Street Olathe, KS. 66061

j
o
Date mailed out on: 04/19/2010

R e s p e e ;U ~
Carrie Neighbors Yellow House store 1904 Massachusetts Lawrence, Ks. 66046
Finalletterto John Duma 04/19/2010
~U >
~

~ 9

U>

OJ

0 U>

C \I

;!
Ql'

e .-= l

i
...ll

rn
~ .:r
~ rn
jj) U1
0
'0 lr
J0B <0
'C
ru a
m
a :: CJ
CJ
.~
CJ
aE::
~
 :J
CJ ~-
0
lr
ru ~
CJ E
0
CJ 0
.-CJ= l
r-
~
0
0
" " . (\J
~ eIII-
(I)

2
(I)

~ .c
(I)

. If
!5.,g. co
1l E
~
T"'
T"'

Z"-
en
o j! ! E

~.. ~
.2 ~ 0

~c
N en
U-

Page 3 a.
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 19 of 24
D U M A L A W O F F IC E S

John M . D um a A ttorney at Law

Licensed in Kansas and MisSOUT'i
Ms. Carrie Neighbors
1904 Massachusetts
St. Lawrence, KS
66047
Re: United States v. Carrie
Neiqhbors All cases pending
Dear Carrie:
This is in response to your letter dated March 16, 2010. First of all I have not
communicated any information covered by the attorney client privilege to anyone. You
recently asked me to file an accusation in contempt against Marietta Parker because
the Kansas Department of Justice Web Site contained information portraying you in a
negative fashion. I advised you that I was not going to do this as I think that it would be
a waste of time and be an action that would be considered frivolous. However, I did
send an e-mail to Ms. Parker advising her that the offensive language should be
removed from their web site. Ms. Parker immediately complied with this request. In no
way did this do anything other than what you requested. Frankly, I am very tired of your
accusatory behavior. I have advised you on several occasions that after having viewed
the evidence in this case it would be in your best interests to try to approach the
government about resolving this matter per a plea of guilty. To date you have ignored
that advice and have asked me to proceed to trial.
I fully intend to prepare this matter for trial if necessary and will focus on your
defense in this matter i.e. you never had any intent to do anything illegal. I refuse to
waste more time and effort in frivolous attempts to chase down what I now consider to
be information not based on provable facts but as the result of issues you have with
being suspicious to the point of paranoia as to everyone and everything connected with
this case.
I will not be requesting any depositions in this case as to do so would be a
frivolous waste of time. I will not research the authority of the postal service
investigators to conduct federal criminal investigations as this also is a frivolous waste
of time.
Any serious issues to be brought before the court will be handled at the time the
court hears the motions we have previously filed or at the trial in chief of this matter.
Every time you recount a possible discrepancy in the investigation of your case are not
grounds for the filing of a motion.
303 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 (913)-782-7072 fax (913)-782-1383 john@dumalaw.com
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 20 of 24
I am not going to waste time with chasing additional side issues that are not directly
relevant to your defense in this case.
I anticipate in the near future that the court will take up the issue of whether you and
Guy should have your cases severed for trial. To get the e-bay case resolved and
completed would be the first step towards having this entire matter behind you. I am going
to do everything to accomplish this end.
~'

J1h~DUma
JMD:jd
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 21 of 24
/ '
D U M A lA W O F F IC E S

