BACKGROUND

In response to Guy and Carrie Neighbors in March 2006 by way of their

counsel; Defense Attorney Sarah Swain, turning in a formal complaint to
LKPD Internal Affairs Sgt. Dan Ward that Lawrence Kansas Police officers
Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz were posing as FBI agents and Indicating to
witnesses that FBI Agents were involved in the Yellow House case as a
means of coercion intimidating witnesses during the Investigation of the
Yellow House case.
In response to the complaints On April 20, 2006 LKPD Chief Ronald Olin
wrote to Ms. Swain that quote “I believe Sergeant Mike Pattrick from this
department as well as Special Agent Bob Shaefer with the FBI has spoken
with you in person about these very issues” end quote.
Kansas City Special Agent Bob Shaefer testified under oath in Federal Court
during a hearing August 11th, 2008 before Judge O‘Hara. That his actual
name is Walter Robert Schaefer, and his jurisdiction is the Western District
of Missouri. He did not have a file for the investigation, nor did he interview
anyone in connection to the complaints. Mr. Schaefer also testified he did
not view any of the affidavits in connection with Guy and Carrie Neighbors
complaints.
In June of 2008, A representative from the Kansas City FBI verified that the
Kansas City FBI does not have jurisdiction over Lawrence Kansas and does
not do investigations into complaints of police misconduct from Lawrence
Kansas. Special Agent Scott Gentine and Agent Denton Murray from the
Topeka FBI verified they are the resident agency of the FBI with jurisdiction
over Lawrence Kansas. Special Agent Scott Gentine also verified that the
U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker who was actively Prosecuting the case, had
Sent down Special Agent Bob Schaefer to investigate the Neighbors
complaints.

To insure the impartiality of the Courts, it is a conflict of interest for a

Prosecutor to be involved in the investigations involving the case outside the
court room of misconduct involving “color of law violations” directly
involved with the investigation of the case she is prosecuting.

Because it is a crime for a Police officer to impersonate an FBI agent and

would constitute coercion, a constitutional violation of Fifth and fourteenth
Amendment rights in violation 42. U.S.C. § 1983
. Therefore all evidence derived from the Investigation thereafter would
be an extension of the exclusionary rule and inadmissible “Fruits from
the Poisonous tree” Including all search warrants. Silverthorne Lumber
Co. v United States.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Investigation by the Lawrence Kansas Police Department into the Business
Yellow House Store Incorporated began in December in 2005.

During a pre-indictment hearing at the Kansas Department of Justice U.S.

Assistant Attorney Marietta Parker accused the Neighbors of bringing this on

ourselves when they filed complaints accusing the officers of posing as

FBI agents. She told them the investigation had cost a lot of money and

therefore she was going to forfeit the Yellow House building regardless

of the outcome of any plea agreements reached by both parties.

In August 2006, the Neighbors at the request of AUSA Marietta Parker

and through the advice of counsel agreed to a Proffer. In exchange for
the proffer the Prosecutor indicated the drug and gun charge would not
be prosecuted in Federal Court and would be referred back to the State
for prosecution as a misdemeanor. And depending on the level of
cooperation; there would also be considerations made in the other case
at sentencing.
In November 2006 the Neighbors turned in a formal complaint to
LKPD Internal Affairs that Officer Jay Bialek and Micky Rantz had
violated their rights and the Officers had violated the proffer agreement
by entering their business and attempting to question them without
their attorney present, and that the officers had violated the chain of
evidence rule by returning a Sony digital camera that had been seized
during a search warrant and never logged into the evidence custodian.

In response to Guy and Carrie Neighbors exercising their Constitutional

right to regress the Government through complaints, the AUSA
Marietta Parker informed Carrie Neighbors attorney Aaron McKee
that she intended to file an Indictment immediately against the
Neighbors in Federal Court for the drugs and guns. James George Guys
attorney unaware of this development contacted Guy and informed him
the Government was happy with his cooperation.

