IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS

Civil Court Department

[Lawrence Kansas]
CARRIE NEIGHBORS
Plaintiff
v
KANSAS UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
defendant Case No:
-----
MICHAEL RINER
defendant COMPLAINT
Demand for Jury Trial or
Declaratory Judgment
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL ACTION 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
CONSPIRACY AGAINST SECURED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
DENIAL OF EOUALACCESS TO JUSTICE
Comes Now Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors by special appearance, hereby brings forth notice of suit
that the above entitled defendants have knowingly conspired under color of law, acting outside of their
Jurisdiction, and in an abuse of discretionary authority to Conspire to bring forth Federal charges of an
alleged crime solely based on a State investigation involving Kansas University that should have been
tried by the State where no crime would have been found to be committed, "Federal intervention
depends upon proofthat there is both a present and immediate threat to a federal right and no
opportunity to protect it in the state court prosecution." [Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)]
wherefore violating Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors due process of law, Constitutional and Civil rights, and
denial of equal access to justice in case 08-20105-cm-JPO filed in Kansas Federal District Court.
Requests for review of violations of law, disciplinary action, and investigation in the violations of
rules and regulations have been submitted predicated on the following issues by both plaintiff to The
Kansas University Public Safety office (KU Police). The Department representative Captain Schuyler
Bailey received the complaint.
The foregoing named defendant's in this cause have knowingly and willfully conspired to violate
Carrie Neighbors Due process of law, harassed her and conspired to provide the court with non
credible perjured testimony by K.U. Detective Michael Riner in an abuse ofAuthoritative discretion to
falsely arrest, falsely imprison, torture, discriminate, control and selectively prosecute, as well as
fraudulently Federally indict the plaintiff in violation of the Constitution and Jurisdictional Supreme
Court Rule. In support of said allegations Plaintiff states as follows:
It is necessary for a department or agency ofthe Federal Government to prove standing. Ifan agency
isn't vested with authority by law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint. So the court also lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.
1.) LACK OF JURISDICTION
Search warrant executed on August 8
t
h, 2008, accusing the Plaintiff of "Federal Obstruction of
Justice" by Detective Michael Riner with the Kansas University Police Department, and executed with
assistance from Lawrence Kansas Police department and the Postal Inspector lacked jurisdictional
authority over Federal Statutes, Acts, codes and regulations. "Federal Jurisdiction cannot be assumed,
but must be clearly shown. [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F.2d. 633]
Federal arrest warrant executed on August 8
t
h, 2008 by Postal Inspector David Nitz, based upon
Kansas University Detective Mike Riner's theft investigation violated the jurisdictional authority of
Post office statutes, constituted malicious conspiracy under Color of Law, resulting in the arrest of the
plaintiff, in violation of the Plaintiffs fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights of due process,
without an official compliant that any trespass of laws had been committed involving the US. Mails.
The arrest and Frivolous Federal Indictment solely based upon a state investigation by the University
Of Kansas police involving an alleged stolen laptop sold to the Plaintiffs business the Yellow House
Store, continues to cause extreme duress and pain to Plaintiff for an ongoing period of more than 3
years.
2
2.) UNLAWFUL ARREST AND DETENTION OVERVIEW:
Kansas University Detective Michael Riner served a search warrant on the Plaintiff's business;
The Yellow House store, and the Postal Inspector David Nitz Acting outside of his jurisdiction of
authority rules and regulations served arrest warrant on the Plaintiff and her husband on Friday August
8,2008 for "obstruction of Justice" in violation of Title 18, USC lS12(c)", in the University's state
investigation of a stolen laptop from the University of Kansas, sold to the Plaintiffs resale store, stolen
by a University employee Robert Sample, that was being investigated by the University Police
Detective Mike Riner. The investigation did not fall under federal statutes, codes, Acts, or regulations
and did not involve any crime of the U.S. mail. "Under where the Federal Agents lack authority over
jurisdiction, so to the Federal courts lack jurisdiction." [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200, F 2d. 633].
