Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 12

Carrie Neighbors
",' if i" ," ~'·t
Hi")
I-
t: •. 3?...•
Defendant [1] / 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

07-20t24-CM
08-20tOS-eM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDNAT HI'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO

THE DEFENDANT [lJ'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES

COMES NOW on this &th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,

is filing a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses.

The Reply is as follows:

1.) In,-r 1, The Plaintiff states that "defendant's motion is without merit and should be

denied in its entirety because rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings. However

Defendant [1] asserts that the Plaintiffs reliance on that claim is misplaced." When in actuality

the Defendant [1] can show that the Plaintiffs is both intentionally misleading, as well as,

inaccurate in her statement before the court.

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 1

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 12

a). See Ref: The Fifth Circuit has held rule 408 applies in both civil and criminal

proceedings. See United States v. Hays, 872 F2d 582,588-89 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that

Rule 408 applies in a criminal proceeding as well as a civil proceeding to bar The Fourth

Circuit and the D.C. Circuit evidence of a settlement agreement) suggested in dicta that

Rule 408 may apply in a criminal proceeding.

b). See also: United States v. Skeddle, 176 FR.D. 254, 256 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (disagreeing

with government's argument that Rule 408 does not apply in criminal proceedings, noting that

H[n]othing in Rule 408 limits its application to civil litigation that was preceded by or included

settlement negotiations'') and State v. Gano, 92 Hawai'i 161, 988 P.2d 1153, 1159-60

(Haw.1999) (discussing cases and concluding that "Rule 408 does apply in criminal

proceedings '').

2). Also note for the record, that the plaintiff has also intentionally left out 408 (b), in

which states, "Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for

purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a) Examples of permissible purposes include proving a

witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to

obstruct a criminal investigation." In which is so in this cause of action, whereby, this would not

only disprove the Plaintiffs theory but assist the Defendant [1] in her ability to use Rule 408.

a). The Government also states: "Clearly Rule 408 does not bar evidence of offers of

leniency in exchange for truthful testimony or substantial assistance within the meaning of

USSG § 5K1.1", in which states: "The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court

for reasons stated that may include ... the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any

information or testimony provided by the defendant. "Id. at § 5K1.1 (a),(2).

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 2

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 12

Defendant [1] asserts that the provision of this law authorizes only that substantial

assistance can be rewarded after it is rendered; It in no way authorizes the government to make a

deal for testimony before it is given, as the Government has clearly done in this

case. Consequently this statute cannot justify the government's deals with the witnesses in this

case before the court.

3.) The Government claim's is that "No practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice

system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime for

which the defendant is charged and having that witness ..... testify under a plea bargain that

promises him a reduced sentence." Once again the plaintiff had intentionally left out the rest of

United States v. Singleton, 165 F. 3d 1297, 1301 (1oth Or. 1999) in which states, "This ingrained

practice of buying testimony indicates that suppression is necessary to compel respect for the

statutory protections Congress has placed around testimony infederal courts. Exclusion is also

necessary to remove the incentive to disregard the statute. See [Calandra, 414 Us. at 347

(quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 Us. 206, 217 (1960) (quoting US v. Singleton)]. "The

benefits of deterrence outweigh the evil of excluding relevant evidence, and the balance falls

heavily infavor of suppression".

a.) The Government goes on to say that "Furthermore the weighing of evidence, the

reconciliation of inconsistent testimony, and the assessment of a witness' credibility is solely

within the province ofthe jury."

b.) The Government claims that defendants motion provides no grounds for the exclusion

of witness testimony and that the credibility to be accorded to any of the witnesses in these cases

is clearly with the sole province of the jury and the defendants request for pretrial exclusion of

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 3

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 12

evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the Government and the witnesses

have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in fact or in law.

The Defendant [1] disagrees, see ref: "The promise of intangible benefits imports as great a

threat to a witness's truthfulness as a cash payment. " See [United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco,

826 F 2d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 1987)] (lilt is difficult to imagine a greater motivation to lie than the

inducement of a reduced sentence .... "), cert. denied, 484 u.s. 1026 (1988); Schwartz, 785 F2d

at 680 ("A violation of trust which is influenced by the offer of an intangible service is no less

damaging ... than if the influence was in the form of a cash kickback. "); United States v.