On December 7, 2006 AUSA’s Marietta Parker and Terra Morehead

followed through with the threat and had the Neighbors strong armed
arrested in their home, instead of allowing them by way of counsel to
turn themselves in. USA v. Neighbors case 06-20171-01/02-CM1 JPO.
Charged with being “unlawful users with firearms. The Neighbors were
taken into custody at 8am and held nearly 8 hours before being given
anything to eat. When defense attorney James George questioned AUSA
Terra Morehead about the harsh treatment of his clients, her response
was quote “The Neighbors needed to be shown who was boss.” end
quote.
It would have been constitutionally challenging for a federal court to convict
the Neighbors of being an unlawful user in violation of 18 U.S.C. &
922(g)(3). Case USA v. Neighbors 06-20171-01/02-CM1 JPO. Based
upon the constitutionality of the definition.
A conviction would be a violation of due process because the definition of
"unlawful user is too vague to supply the defendants with adequate notice
that their conduct was prohibited. United States v. Cooper, 173 F.3d 1192,
1202 (9th Cir. 1999).
Specifically noted, In determination of the definition of the term "unlawful
user" should be supported by "the statutory history," Which indicated that §
922 was enacted "to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally
entitled to possess them because of ...their criminal background" Id. at 1365-
66. Specifically, it is noted that § 922 explicitly included unlawful drug users
as an individual having a "criminal background".
Both defendants having had no criminal background, or drug histories would
not fall under the vague definition of "unlawful user".

With indictment under District Court for the District of Kansas case number
06-2071-01/02-CM/JPO. Initiated in conjunction with misuse of the legal
process, in retaliation for the defendants filing a complaint alleging police
misconduct, violations of the chain of custody rule, and sending out E-mails
and public internet postings along with blog sites, All fall within an exercise
of The First Amendment assuring the Fundamental Right to Free Speech.
Making the circumstances of the indictment and arrest a case of
Prosecutorial Misconduct. The fact both defendants were denied
food while being held in a cell for 8 hours December 8th, 2006.
Clearly was an act of retaliation by the prosecution, and a violation
of Guy and Carrie Neighbors protected Fourteenth Amendment
constitutional and civil rights. In violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Forbidding “cruel and unusual punishments" clearly
this shows "deliberate indifference" by the responsible officials.
Attorney Jim George was informed by prosecution team member Terra
Moorehead that the arrest and Indictment was handled in this cruel manner
to quote “Show Guy and Carrie Neighbors who is boss”. (Clearly this
establishes retaliation and Malice by the prosecution.) Genito v. Rabinowitz,
92 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1966).

Guy and Carrie Neighbors were first indicted with being users of a
controlled substance in possession of firearms on December 7, 2006,
in a prior case in this court, United States v. Neighbors, Case No. 06-
20171-CM. After substantial time on the speedy trial clock had run,
the government filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in that case
on May 4, 2007, based on additional evidence that the government
argued it had discovered during an ongoing investigation. The
Honorable Carlos Murguia, United States District Judge, granted the
government’s motion and dismissed the first indictment without
prejudice.
On June 20, 2007, the government re-indicted Mr. and Mrs.
Neighbors. The second indictment included the same charge as the
first indictment (as Count 2) as well as additional charges of
conspiring to manufacture marijuana and two counts of knowingly
and intentionally manufacturing marijuana.
The second indictment was filed absent of any new incidents or
additional evidence. On September 11, 2007, counsel for Ms.
Neighbors filed a motion to dismiss Count 2 (doc. #24) in which Mr.
Neighbors subsequently joined (doc. #28) based on a violation of the
Speedy Trial Act. This court granted the motion but reserved the
determination of whether to dismiss Count 2 with or without
prejudice until after an evidentiary hearing. That hearing was held on
November 27, 2007.
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 36 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 4 of 22
On June 25, 2007, defendants were rearrested at their home and a
search incident absent of a search warrant to arrest was performed.
They were not given the option to self surrender, and the government
pointed out they were not treated any differently than any other
defendants. Mr. Neighbors was taken under arrest on the first floor of
the house while two female officers went upstairs and, after watching
Ms. Neighbors dress, handcuffed her and placed her under arrest.
They were taken in police vehicles to court that day and counsel was
appointed for them. They were held in custody for about four to six
hours. Mr. Neighbors testified that no one asked him about his
former counsel, James George, and he was not allowed to call Mr.
George. The court originally appointed Alex McCauley to represent
him. Mr. McCauley subsequently withdrew from the case due to a
conflict of interest because he had formerly represented an informant
in this case. Prior to his withdrawal from the case Mr. McCauley spent
approximately 4 hours in his office going over the prosecutions
discovery with Mr. Neighbors, During the meeting Mr. McCauley
highlighted and took notes on the discovery. Before contacting his
client Mr. Neighbors, Mr. McCauley filed a motion to stop the speedy
trial clock without notifying his client Guy Neighbors, or Phil Gibson
Carrie Neighbors attorney, then withdrew from the case and turned
over the discovery along with the notes and highlights back to the
Prosecutor. The documents in the discovery given to Mr. Neighbor’s
new attorney Dionne Sheriff did not match the documents that Mr.
Neighbors had gone over with his former attorney Mr. McCauley.