During the execution of the search on 08-08-08 the stores surveillance video cassette was stolen
by the officers from the recorder and a blank "off brand tape" was put in its place. (The blank tape has
been sealed in an evidence bag for future DNA fingerprint analysis, as it is not possible that the
Plaintiff's DNA will be on it, since Plaintiff was arrested prior to the search, theft and switch).
The Plaintiff, prior to the purchase was not aware that the laptop in question had been stolen, no
federal or state law had been trespassed upon by the Plaintiff. Cooperating with the investigation,
Plaintiff turned over the laptop and showed Detective Riner the sellers form that Robert Sample had
filled out. Detective Riner copied the information onto his "field notes" then asked for the actual form
to take with him. Plaintiff informed Detective Riner that she allowed him to copy the information from
the form, however due to the corrupt investigation already in progress by the Lawrence Police
Department, she would need her attorney present if she was to make any statements or turnover the
sellers form as evidence. Plaintiffs attorney John Duma had already informed her he would not be
available until Monday. Four hours later Detective Riner, several KU uniformed police officers,
3
Lawrence Kansas Police officers including Micky Rantz and Jay Bialek and Postal Inspector David
Nitz served a search warrant upon the business signed by a state Judge and Federal arrest warrant on
the Plaintiff and her husband for "obstruction ofjustice". Ifan agency isn't vested with authority by
law, it lacks standing to bring a complaint, or make an arrest.
2). PERJURY BY KANSAS UNIVERSITY DETECTIVE MIKE RINER:
On August Ill", 2008 in Federal court for the District of Kansas, K. U. Detective Mike Riner was
called to the stand to testify about his state level investigation into the laptop allegedly stolen from
Kansas University. He falsely testified that the plaintiff had not let him see the sellers form. However in
failing to get the lie straight, in the "Application for arrest affidavit" by Postal Inspector David Nitz, it
clearly states that Mr. Riner was shown the form bearing Robert Sample's name and information.
Detective Riner also took notes from the sellers form on his yellow note pad, and used the information
obtained from the form to arrest and further investigate the seller of the laptop; K.U. Employee Robert
Sample. It was found during the investigation that Mr. Sample had stolen numerous items from his
employer, and sold the items to the Pawn Shop. Plaintiff was selectively prosecuted in connection to
Mr. Sample's criminal acts. (No action was taken against the Pawn Shop.)
Detective Riner gave perjured testimony as a Federal witness at the hearing on August 11 th, 2008
that the Plaintiff had concealed the sellers form from him, when shown the sellers form on the witness
stand, he again committed perjury and claimed he had never seen it. When the defense revealed the
fact that his notes would contradict his testimony he testified he had "shredded" the notes. During the
subsequent hearing on August 18
th
, 2008, U.S. Attorney Terra Morehead proffered to the court that Mr.
Riner claimed to have found the notes he had earlier testified to shredding. At the close of the hearing
the Magistrate judge ruled that no bond violations had occurred and ordered that the Plaintiff be
released from Federal custody and her bond reinstated. On August 19
t
", 2008, based upon Kansas
4
--...-
University's Detective Mike Riner's fraud upon the court, the Government's Attorney's moved forward
and obtained an indictment before a Federal Grand Jury against the Plaintiff for "Federal Obstruction
of Justice" [US. V Carrie Neighbors 08-20105-cm (2008)] .
3). COMPLAINT FILED FOR PERJURY:
On September 16, 2008, a complaint detailing KU Detective Mike Riners federal perjury,
ongoing unconscionable vendetta constituting harassment ofthe plaintiff and her business, along with
copies of Mike Riners defamatory blogs under the user name Michael1 on the Lawrence Journal World
web site was submitted by the Plaintiff to the University of Kansas Public Safety office. Captain
Schuyler Bailey received the complaint on behalf of the Department.