Meinster, 619 F2d 1041, 1045 (4th Cir. 1980) ("We think it obvious that promises of immunity

or leniency premised on cooperation in a particular case may provide a strong inducement to

falsify in that case. "); see also United States v. Kimble, 719 F2d 1253, 1255-57 (5th Cir. 1983)

(stating witness "admitted lying in over thirty different statements motivated by his sense of self-

preservation" under plea arrangement requiring his testimony in return for lenient sentence),

cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1073 (1984).

4.) Government claims that several cooperating witnesses and an undercover police officer

are expected to testify that they informed the defendant that the items that they were offering to

sell defendant were stolen.

The Defendant [1] asserts that the items sold by the undercover officer were indeed not

stolen. Nor did the Officer state that his items were "stolen Property." Defendant is prepared to

show proof to the court that indeed the Defendant did directly question the undercover officer

about whether the items were stolen, and that parts of the conversation that would be exculpatory

for the Defendant have been edited from the Audio of the video. Tainted testimony as to

any direct conversations between defendant [1] and non-credible witnesses bribed by the

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 4

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 12

Government should be inadmissible as hearsay and has no place before ajury. The district court

must at least make preliminary factual findings on the record regarding the admissibility of the

statements. See United States v. Perez, 989 F2d 1574,1580 (lOth Cir. 1993) (en bane).

5.) The Government states that the issue ofthe credibility to be accorded to any of the

witnesses in these cases is clearly within the sole province of the jury and the defendant's request

for pretrial exclusion of evidence on the ground that the agreements made between the

government and the witnesses have rendered their testimony unreliable is without foundation in

fact or law.

a). The Defendant [1] states that the witnesses in this case before this court clearly fall

within the "Exclusionary Rule." "The principal reason behind the adoption of the

exclusionary rule was the Government's failure to observe its own laws. " United States v.

Russell, 411 Us. 423, 430 (1973) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 Us. 643, 659 (1961)). The

exclusionary rule has been applied to constitutional, statutory, and procedural rule

violations to deter unlawful conduct. See United States v. Blue, 384 Us. 251, 255 (l966).

b). If the Governments Assistant U.S. Attorneys were to be allowed to present tainted

witnesses before a Federal Jury the U.S. Attorneys would clearly be in violation of Kansas

Professional Rule 3.4(b). Because clearly the promise ofleniency, years of freedom after a

Federal conviction and sentencing, or not having serious charges added to an indictment are all

an incentive to lie. The rule, adopted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, provides, "A lawyer shall

not ... offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law." Kansas Rule of Professional

Conduct 3.4(b) (1997). This court must exclude any and all of the witnesses, due to the fact they

have been tainted, in this case before this court, because clearly their testimony would be

unreliable. Agreements to seek leniency, allow freedom after bond violations and Federal crime

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 5

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 6 of 12

conviction, or refrain from filing charges in return for testimony are entered into with the

intention of presenting to a court the testimony so acquired. Excluding that tainted testimony

removes the sole purpose of the unlawful conduct and leaves no incentive to violate § 201 ©(2).

Cf. id. See Ref: USA v. Singleton (lOth cir. 1999) Courts will not be made party to lawlessness

by permitting unhindered use of the fruits of illegality. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 u.s. 1, 12-13

(1968); Mapp, 367 u.s. at 660."But we have found no case in which prosecutors, in their role as

lawyers representing the government after the initiation of criminal proceedings, have been

granted a justification to violate generally applicable laws. " See United States v. Ryans, 903 F

2d 731, 739-40 (10th Cir.) (Holding that disciplinary rule applies to prosecutors upon

commencement of criminal proceedings), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855 (1990).

c.) The United states submits that the Government will be able to establish the defendant's

"habitual pattern" of purchasing new, in the box items from regular customers at prices far below

retail, allowing the reasonable inference to be drawn by the fact-finders that the defendant knew

or should have known that the items she was buying were stolen had she not deliberately closed

her eyes to what would otherwise have been obvious to her.

d). The Government has presented no evidence to substantiate the claim that Defendant

[1] had any knowledge that any of the items were stolen. Nor can a witness testify as to the state

of mind of Defendant [1]. As most of the witnesses did not even know Defendants [1]'s name.