Vindictive prosecution” occurs when a prosecutor brings additional charges solely to

punish the defendant for exercising a constitutional or statutory right, such as a
defendant’s right to a jury trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6 U.S. v. VanDoren, 182 F.3d
1077.

Feb 27, 2008 Marietta Parker files a Superseding Indictment USA v.

Neighbors 07-cr-20124-CM-JPO without any new incidents, in response to
moot a motion by defendants attorney Phil Gibson to remove a Lis Pendens
against the Neighbors home at 1104 Andover, and the Business Property at
1904 Massachusetts in violation of the 10th circuit courts statutes.

1.Because there have been no guilty pleas, or convictions as required by the

10th circuit court for lis pendens or forfeitures, the actions of the
Government have placed "punishment" upon the defendants in connection
with the forfeiture and lis pendens actions.

According to Kansas law, a forfeiture proceeding under K.S.A. 65-4171 is

civil in nature, and the statutory scheme is not so punitive as to negate
legislative intention to establish a civil remedial mechanism. However the
Prosecutor Marietta Parker in this case, against Kansas statutes, has used the
forfeiture proceeding as a form of punishment.

The lis pendins placed against the defendant’s property, absent of the
required notification of the lis pendens within 60 days of the filing and in
violation of the "10th circuit court statutes" has placed a heavy burden upon
the defendants, has interfered with the sale of the property, and has
prejudiced the defense by creating a tremendous financial burden upon the
defendants.

The government’s response to the defendant’s motion to remove the lis

pendens was to file a superseding indictment including another forfeiture
allegation against the same property; just two days after the defendants filed
the motion to release the lis pendens. Creating more prejudice and
punishments upon the defendants.

The actions by the Government in this case have amounted to a penalty

associated to a pending case without a plea or conviction in place.

There is a question of law, where this court's review is unlimited. See

Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663, 668, 722 P.2d 1093
(1986).
The Neighbors have been subjected to "multiple punishments" for the same
alleged offense in this case. See State v. Cady, 254 Kan. 393, 396, 867 P.2d
270 (1994) (citing Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187, 97
S. Ct. 2221 [1977]).
The United States Supreme Court consolidated two United States Court of
Appeals cases from the Ninth and Sixth Circuits.
Both circuits held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the
government from both punishing the defendant for a criminal offense and
forfeiting defendant's property for the same offense in a separate civil action.
(As is what has taken place here in this case)

When a forfeiture proceeding against property is proceeded against before a

person is held guilty and condemned, and therefore causes hardship,
"punishment" and prejudice against that person, then it does constitute a
civil action against that person as a 'punishment."
The Fifth Amendment clearly states that forfeiture cannot be used as
punishment for the criminal offense.282 U.S. at 581.
When the Government places actions against the defendants of cruel and
unusual punishment during an arrest, then clearly the defendant has been
pre-punished for a pending crime, and therefore any punishments placed
upon the defendants in the future for the same alleged crime would
constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant.

The prosecutor Marietta Parker has knowingly presented the courts with
false information, hearsay evidence by convicted felons in exchange for a
deal was presented before a Grand Jury in USA v. Neighbors 07-cr-20124-
cm-JPO

It was established through an earlier evidence hearing before the Honorable

Federal Judge John Lungstrum that testimony by Patrick Nieder before the
Grand Jury was egregious and riddled with false accusations. The perjured
testimony presented to the Grand Jury should have rendered the original
indictment itself not constitutionally valid. To be constitutionally valid, an
indictment “must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of
the offense endeavored to be charged.” State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 327, 77
S.E.2d 917, 919 (1953).