On October 8
th
, 2008, in a conflict of interest due to the fact Marietta Parker was the Prosecuting
attorney in the case that Riner was committing perjury for, The University Police Director Ralph V.
Oliver responded with a letter informing the Plaintiff that he had allegedly forwarded the complaints to
the U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker. No further action was taken by the University or the Prosecutor in
regards to the serious allegations against Detective Riner.
With no accounting for the Plaintiffs complaints and requests for review, KU Detective Riner has
escaped any accountability for his violations of both State and Federal law, he has been held above the
law by his Controlling Agency as well as the Governments Prosecuting Attorney's in this matter. He has
been allowed to continue to commit abuse of discretionary authority and power, violations of oath,
candor, jurisdiction, selective prosecution, perjury and due process violations under color of law. Mr.
Riner was repeatedly used as a witness by the Federal Prosecutors in the interrelated cases against the
Plaintiff, as a staple witness to secure a frivolous Federal Indictment for "Obstruction of Justice, as well
as the Federal Prosecutors have continued to use his peIjurious testimony before the Federal District
court Judge and subsequent trial Jury.
5
Detective Riners false allegations have damaged the plaintiff and enabled the Prosecution to
vindictively:
A). Falsely arrest and incarcerate the Plaintiff.
B). Force the Plaintiff into a court order to shut down her internet sales, which resulted in huge losses
of profits for her business.
C). Plaintiff was held in Federal Prison until she agreed under duress to sign an unconstitutional gag
order to relinquish her I sl Amendment right to free speech, which prevented all parties from making
public comments about the case. In violation of the court order Detective Riner continued to blog about
the Plaintiff, defamatory her and her business on the internet.
D). Prosecutors revoked Plaintiff's bond on September 28
th
, 2010 and she was sent to Federal prison
on the premise that she violated the gag order when she sent a request that the Postmaster General in
Washington D.C. Review the Postal Inspectors violations of law and jurisdictional authority.
E). The Federal District court used the unconstitutional Obstruction case for a 2 point enhancement on
the Plaintiff's sentence. That decision is currently under appeal.
CONCLUSION:
The use of Kansas University Detective Michael Riners acts of Fraud upon the court have
enabled the U.S. Attorney's expanded allegations of offenses against the Plaintiff well beyond the face
of the indictment, in violation of statute, misrepresented the constitution, and operated outside of legal
authority. The transfer of the State investigation to a Federal Prosecution violates the Constitution and
Supreme court rule. In an ongoing pattern of abuse, the conspiracy to violate due process of law has
caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs life, reputation, liberty, business, right of due process, and
operated outside of legal authority. Rights secured by the Constitution of the United States are carved
in stone, and they are cumulative, they are not independent or elective unless someone knowingly
6
chooses to forfeit one of the specified rights. Plaintiff has never forfeited her rights. If one of the
constitutionally secured rights is bypassed, administrative offices, including the Department of Justice
and the U.S. Attorney, and courts of the United States lack or lose subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff hereby requests in accordance to the Unclean Hands Doctrine, for willful misconduct
motivated by actual malice toward the Plaintiff, that the controlling agency over Detective Mike Riner
is Kansas University Police Department, as a result of a conspiracy against rights, resulting in
monetary, punitive damages in an amount to be decided by a Jury, as well as award a compensatory
general damages award to be payed to the Plaintiff Carrie Neighbors for her time, lost wages, violations
of Constitutional rights, loss of liberty, defamation, false arrest, and pain and suffering, directly related
to the August 8
th
arrest, detainment, and vindictive prosecution, violations under color of law, for
"Federal obstruction of Justice" in case 08-20105-cm.
The Plaintiff hereby graciously extends an offer for the University Public Safety Police
Department and Detective Michael Riner, in honor, to respond to complaint, notice of suit and attached
affidavit within 30 days. As stated in Plaintiffs sworn attached notice this hereby constitutes a private
contract set out in admiralty and hereby gives consideration in the form of forbearance of suit for a
reasonable period of time, 30 days to respond to this sworn notice.
