Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 151 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 7

., 1 ;:-' -';
'~,,, I"~ j

}'f 'C 'f ~


":~ ,-- ,.- :-/
.~
Carrie Neighbors i I J \

Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant , '? At1 'I (


(. 'J
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

08-20tOS-CM

CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

MOTION TO STRIKE THE UNITED STATES MOTION FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

[Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12 (t)]

COMES NOW on this 24th day of June 2010) the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting

as a pro se litigant, is filing a Motion to Strike the United States Motion for Supplemental

Report, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(t). The Motion to Strike is as follows:

1). In ~ 2 of the Governments motion, it stated that Dr. Robert G. Lucking in a Forensic

Evaluation report submitted to this court, concluded that Carrie Marie Neighbors was possibly

suffering from paranoid delusional beliefs, based upon his review of telephone calls, as well as,

Motion to Strike Governments Motion for Supplemental Report Page 1


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 151 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 7

written correspondence between the Defendants. This Motion is based upon several issues, in

which will be addressed.

a). The phone calls and letters provide no probative value as to establish the defendant

[1]'s state of mind or competency, in which due process and ethics clearly requires the Doctor of

Psychiatry, prior to diagnosis to take into consideration the client's problem, personality,

situation, history, culture, medication evaluation, and the therapeutic setting and context of

conversations to which Dr. Lucking failed to establish prior to making his conclusion in his

report. Private communications between defendants intercepted illegally without the knowledge

or consent of the other party, moving this court to order Dr. Lucking to turn over as "Summary

Report of Facts" amounts to nothing more than hearsay provided by ill-gotten means, There is no

legal basis, nor substantiated proof, provided in the Governments motion that would allow the

court to order review of phone calls or letters to determine, provide or to substantiate, any

possible delusional beliefs by Defendant [1] ..

b). Whereby the report submitted to this court by Dr. Lucking violates Defendant [1]'s

Constitutional right to be evaluated by a qualified physician bound by the rules of ethics,

including the procedural intake process and complete medical evaluation, which establishes a

qualified doctor- patient relationship prior to the competency report, which is ruled and protected

by laws and ethics relating to the practice of psychiatry which Dr. Lucking did not have with

Defendant [1].

c). Dr. Luckings interrogations of Defendant [2J and subsequent report about his wife's

case was beyond the jurisdiction of a Doctor for the competency evaluation. It also violates The

World Medical Association rules stating that a "physician shall not use nor allow to be used, as

Motion to Strike Governments Motion for Supplemental Report Page 2


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 151 Filed 06/24/10 Page 3 of 7

far as he or she can, medical knowledge or skills, or health information specific to individuals, to

facilitate or otherwise aid any interrogation, legal or illegal, of those individuals." As well as, the

Doctor had violated Principle E of the code of conduct, in which violated the right to privacy,

and illegally intercepting the private letters and phone conversations, or communications

between a married couple.

d). Dr. Lucking has now violated Ethical Standards Rule 3.06, in which now raises a

conflict of interest, due to the fact he is attempting to have evaluations on two opposite parties

involved in a relationship, without advising them there is now a potential conflict of interest, or

even the Defendant [1] that her private communication was going to be used i" an evaluation

report against her own competency. The Defendant [1] has reason to believe that this has shown

a pattern of practice by Dr. Lucking to claim both parties are paranoid delusional, in which

would confirm his evaluation was either tainted, bias, or directed by a third party, in now which

raises the Question of' has this evaluation been tainted, bias, or directed by a third party?"

Whereby, due to the prejudice shown, Defendant [1] request's that the court now order a new

independent evaluation on Defendant [2], without any interference by any of the parties, now

that new evidence has come to light, as the government has just now brought out in their

pleading filed under seal.

e). Defendant [1] requests the court take judicial notice that Dr. Lucking, without

personally examining defendant [1], without knowledge ifthe letters were intended as fiction or

fact, or even proof the writer was indeed Defendant [1], and without personal knowledge of the

context surrounding the intercepted conversation or that the voice on the other end of the phone

was even the party identified as Defendant [1], without properly notifying Defendant (1] that he

Motion to Strike Governments Motion for Supplemental Report Page 3


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 151 Filed 06/24/10 Page 4 of 7

was conducting a competency evaluation on her, without honoring the medical ethics rule of

"putting patients first", or without knowledge of the full situation. Dr. Lucking submitted his

report to this court absent an ethically and professionally conducted evaluation, citing Carrie

Marie Neighbors was possibly suffering from paranoid delusional beliefs, in which he has now

interfered and prejudiced the favorable clinical judgment by the medical staff controlling

Defendant [1]'s recent extensive professionally conducted evaluations and reports submitted to

this court by two separate licensed professionals resulting from thorough clinic studies. When in

actuality, Defendant [1] had realized that a third party was violating their first Amendment

Rights by illegally tampering with her husband's mailed communication, in which she is

prepared to present the (evidence) proof before this court of law, whereby she was intentionally

giving false information to him, both orally on the phone communication, as well as, in the

private v.-ritten communication in an attempt to seek out who was illegally circumventing and

opening the mailed private correspondence, and obtaining illegal access to these private

communications, in which we now know is before this court. In Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.