The purpose of the evidence presented before a Grand Jury is to determine if

a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as adequate and
sufficient to support the conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Parr, supra at 463-64; see also, United States v. Goss,
650 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (5th Cir. 1981).
To comport with our Criminal Procedure Act, an indictment must “assert
facts supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant's
commission thereof with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defendant
. . . of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §
15A-924(a)(5)(2006).
------------------------------------------------------
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1976) provides:
Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency
of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up
by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious
or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false
writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

-------------------------------------------------------
Giving testimony to the grand jury that was "patently false and misleading in
material respects and undoubtedly led to the erroneous indictment

The use of false and perjured testimony cannot be reasonably explained or

justified, and the use of such evidence is an affront to our justice system and
a deprivation of the most basic and inalienable rights due each of us!

Defendants Carrie and Guy Neighbors therefore move, pursuant to Rule 12

of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Court should dismiss the
indictment due to the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or
recklessly presenting false, misleading, and material testimony before the
grand jury.

As stated previously, the Government has failed to investigate and indicted

this case by making deals and failing to responsibly and carefully examine
each individual’s actions and each individual’s words.

While the law of conspiracy may be broad in scope, its breadth is not
limitless, and the Government must show each individual’s willful and
knowing involvement in an unlawful agreement with convincing, reliable
and honest evidence beyond mere hearsay and speculation.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that prosecutorial

misconduct can
justify the dismissal of an indictment “‘if it is established that the violation
substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict,’ or if there is
‘grave doubt’ that the decision to indict was free from the substantial
influence of such violations.”
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United
States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 2374 (1988) (quoting United
States v. Mechanik, 475
U.S. 66, 78, 106 S. Ct. 928, 945-46 (1986)).5 See also United States v.
Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46
& n.6, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 1741 & n.6 (1992)
(district court’s supervisory power can be used to dismiss indictment
because of misconduct before grand jury, at least where that misconduct
amounts to violation of one of those few, clear rules which were
promulgated by Supreme Court and Congress to ensure integrity of grand
jury’s functions, such as prohibitions against false declarations before grand
jury and subornation of perjury)

(citing, inter alia, Bank of Nova

Scotia); United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2000)

(“An indictment cannot be based on perjured testimony, and the government

may not use perjured testimony at trial if there is a reasonable chance that it
would affect the jury’s judgment[.]”) (citations omitted).
The Court should in the name of Justice and respect for the integrity of the
courts and Justice system as a whole dismiss the Indictments based on the
government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false
and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Guy and Carrie Neighbors arrested 8-8-08 for “Obstruction of Justice,” by

Postal Inspector David Nitz because Guy Neighbors informed KU Detective
Mike Riner that he needed his attorney present before making any
statements or turning over any paperwork in connection to an investigation
which Mr. Neighbors and his wife were fully cooperating with. This arrest
ended up with the Neighbors spending 12 days incarcerated at Leavenworth
Maximum security detention Prison.

During a detention hearing Aug. 11th , It was established that the PMB
“mail box” used by the defendants in connection with the Ebay site
was in the defendants true name and also included the names of the
other people who would be receiving mail there as required by law.
The hearing also established the shared bank account the defendant
used in connection with the eBay site also had the defendants name as
a signer on the account since 2006.

Evidence was also presented to the courts to show that Robert

Samples the seller of the Laptop had indeed signed the sellers form
and the information on the sellers form including the number of
laptops sold that day and the amount of $1,000 matched the
information Mr. Samples had given the investigating officer. The
investigating officer also stated under oath that Mr Samples had stated
to the detective that the Neighbors did not know the laptop was stolen
when they purchased it from him. Therefore the Government failed to
present any evidence of wrong doing or fraudulent activity by the
Neighbors. On Aug 18th, after spending 12 days in prison the
Neighbors were released from Federal custody and the case was closed
- Terminated 08-19-08.

On 08-20-08 Based on the August 8th, arrest, a One count

INDICTMENT In Federal Court is filed against the Neighbors by the
Governments Prosecutor Terra Morehead.