Respectfully Submitted
dated" .Dt2

1309 Sunchase Drive
Lawrence, KS. 66044
7
------------... ..
------
v
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS
Civil Court Department
[Lawrence Kansas]
CARRIE NEIGHBORS
Affiant
KANSAS PUBLIC SAFETY:
KANSAS UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Case No:
Libellee
MICHAEL RINER
Libellee
AFFIDAVITI AFFIRMATION
IN SUPPORT OF
COMPLAINT
AFFIDAVIT/AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
This sworn Affidavit is my presentment of "Official Notice ofFacts, and Demand for Answers
and relief' and an administrative remedy under notary and or witness presentment, for me; the Affiant
Carrie Neighbors.
This is an offer for The Kansas University Public Safety Police Department and Detective
Michael Riner, in honor, to respond to this Affidavit within 30 days to offer settlement in this dispute in
the amount of Five hundred thousand dollars. ($500,000.00). Affiants sworn notice hereby constitutes a
private contract set out in admiralty Due to the fact Collaborative resolution rather than continued
litigation would be the most efficient way to allow healing in this matter, Affiant hereby gives
consideration in the form of forbearance of suit for a reasonable period of time, 30 days to respond to
this sworn notice.
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
If this affidavit is not properly rebutted with a counter-affidavit within thirty (30) days from the
date of its mailing, all paragraphs not denied shall be confessed affirmed, by such default, and shall be
accepted as dispositive, conclusive facts by the named Libellee's or other properly delegated authority
there of, had the opportunity and "failed to plead." All Counter-affidavits must be signed with the valid
legal name of the respondent.
Affiant hereby states that she is of legal age and competent to state on belief and personal
knowledge that the facts set forth herein as duly noted below are true, correct, complete, and presented
in good faith regarding the illegal transfer of a state investigation by the above named Libellee's into a
Federal complaint for prosecution that lacked jurisdiction and authority.
It is now incumbent on you, the purported original Agency and oversight officials with
discretionary authority to compel discovery of facts and evidence under UCC 1-308 (RSMO 400.1
207). Including but not limited to any evidence under federal statutes that supports the investigation of
a stolen laptop from the University of Kansas by the University of Kansas police for a transfer to
Federal Jurisdiction solely for prosecution in violation of Supreme court ruling. Affiant requests the
Libellee's to provide evidence that the Plaintiff trespassed Federally under common law, constitutional
law or public law and specifically identify Acts, Codes, Rules, Regulations and Statutes that support the
transfer ofthe allegations from State to Federal.
Claim 01) Affiant quotes: "Anything in repugnance to the Constitution is invalid or unlawful".
Bond, supra. In {Bond v United States, No 09-1227 (June 16, 2011)J the Supreme court ruled in a 9-0
decision, that bond had standing to challenge the federal statute 18 USC Section 3231, on the grounds
that transferring a State investigation into a Federal Prosecution interferes with the powers reserved to
the States.
In accordance to 18 USC Section 3231, part ofthe enactment of title 18 states: "The district
courts ofthe United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive ofthe courts ofthe States, ofall
offenses against the laws ofthe United States. Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair
the jurisdiction ofthe courts ofthe several States under the laws thereof" Without the validity of 18
USC 3231 a federal court must revert the powers of the federal courts back to the states.
Affiant's charges were transferred to the Federal Government in violation of Constitutional law,
2
causing affiant unconscionable harm by forcing her to be tried by the Federal Government instead of
the State where she would have received less time (or never been prosecuted at all.) See [US. V
Sharpnack, 355 US 286 (1957)] It further specifies that "Whoever. . .is guilty ofany act or omission
which. .. would be punishable ifcommitted or omitted within the jurisdiction ofthe State .. .in which such
place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time ofsuch act or om ission, shall be guilty ofa
like Uederal} offense and subject to a like punishment'.