The Government has already stated that the newer or new items brought in by sellers were

purchased by the Defendant [1] at 50-80% of the retail value, (which is nowhere near "far below

retail.)" All items purchased by the business were paid for by check. There is no evidence to

establish the items were stolen, or that the Defendant would have knowledge of such, there were

no theft reports or victims on file with the Lawrence Police Dept. connected to Defendant [1] or

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 6

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 7 of 12

[2] or the Business; Yellow House Quality Used Appliances Incorporated, at the time of the first

search warrants.

6.) The Defendant [1] however argues the Government has overstepped its bounds, and

made a mockery of what Congress had intended when allowing for testimony under plea deals.

See witness interrogation; (Parsons Video interrogation interviews, (Video 01)(R -1) Thurs.

Oct. 12, 2006) And Parsons Interview 01(Camera 1) Thurs Oct. 19,2006.)) This witness is a

convicted felon caught in possession of3 firearms, sold an AK-47 Assault rifle, Narcotics and

stolen property to an undercover officer and was not charged for the crimes in exchange for his

agreement to testify that he conspired to conceal the conspiracy in the property case against

Defendant [1]. To meet the ends of Justice for his promised testimony Mr. Parsons along with

other witnesses have pled guilty to Federal crimes, have already been sentenced to Federal

Prison, yet remain free, and have continued to flaunt the law with criminal acts while free on

bond as payment for their promised testimony. Our Government is like the King. It demands

respect from the people beneath it, it teaches people by its own example. If our

Government condones people to break laws, then its people will have no respect for its law. To

declare that in the administration of the criminal law "the end justifies the means" would mean

this Court condones that this Government allows criminal acts in order to secure the conviction

of a criminal would be a Perversion of everything our Forefathers stood for and our Country's

soldiers have died for.

Reply on the Footnote #2:

Footnote 2) The Government states that the defendant's claim that the government has "offered

money to its witnesses to manufacture a case" (doc. 227 at P 5) is incorrect. The Defendant

asserts that this is an attempt by the Government to mislead the court. The Defendant [1] has

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 7

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 8 of 12

been informed by a number of witnesses that money was offered to them by the Government in

exchange for their participation in the manufacturing of this case. [See ref Attach 1]

a).Laura claims in her affidavit that someone within the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered

her money to assist in the manufacturing of this case, in which is in violation ofFRE § 609 (a)

(1) & (2), as well as, FRE Rule 408 (b) .

. "We must balance the good of preventing future unlawful conduct with the evil of

disallowing relevant evidence of guilt in an individual case". See United States v. Duchi,

944 F 2d, 391, 396 (8th Or. 1991).

b). "To permit this unlawfully obtained evidence "to be made the basis of a conviction in

the federal courts would stultify the policy which Congress has enacted into law." United

States v. Mitchell, 322 Us. 65, 67 (1944) (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 Us. 332,

345 (1943).

Whereby the Defendant [1] is correct in her Motion to Exclude Witnesses, in which need

to be either suppressed or excluded. [See ref Attachment 1- Affidavit of Laura Helm dated

04/22/06] The Defendant [1] has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses should be

excluded due to the Plaintiffs intentional misrepresentation before this tribunal.

THEREFORE the Defendant [1] is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the

Defendant [l]'s Motion to Exclude Witnesses. Wherefore for all the reasons set forth in the

above referenced Reply, the Defendant [1] respectfully requests that the court deny the

Governments response and exclude all witnesses pursuant to FRE § 609 (a) (I) & (2), as well as,

FRE Rule 408 (b).

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 8

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 9 of 12

Respectfully submitted,

ca~~-
Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 9

Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 10 of 12

/
WOOD INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, INC.