John M. Duma Attorney at Law

Licensed in Kansas and MisSOUT'i
April 14, 2010
Ms. Carrie Neighbors 1904
Massachusetts St. Lawrence,
KS 66047
Re: United States v. Carrie Neighbors All
cases pending
Dear Carrie:
This letter is in response to your most recent letter sent to this office dated 4/9/10.
First you quote rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as authority that anything you said during your
proffer letter cannot be used in the governments' case in chief. As I have discussed with you on numerous
occasions there is a motion in limine on file with the court to prevent the government from using any
information gained during the proffer statements. However, as I have also discussed with you on many
occasions, the proffer agreement contains specific language that allows the government to use what you said
during the proffer if you testify to some fact or event in such a way to be different than what you said during
your proffer.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that you can waive some of your evidentiary rights you might
otherwise enjoy under rule 410, and that waiver is allowable. United States v. Gary Mezzanatto, 115 S. Ct.
797 (U.S. 01/18/1995).
The problem this presents in your defense is that if you testify at trial to anything differently than what you
said during your proffer the government would be able to use your proffer statement to impeach your trial
testimony. As you are aware the proffer has numerous instances of you making comments that clearly
indicate you were involved in illegal activity while conducting business as Yellow House. I know you keep
telling me that you did not make these statements but they would come in to evidence nonetheless if you take
the stand in your own defense.
As to your request for rule 12 motions to be filed, there currently are pending motions to suppress as well as
motions for discovery to be heard by the court. You refer to discovery motions you want filed but as the
government has an entirely open file policy all evidence has been made available to us for review. Further, I
have allowed you to review all of the evidence in my office and will continue to allow you to do so at your
request.
303 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 (913)-782-7072 fax (913)-782-1383 john@dumalaw.com
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 22 of 24
The government is required to provide any Rule 609 evidence as to any witnesses they intend on
calling at the time of trial. When we get a trial date set the court will give us a date by which that
evidence is to be given to the defense. Further, I have received plea agreements for several potential
witnesses and will be able to use these against those witnesses if and when they testify.
As to transcripts of statements, I believe I will ask the court for authorization of funds to be allocated
to transcribe the various audio and video statements of the witnesses in this case. I do not know what
the courts position will be on this matter but I believe it would be helpful at trial.
While I am writing you I want to once again comment on the case and potential sentence that you
face in case 07-20124 (e-bay case). Many times I have advised that you approach the government
about a possible plea that would put you in the position to keep your sentence as low as possible.
I know that you have reiterated over and over that you have done nothing wrong, and when you
observed the many video statements of persons that say differently, you simply repeat over and over
that they are lying.
However, I am duty bound under the circumstances to advise as to how the sentencing guidelines
could work in your case.
First the government is intending on presenting evidence that you were involved in illegal activity
that resulted in total losses of approximately $525,000.00. Pursuant to United States Sentencing
Guideline (D.S.S.G. sec. 2Bl.l) you would start with an offense level of 21. This could be increased
by 2 levels if the offense involved 10 or more victims, or 4 levels if it involved 50 or more victims. If
you were to be determined to be in the business of receiving stolen property you would get a 2 level
increase.
Also, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 you could receive another 2 level adjustment for impeding the
administration of justice because of the problems created by all of the internet blogging that you and
your husband did during the course of this matter.
If the losses are correct, and there were 10 or more victims and you received a two level increase for
impeding justice, and you were found to be in the business of receiving stolen property your base
offense level would be 27. With no prior criminal history your sentencing range would be 70-87
months. If you pleaded guilty, you would be eligible for a three level reduction of your sentencing
level .pursuant to U.S.S.G. sec. 3E1.1. This could bring your offense level down to 24 with a
resulting sentencing range of 51-63 months. Further, if you plead guilty without a plea agreement, we
could contest the amount of loss that could considerably reduce your exposure to a prison sentence.
As an example if the court found that the loss was only $50,000.00 with the other adjustments set out
above, your sentencing level if you plead guilty could be 16 with a resulting sentencing range of2127
months.
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 23 of 24
Ultimately, you are the one that has to decide whether or not to plead guilty or take the matter to trial.
However, I have repeatedly given you my opinion that the likelihood of you being found not guilty at
a jury trial is very slim.
With all of the above having been said if you have any questions please advise.
~~ly,_ JJ~.Duma JMD/jd
 Case 2:08-cr-201 05-CM-JPO Document 84 Filed 04/26/10 Page 24 of 24
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 [2 J counsel of record 142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061
John Duma 303 E. Poplar
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 26th day of April 2010.
10.
Carne Neighbors
Defendant [1 J / Pro SeLitigant 1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785
Defendant [1]'s Marsden Motion / w Memorandum in Support of
Page 6