IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRIC OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. Plaintiff,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS Case No. 07-20124-01-02-

KHV/DJW

Defendant,

Notice of Motion Requesting a

Change of Venue and to Have

Both Prosecutors Recues

Themselves from Said Cases as

To Avoid the Appearance of

A Conflict of Interest.

Comes now Defendant Guy Neighbors pro-se, and asks the honorable
court to change the venue of all the cases UNITED STATES V. GUY
NEIGHBORS & CARRIE NEIGHBORS 20124-01-01, 07-20073-
01/02 jwl/djw, 08-20105 jwl/jpo, from the State of Kansas to the
State of Nebraska, and that the Prosecutors Marietta Parker and
Terra Morehead Recuse themselves from the cases on the grounds
that the Defendants cannot receive a fair trial or be tried by an
impartial prosecutor in the State of Kansas.

Wherefore the defendants pray that the courts will grant

this request in the interest of Justice, and the defendants would
respectfully ask the honorable court to court to consider the special
circumstances surrounding this case in that the prosecutor is now
acting District Attorney for the District of Kansas and the defendants
have filed motions claiming prosecutorial misconduct, have exhibits
from other defendants that will show a pattern of abuse and said
defendants have filed a complaint against the prosecutors under  42 
U.S.C. 1983 for Civil Rights Violations.

The prosecutor now has a vested interest in getting a conviction above and 

beyond the interest of Justice. The defendants pray the court will entertain 

this pro­ se motion as to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest that 

could prejudice the defendants. 

The 14th Amendment guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens to

due process and such rights require the scrutiny of the Court. If the
Court decides that it has the right to deny the defendants due process
by refusing to consider their pre- trial pro-se motions, then the Court
is failingto insure justice in this case. Alternatively if no change of
venue is granted, then the defendants ask for a dismissal of all
charges.

Because a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid

representation, the decision to allow such representation lies within
the sound discretion of the trial court. This case merits such a need
for pro-se motions because the Prosecutors control over the
defendant’s attorneys have caused prejudice upon the defendants in
this case.

Although many jurisdictions have refused to recognize a right of

counseled defendants to exercise their 6th Amendment right to lend
assistance of their counsel in their own defense, it is ultimately left to
the discretion of the trial court to determine whether such
participation is permitted (see, e.g., United States v Einfeldt, 138 F3d
373, 378 [8th Cir], cert denied 525 US 851; United States v Tutino,
883 F2d 1125, 1141 [2d Cir], cert denied 493 US 1081; United States v
LaChance, 817 F2d 1491, 1498 [11th Cir], cert denied 484 US 928;
United States v Mosely, 810 F2d 93, 97-98 [6th Cir], cert denied 484
US 841; United States v Halbert, 640 F2d 1000, 1009 [9th Cir]; State
v Frye, 224 Conn 253, 256, 617 A2d 1382, 1384-1385; State v Long,
216 NJ Super 269 275-276, 523 A2d 672, 675-676).

While there may be circumstances where the

unjustified refusal to entertain meritorious pro se
motions would constitute an abuse of discretion, that
circumstance does not apply when a defendants
Constitutional rights are jeopardized.
DEFENDANTS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD

The decision to allow hybrid representation implicates the trial

court's function in ensuring the orderly administration of the
proceedings and the special circumstances in this case. (see, People v
Mirenda, supra, 57 NY2d, at 266). As such, it is a matter committed
to the sound discretion and of the Trial Judge.

The defendants respectfully ask this court to change venue or dismiss

through this pro se complaint under oath alleging violations of civil
and Constitutional rights , conspiracy, direct conflict of interest,
and prosecutorial misconduct, and therefore the courts must read the
complaint's allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as
true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto,
405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972).
Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to
determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory."
onner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1975)
(quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974)).

There are fundamental rights of citizens to due process and such

rights require strict scrutiny of the Court.

The courts have assumed that the sixth amendment rights to

representation by counsel and to defense pro se are mutually
exclusive. Under the hybrid defense the defendant has the active
assistance of counsel but may also participate in his own defense as
co-counsel. A necessary tool to ensure justice when the defendant has
been prejudiced by the restrictions placed upon the defense by the
Prosecutors in the case.

The defendants are currently represented by competent counsel but

are forced to file motions pro-se because the Prosecutor has created
prejudicial limitations upon the defense attorneys, by violating the
defendants right to assist their attorneys in their own defense, and
controlling through limitations how the defense attorneys handle the
defense of their clients through the “contract to withhold discovery
from the defendants” This is a standard contract that the prosecutor
has forced the defense attorneys representing clients in cases she is
prosecuting to sign. All defense attorneys in USA v. Neighbors have
confirmed they were forced to sign this contract before accepting the
case. (see exhibit# 1 page 1 &2, a copy of Terra Moorhead’s illegal
contract to withhold discovery from defendant) in violation of Federal
Rules of Criminal procedure, rule 16, which clearly states the
defendant has rights to the discovery. At no time does Rule 16 say the
prosecutor has a right to force the defendant’s attorney to sign a
contract to withhold discovery from defendant, nor does this Federal
rule give the Prosecutor the right to only disclose the discovery to the
defendants attorney)

The Prosecutor has made it nearly impossible for the defendants to

assist in their own defense, by forcing the defense attorneys to sign a
contract that does not allow the defendants to view, copy, or obtain
the evidence that is being used against them. A clear violation of the
defendant’s rights.
Paid attorneys hired by the Neighbors have been threatened with
“Money Laundering” charges by the Federal prosecutors in an
attempt to control the defense. (see exhibits labeled money
laundering #2)

(Defense attorney Sarah Swain told the defendants the prosecutor

had threatened her with “Money Laundering” and therefore would
need all future payments to be made with credit cards. Defense
Attorney Aaron McKee was threatened with “Money Laundering” and
requested that the defendants set up a paypal account using someone
else’s name in order to pay him, then as shown in the exhibit even
placed the request for paypal on the bill. After the defendants accused
the Attorney of coercion with the prosecutor the payment option was
removed. See Exhibit #2 pg.2 )

This hybrid pro-se motion accommodates the fundamental values

underlying the sixth amendment and should be recognized as the
constitutionally compelled approach, for defendants implementing
“the right to assistance of counsel.”