:"FFIDA VIT

1. Laura Helm. oflawful age. being fully sworn upon oath, states;

That. in early March 2006. I was contacted by two men while I was staying at my
brother's fRay Mayberry'} residence Ioested at 2200 Harper. C-44 Lawrence. Ks, I am
unsure of the date. but I do recall it was several weeksago and it was during the week. (
believe. but 1 am not certain. that the date these two men contacted and interviewed me
was March 6. !006 between 9:00 a.m .• 10:00 a.m.

Th;ll. these two men. approached my residence and asked (0 speak with me. 1can
best describe the first man as a w/m. 5'05". a little belly and short spiky blonde hair.
This man did most of the talking during our contact. He said his name. which ( do not
recall. and 'laid Ihey worked with the "Federal Bureau of Investigation." He did not say
'. 3\ .1f\1~he ~tlid ,n.: entire bureau name, The second rnan was a w/m. short dark hair.
0'0" and a bigger build than the first man. The second man did Dot say much. The
second man did tell me I was not in trouble. but Guy and Carrie Neighbors were. Both
men were similarty dressed in slacks and shins. They both wore a badge on their belts
and had guns in holsters made of light color leather that was also worn on their waist.

Ther, the first man told me r "had to talk to them." I asked him ifit "had to be
today:' He said it did not have to be today and they agreed \0 come back the following
dav These ,\m,"e~ retuned th.: ~le}(l ,iay imJ pick c"j me up in 'I ·jark Hue '1 'v !~r.'~'
vemcle. ~Jtd not want ttl go with them. but feit trom the way they were acting that ( did
not have ~I choice. They drove me to the Lawrence Police Department at 11,h and
Massachusetts Street. Lawrence, KS, We went inside the building through an outside
door. , n't'all the men entering in a :J15S code to the interior dOM that allowed us inside
the police JepilClTTlCnl. '"Ye went into an interview room where both men talked to me.
Thev ques(loned me about irerns I haLl sold to the Yellow House in the past. Thev told
me ;hey okained my nome through checks that were written by the Yellow House .•

That, after th~;' questioned me for an hour to an hour and a half. they then drove
me back to my house. During the drive home they gave me a business card with gold
lettering on it. I have misplaced that ':8«1. They (old me (0 call if I decided to work for
them on the Yellow House case. They offered me $50.00 for each time I would be
willing to attempt t? se]1 stolen items to the Yellow House,

1.
 Untitled
Page 20 of 20

•
I.
II
~'''-.

lbIt. I did ooi' r.t ~ J hid • cboiee m dill wIIh"._ IICIIIlld io 10 fD

me __ ~ •• or 1 \YOWd ba'IC •••• iD wubIe.

Tbtt. bec8U~ I em "" probMil'l).I COQUlacd my p~ QtHc;:c. 'liqrtey EddiiL .

i.-.ti_«'
•••• flU Q)IlIICt.fIO ~ h&il •••••• 0GCUhd. H. 10Id AIr _ I ooaW •• be
IaYolwd il\.1IN ~ wot'k. f'!lf' dw ~ice if I ••• to ••• 10 tiJr.t ~ order. I
aeVIi'.., l1IIy or wo~ .• ida lilt poIioe and IOId 1blIiD11WMIld ••. .

11-. i.,,,,l blVc ••• IbeIe -iMt\ before •• I believe ~ •• Lawn=oce

Police ()fflcas._ IIlltfirdmlliJp:t1tl. The:first m«n cl_I~' idendtwctbimseir. ~
"r .:J.:rol! Uun:.w .If In,cl$UpllQD.··

I'
AnJAH17 SAYS NOT ;! t
t· c"\ Ll \0 •..•.• 1-.: ,.. 4

r>.

10l1f2008
http://docs.google.comIView?dooID=dgpt'72qd- 497~ jatalt
<1'~'b~+-\
 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 172 Filed 07/06/10 Page 12 of 12
..

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] counsel of record
142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061

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

On this6th day of July 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

c.~e~~·
Defendant [l} / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Reply to Governments Response to Defendant [1] Motion to Exclude Witnesses Page 10