United States Of America vs. Guy & Carrie Neighbors case no.08-
20105-cm-jpO for violation of Title 18 section 1343 for wire fraud and
Title 18, sections 1512 (c) and 2. Even though no evidence of fraud
could be provided by the Government during the Aug. 11 hearing.

LEGAL STANDARDS
.
To punish a person because he has done what the law
plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the
most
basic sort.. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363
(1978).
Although a prosecutor has broad discretion in his charging
decisions, there are two important limitations on this
authority. First, a prosecutor may not bring charges with a
vindictive motive, since ..penalizing those who choose to
exercise. constitutional rights, .would be patently
unconstitutional... North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711,
724
(1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith,
490 U.S.
794 (1989) (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570,
581
(1968)); see Guam v. Fegurgur, 800 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir.
1986). Nor may a prosecutor selectively enforce the law
based
on race, religion or some other arbitrary classification,
including the exercise of rights under the First Amendment.
Guam, 800 F.2d at 1473; United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965
F.2d
Though similar, vindictive prosecution and 1 selective
prosecution
are distinct claims governed by different legal standards.
See United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1112 (9th
Cir. 1987). A motion to dismiss on grounds of selective
prosecution is filed herewith.
848, 849 (10th Cir. 1992).1
No evidence of actual bad faith is necessary to establish the
Claim of Prosecutorial Vindictiveness. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21,
28 (1974); United States v. Groves, 571 F.2d 450, 454 n.1 (9th Cir.
1978); United
States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977); see also
United States v. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d 1367, 1369 (9th Cir.
1976) (.the mere appearance of vindictiveness is enough to place
the burden on the prosecution.) .

Once the defendant shows that charges have been increased

after they
have exercised a constitutional or statutory right, the
defendant
has demonstrated an .appearance of vindictiveness. on the
part
of the prosecutor. United States v. Shaw, 655 F.2d 168, 171
(9th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Groves, 571 F.2d at
453). With this prima facie showing, or other evidence of .a
realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. Vindictiveness is
presumed and the burden shifts to the government to prove
that
the increase in the severity of the charge was not based on a
vindictive motive. See United States v. Spiesz, 689 F.2d
1326,
1328 (9th Cir. 1982); Shaw, 655 F.2d at 171; United States v.
Burt, 619 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Ruesga-
Martinez, 534 F.2d at 1369 (when prosecution reindicts
the accused after he exercises a procedural right, the
prosecution
.bears a heavy burden of proving that any increase in the
severity of the alleged charges was not motivated by a
vindictive motive.). .
An indictment must be dismissed if
there is a finding of .actual. vindictiveness, or if there is a
presumption of vindictiveness that has not been rebutted by
objective evidence justifying the prosecutor’s action,. The
Indictment must be dismissed. United States v. Johnson, 171
F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curium); see Spiesz, 689
F.2d
at 1328.
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT BECAUSE THIS
PROSECUTION IS VINDICTIVE

This case involves all forms of prosecutorial vindictiveness

condemned by the courts.
First, as the prosecutor’s own
words reveal, this ongoing prosecution of Guy and Carrie
Neighbors is
motivated by vindictiveness against the Neighbors for their
continued exercise
of First Amendment rights. The Prosecutor has freely
admitted that the Neighbors have brought this on
themselves because of their continued complaints against
the Government. Their public blogging which during a
hearing in front of the Honorable Judge Murguia, Terra
Morehead had an emotional mental breakdown and pleaded
with the Judge to gag the Neighbors because their public
blogging had caused her cases to be under investigation 5
years back. It is the right of these defendants to be tried by
an impartial prosecutor by a jury of their peers. This cannot
possibly be accomplished with the current prosecutors
handling this case.
As it was decided earlier by this court the defendants had a
right to speak freely about the prosecution of their case.
Piling on additional charges and Indictments against a
defendant for exercising this right constitutes a paradigmatic
example of vindictive prosecution. Cf. United States v. P.H.E.,
Inc., 965 F.2d 848, 853 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that a
prosecution motivated by a desire to discourage expression
protected by the First Amendment is barred and must be
enjoined
or dismissed, irrespective of whether the challenged action
could possibly be found to be unlawful) (citations omitted);
United States v. Adams, 870 F.2d 1140, 1145 (6th Cir. 1989)

The broad discretion accorded prosecutors in deciding whom

to
prosecute is not .unfettered,. and a decision to prosecute
may
not be deliberately based upon the exercise of protected
statutory rights..) (citations omitted); Brooks v. United
States, 450 U.S. 927 (1981) stating that a court must
reconcile
the rule that a prosecutor has broad discretion to file charges
where there is probable cause with the rule that vindictive
conduct by prosecutors is unacceptable and requires
control);
see also City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462-63 (1987)
(.The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge
police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the
principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free
nation
from a police state..).

