Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(Kansas City Docket)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 07-20124-01-CM
)
)
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendant. )

UNITED STATES’ SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Comes now the United States of America, by and through the undersigned

Acting United States Attorney and herein offers the following suggestions in opposition

to the motions to withdraw as counsel for the defendant filed on April 25, 2009, in the

above-referenced case:

Relevant Procedural Background

1. On May 1, 2008, the United States filed a Motion to Revoke Bond in Case No.

07-20124 (Document [Doc.] 65). The United States moved for the revocation of the

defendant’s bond on the grounds that his publication of false and defamatory allegations

of misconduct by case agents, witnesses and the prosecutors in this case constituted

violations of federal and state criminal statutes including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512,

Tampering with a Witness; Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.), § 21-4004, Criminal

Defamation, and 18 U.S.C. § 1503, Influencing an Officer.

2. On May 22, 2008, John M. Duma was appointed to represent the defendant,

1
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 2 of 5

Carrie Neighbors in Case No. 07-20124. (Doc. 86). This case along with two other

cases now pending against this defendant are currently set for trial beginning on

October 5, 2009, with the oldest case to be tried first and the others tried serially,

immediately thereafter. (Doc. 158).

3. On July 18 and July 21, 2008, Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara conducted

a hearing on that motion1 but before a decision was rendered on the issues, the parties

submitted an agreed-upon temporary restraining order “which specifically prohibits all

parties in this matter from making any statements, other than to members of the

defendants’ immediate family ... in writing, orally or by electronic dissemination, either

personally or indirectly through any party, including but not limited to any internet sites

or through any form of communication whatsoever which mentions the names of any

witnesses, attorneys, potential witnesses or of any persons associated with the

investigation or prosecution” of Case No. 07-20123 and Case No. 07-20073. (Doc. 118,

p. 1-2).

4. On August 18, 2008, the provisions of the temporary restraining order were

made part of the conditions of the defendants’ bond in the cases styled United States v.

Guy and Carrie Neighbors, Case No. 07-20124 (Doc. 132), and Case No. 08-20105-

01/02-CM/JPO. (Doc. 27). Each of those orders provided in pertinent part: “Conditions

of release in the Obstruction Case will track those [which] have been previously set in

Case No. 07-20124 (the “EBayCase”) (Docs. 5 and 9). In addition to those conditions,

defendants shall comply with the agreed restraining order in the EBay Case (Doc. 118).”

1
The United States requests the Court take judicial notice of all of the evidence
received at the hearing on that Motion. (Docs. 65, 66, 67 and 150).

2
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 3 of 5

(Doc. 132 and Doc 27, respectively, at p. 2).

5. The defendant, has repeatedly2 failed to comply with the conditions of her

bond by aiding and abetting her co-defendant, Guy Neighbors, in the continued

publishing of false and defamatory statements about several of the witnesses and about

the prosecutors. As a result her attorney, John Duma, has filed a motion in this case to

withdraw on the ground that “ [t]he defendant has been previously examined and

determined to be competent to assist her attorney in this matter. Accordingly it can only

be presumed that the defendant continues to ignore the advice of her attorney for

reasons best known only to her. As the defendant continues to ignore the advice of her

attorney it is impossible for her attorney to continue to represent her in this matter.”

(Doc. 163 at pp. 1- 2).

6. Throughout the pendency of these cases, the defendant and her co-

defendant/spouse, Guy M. Neighbors, have been represented by numerous attorneys.

They have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the quality of their legal representation

(see Exhibit 1, attached) and have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to

subject themselves to the orders of the court. (See Doc. 128, Government’s Second

Motion to Revoke Bond, and Doc. 142, Government’s Motion to Revoke Defendant’s

Bond). Additionally, the defendant has filed pro se motions, despite the fact that she

has been represented by competent counsel since the earliest stage of the proceedings

in this case. (See Doc. 143, Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Vindictive

Prosecution; Doc. 151, Motion to Dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction; and Doc. 153,

2
See Doc. 128, Doc. 142 and Doc. 165, Motions to Revoke Bond in Case No.
07-20124.

3
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 4 of 5

Motion to Change Venue).3

7. The United States respectfully submits that the defendant has repeatedly

demonstrated that she is unwilling to conform her conduct to the requirements set by

the court or to follow the advice of counsel. She has complained about the quality of

her legal representation in internet postings, regardless of which attorney represented

her at any given time. (See Exhibit 1, attached). Should the Motion to Withdraw be

granted, there is little reason to believe that the defendant will be any better satisfied

with the representation of yet another attorney or that new counsel will be successful in

in obtaining the compliance and cooperation of the defendant.

8. Furthermore, the defendants have complained on several internet sites about

the government’s alleged failure to address the “actual charges” filed in this case. (See

Exhibit 2, attached). Should the Motion to Withdraw be granted, the parties’ opportunity

to address the “actual charges” filed in this case will be delayed even further, depriving

the defendant and the government of a timely disposition of the allegations. The United

States requests that the Court deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because should it be

granted, there is little reason to believe that new counsel will be any more successful.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, United States respectfully requests

that this Court deny the motion to withdraw filed in the above-referenced case so that

3
Documents 151 and 153 were filed on November 3, 2008, after the magistrate
judge entered an order on October 28, 2008, denying the Motion to Dismiss on the
Grounds of Vindictive Prosecution, stating clearly in the order that the dismissal was
“without prejudice to the defendant’s right to reassert the same arguments through
separate motions filed by their respective court-appointed defense attorneys of record.”
Doc. 148, emphasis added.

4
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 5 of 5

this case can be tried expeditiously in October, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Marietta Parker, KS Dist. Ct. #77807

Acting United States Attorney
500 State Avenue; Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Telephone: 913-551-6730
Facsimile: 913-551-6541
E-mail: marietta.parker@usdoj.gov
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 5th day of May, 2009, the foregoing was electronically

filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of

electronic filing to the following:

John Duma
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors

Cheryl A. Pilate
Morgan Pilate LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors

I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice of

electronic filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants:

None
s/Marietta Parker
Acting United States Attorney

5
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 169-2 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 9 of 9