In [Carol Ann Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227], the Supreme court stated that any act of
Congress repugnant to the Constitution is void. Lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court
rulings.
Claim 02) Affiant affirms and alleges that through willful misconduct motivated by actual malice
and as clearly displayed by the University of Kansas Detective Michael Riner's defamatory internet
blogging on the Journal World web site in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1018 about Affiant and her business
before and during the investigation, resulting in an act of contempt of a court ordered gag on all parties,
conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, inequitable behavior and despicable conduct by
an officer of the court including perjury and violations of discretionary authority.
In a conspiracy to cover-up said misconduct the prosecution ofAffiant in the University's
investigation was transferred by the controlling agency (The University Public Safety police dept.) to
the Federal Prosecutor Marietta Parker, along with Affiants complaints submitted to the University
Police Internal Affairs about Detective Micheal Riner's violations of Affiants civil rights under color of
law, absent the controlling agency's execution of proper disciplinary investigation or authoritative
action in the matter involving their own employee Detective Mike Riner, resulting in a Federal
Indictment so frivolous that the court did not even revoke Plaintiffs pretrial release. Instigated outside
of the jurisdiction, rules and regulations that govern said controlling agency's personnel issues and
disciplinary process, resulting in the accomplishment of a conspiracy to further harassment, false arrest,
3
false imprisonment, duress, unconstitutionally enhanced sentence on September 28,2011 and
abandonment ofAffiant's protected constitutional right to due process of law. These resulting damages
and injuries have bound Libellee's into a contract for restitution and reparation to Affiant.
Claim 03) Since actions speak louder than words, and by actions contracts are consummated,
Libellee's actions have made manifest, with open disregard for the Rule of Law, that Libellee's
hadlhave at all times and in every measure, concerning their association with Affiant, operated outside
the parameters of the Constitution of the United States of America, and within the bounds of treason,
coercion, threat, duress, malfeasance, conspiracy, tort, unlawful conversion, theft of property and any
other offenses known to be injurious to Affiant.
Affiant reserves the right to amend in order that the truth be ascertained and justly determined.
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Carrie Neighbors, Sui Juris, solemnly affirm and verify that I have
read the foregoing, and know its contents to be true to the best of my knowledge, except as to the
matters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to
be true. This instrument is submitted upon good faith effort that is grounded in fact, warranted by
existing law for the modification or reversal of existing law and submitted for proper purposes, and not
to cause harassment and unnecessary delay or costs, so help me God. See Supremacy Clause
(Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land.)
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the Republic of Kansas, that the foregoing is true
oL-
Ul
-
\ 0 d-..O \ 2
J-un-'s_______authorized representative
I
1309 Sunchase Drive
Lawrence, KS. 66044
4
On this day came before me the Affiant, a living flesh and blood woman to oath and attest and affirm
the signature is true, complete and correct on the foregoing affidavit. Carrie Marie Neighbors, the
above signed, who is personally known by me or upon proper oath and identification, personally came
before me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for said County and State, and Duly Affirmed the truth
of the foregoing Affidavit in my presence. The Affiant also acknowledged the signing thereof to be her
own voluntary act and deed, signing the within instrument in my presence and for the purpose therein
stated.
I /0-/2
My Commission expires on: /VOt,) ,'Jort( I Zo J 3
Notary Public J. dD
seal:
l<t!l1s,as
S\-g'NPi Oi'X 1-ID-IL
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled
complaint and Affidavit i ~ e above captioned matter was deposited in the United States Mail, first
class postage prepaid, on \ C ) ~ , 2t3J2.,..addressed to the clerk of the Court including a
second copy for Chambers:
Clerk of the Court for:
Respectfully Submitted,
Carrie Neig bo s
1309 Sunchase Drive
Lawrence, KS. 66044
Sworn to, before me this ~ day
of :::)c.h. V--Ovf'1 ' 201'1.