396,94 S.Ct. 1800,40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), the United States Supreme Court "reasoned that it

was unnecessary to determine to what extent prisoners retained First Amendment freedoms ...

since free citizens have a protected First Amendment right to communicate with prisoners

through uncensored correspondence, whether as an author or as an intended mail recipient."

Whereby, the evaluation report ofthe facts by Dr. Lucking to this court, was based upon this

false non-probative information, intended only to exploit the illegal and ill-gotten interceptor of

the private communications, and also by accident allowed the Doctor to violate his code of

ethics, and show his evaluation was bias, prejudice, and possibly directed by a third party, in now

which makes his evaluations on both Defendants void ab initio.

Motion to Strike Governments Motion for Supplemental Report Page 4


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 151 Filed 06/24/10 Page 5 of 7

f). Whereby giving rise to a reasonable person to believe the evaluation of Dr. Lucking

may have been tainted by a third party, including the letters of Mr. Neighbors to his wife which

were also being circumvented by a third party, after the letters were deposited into the prison

mail open by Mr. Neighbors, checked for contraband and sealed by the authorized prison

official, then postmarked, thereafter circumvented and opened by a third party, resealed with

scotch tape and then forwarded to the intended recipient (his wife.)

g). The Defendant [1] can only assume that a minimal time and effort was spent by Dr.

Lucking, with bits and pieces of private communications, by ill-gotten means to determine that

Defendant [1] is paranoid delusional, Defendant [1] can only presume that minimal time was

also spent on Defendant [2] to achieve the same diagnosis, whereby this would show a pattern of

practice to estimate or guesstimate the results of an evaluation based upon obvious uncertain

facts.

2). Due to the new information, in which has come to light, the Defendant [1] would now

request the court should order an independent evaluation by an outside medical professional for

Defendant [2], and also order the US Attorney ( or her staff) not to instruct the independent

evaluator how to conduct the evaluation, or interfere with private communications. Because the

unsubstantiated allegations made outside of the doctors ethical guidelines now shows prejudice

that the case could have been tainted or bias. Whereby the request is for an independent

evaluation or the court order the US attorney or her staff not to influence the evaluation or block

private phone conversations, as the testimony of Defendant [2]'s counsel on 06/23/2010,

specifically to wit: the interference with Defendant [2]'s private phone conversations, in which

were ordered blocked by a third party.

Motion to Strike Governments Motion for Supplemental Report Page 5


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 151 Filed 06/24/10 Page 6 of 7

3.) Now that the Defendant [1] has discovered that this evaluation has a highly probability

of either being tainted, bias prejudice, or directed by a third party, the Defendant [1] request that

the Court order the U.S. Marshalls Office to locate the individual responsible for giving the order

to interfere and / or block the phone communications, as well as, due to the prejudice this has

caused this case, order the U.S. Marshalls Office to retrieve the phone communications or e-

mails, to see if any party in the case or action has directed the Doctor (Lucking) to submit the

report on Defendant [1] without her consent, as well as, give directions to interfere with this

evaluation. The Defendant [1] would request that the court obtain the Doctors business or private

phone records or e-mails (through the Doctors phone or e-mail server) to understand if these

phone or e-mail communications was more than a call to find out when the evaluation would be

complete, or identify any other ex parte communication which would prejudice this case, in

which would not be approved.

THEREFORE for all the reasons as stated above, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors,

acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Motion to Strike the United States Motion for Supplemental

Report in its entirety, pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(f).

Respectfully submitted,

Carrie Neighb
bC +=, l;
Defendant {l J / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Motion to Strike Governments Motion for Supp]ementa] Report Page 6


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 151 Filed 06/24/10 Page 7 of 7

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
Defondant [2] counsel o/record
142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061

Marietta Parker
Terra Morehead
U.S. Attorneys
500 State Ave.
Suite 360
Kansas City, KS 66101

On this 24th day of June 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

-·~/4,
Carrie Neig ors
Defondant {1] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Motion to Strike Governments Motion for Supplemental Report Page 7