If there is any doubt from the prosecutor’s words or actions that

this prosecution is vindictive, the sequence of ongoing events since
2005 confirms this.

As in other cases where courts

have dismissed indictments due to prosecutorial vindictiveness,
the prosecutors have repeatedly responded more harshly and
vindictively in response to the Neighbors continued assertion of their
statutory rights.. See Groves, 571
F.2d at 453-54; DeMarco, 550 F.2d at 1227-28; see also Spiesz,
689 F.2d at 1328 (.A claim for vindictive prosecution arises
when the government increases the severity of alleged charges in
response to the exercise of constitutional or statutory rights..). The
result in this case ought not to be different.
As if the fact that the prosecutors have continuously retaliated with
harsh treatment, staged an FBI investigation, interfered with the
Defendants ability to make a living, and had the Neighbors repeatedly
arrested and subjected to searches while represented by counsel were
not enough, there is additional direct evidence that the prosecutors in
this case are continuing to be vindictive
against the defendants by filing yet a third Indictment based on an
arrest for Obstruction of Justice under a statute which the charges do
not fall under, based on a State investigation which should not have
merited Federal Charges, after a hearing August 11th, 2008 revealed
no evidence of wrong doing by the defendants .
In Wright v. United States, 732 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir. 1984), the court
established that a defendant has a constitutional right to a
.disinterred prosecutor. and that a prosecutor .is not disinterested
if she has, or is under the influence of others who
have, an axe to grind against the defendant. .... Id. at 1055.
The prosecutor here as acted as a .stalking horse against the
Neighbors
. and is in no way disinterested.

DEFENDANT NEIGHBORS IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION

TO THIS VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION CLAIM AND TO AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

although The Neighbors believe that the prosecutor’s behavior and

admissions
regarding the reasons for this prosecution and the new charges,
standing alone, requires that the Indictment be
dismissed, they respectfully request, in the alternative, for discovery
to be handed over for examination and to allow defendant to properly
prepare for trial and be able to actively participate in their own
defense, and an
evidentiary hearing on the vindictive prosecution claim. See
Adams, 870 F.2d at 1145-46 (holding that defendants were
entitled to discovery on their vindictive prosecution claim and
stating that .where there has been a prima facie showing of .a
realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,. it is incumbent upon
the district court to .conduct an evidentiary hearing where the
government’s explanations can be formally presented and
tested..) (quoting United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 453
(6th Cir. 1980) (en banc)). To be entitled to such discovery, a
defendant must come forward with .some evidence. of each of the
elements of the defense. See United States v. Armstrong, 517
U.S. 456, 465 (1996).
The Neighbors have done this and the discovery
They seek in particular all documentation of police reports, theft
reports in connection to any property that was seized during the
searches that had been reported stolen, witness statements, physical
evidence, documentation, video evidence and Grand Jury minutes, held
by the prosecutor and the Justice Department -- will bolster their
claims that they are being targeted for prosecution because of
prosecutorial vindictiveness. Cf. Adams, 870 F.2d at 1146 (.It
is hard to see, indeed, how the defendants could have gone much
farther than they did without the benefit of being able to see, copy or
investigate the discovery and evidence being used against them.

CONCLUSION

This case has gone on for nearly four years. It has entailed filing
charges, dismissing charges, refilling charges, having the same
charges dismissed again. Unwarranted searches, illegal forfeiture
allegations, false arrest, public false allegations against the
defendants, incarceration, violations of speedy trial law, and the
violations of basic Constitutional rights that should be afforded to
every American citizen including the Neighbors. This case has gone on
long enough and due to its vindictive nature the Neighbors respectfully
request the courts dismiss all pending Indictments with prejudice.

Dated October 20, 2008.

Respectfully submitted to the courts

By Defendants Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors
Pro-se