BACKGROUND:
It is a matter of fact that the Prosecutor Marietta Parker has a direct
conflict of interest in Prosecuting this case and do to the fact she is
currently the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Kansas,
overseeing the DISTRICT OF KANSAS Department of Justices in
Topeka, Wichita, and Kansas City, and is currently in direct
control of overseeing over 100 attorneys.
The defendants cannot possibly be assured a fair, un-bias and
impartial prosecution and trial in the State of Kansas. The
disqualification of Government counsel is indeed a drastic measure "
Bullock v. Carver, 910 F. Supp. 551, 559 (D. Utah 1995) "where it is shown
that an Assistant United States Attorney is subject to a conflict of interest,
the proper remedy generally is to remove that individual from the case.
Crocker v. Durkin, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1284-85 (D. Kan. 2001).

During the course of the investigation starting in 2005 into the Yellow
House Business, the Defendants and their defense attorney along
with numerous witnesses turned in formal complaints alleging Police
misconduct, color of law violations, racial profiling, rules of evidence
handling violations, evidence storage violations, due process of law
violations, search violations, false arrest, forgery of legal
documentation, harassment and coercion of witnesses, along with the
allegation of an altered video being presented to the courts as
evidence, and several months of covert surveillance from the Fire
station across the street, absent of a court order. These complaints
inadvertently were sent to the Prosecutor, yet the Prosecution has
excluded all of this exculpatory evidence from the defendants
discovery files handed over to the defense attorneys in the case.

(In a direct conflict of interest) All these complaints were forwarded

by Internal Affairs Sgt. Dan Ward under the direction of Chief Ronald
Olin, to the Kansas City Department of Justice, and ended up in the
prosecutor of the case; AUSA Marietta Parkers office for review and
action.

In support of this allegation: (see exhibit #3 letter from KU Police

Director Ralph V. Oliver informing the Neighbors that the complaint
was forwarded to the AUSA Marietta Parker and all further
complaints should be forwarded to her.) Also see Chief Olins letter to
attorney Sarah Swain advising that Marietta Parker was the one to
address complaints to. (In exhibit #4 pg. 5)

Instead of insuring justice on behalf of the defendants rights

violations, the US Attorney’s office has conspired with law
enforcement, staged an FBI investigation (see FBI exhibits #4 pages 1
through 15)

(Exhibit #4 page 1 &2, Signed affidavit by Laura Helm stating she was
picked up by two officers posing as FBI agents.)

(Exhibit #4 page 3 & 4, Interview-statement by Brad Perico to Private

Investigator Cecilia Woods stating he was contacted by two officers
claiming the FBI was investigating the Yellow House and had him on
tape going into the business with a drill.)

(Exhibit #4 page 5, Letter to defense attorney Sarah Swain from

Police Chief Ron Olin stating that he could not release the identity of
the Federal Investigators, that Police posing as FBI would be a crime,
and that Special Agent Bob Shaefer had spoken to her about the issue.
He also states that further correspondence concerning the case
should be directed to U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker.)
(Exhibit #4 page 6 & 7, Letter to Sarah Swain from the FBI explaining
that U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker sent FBI Special Agent Walter
Schaefer to investigate the allegations of police posing as FBI agents,
verifying 60 days had passed and made reference to repeated
unanswered phone calls made by Swains office to the FBI in an
attempt to set up further meetings with SA Schaefer. According to
Special Agent Scott Gentine from the Topeka FBI, the letter was
Signed by a retired special agent Kevin Stafford, sent by Timothy A
Gallagher)

(Exhibit #4 page 8, letter to Bob Schaefer FBI, from Defense attorney

Sarah Swain)

(Exhibit #4 page 9 & 10, article in LJworld newpaper that the FBI was
investigating the conduct of police in the Yellow House investigation.
Jeff Lanza also confirmed the FBI was not involved in the Yellow
House investigation.)

(Exhibit #4 page 11, article in LJworld Newspaper stating that the FBI
investigation was stalled and that the FBI had not received a formal
complaint. Even though the defense attorney had attempted multiple
times to set up meetings, some days attempted to call SA Schaefer 6
times without a return call, left messages and faxes for SA Schaefer.)

(Exhibit #4 page 12, Article in LJworld Newspaper confirming the

FBI had completed the investigation and cleared the police of
misconduct.)
(Exhibit #4 page 13, letter to Agent Schaefer from Defense attorney
Sarah Swain letting him know she had forwarded a sworn affidavit of
illegal conduct by the Lawrence Police, and had made numerous
attempts to contact him about the matter but had gotten no response
from him.)

The Government in a controlled reaction, used the information

contained in the complaints forwarded to her, to use her team of
investigators to retaliate and conspire against the defendants and
then in an abuse of her power, also controlled the defense attorneys
handling the case.

In order for a defendant to prove conspiracy the defendant need not

allege personal involvement by all the parties. When a person is part
of a conspiracy, one does not require a hub and spoke form. One need
only be part of a chain of conspirators.

Law enforcement officers Jay Bialek, Mickey Rantz, Michael Riner,

Police Chief Ron Olin, Postal Inspector David Nitz, IRS Agent Robert
Jackson and the Kansas City FBI Agent “BOB SHAEFER” Walter
Robert Schaefer, were employed by the Prosecutor as her agents to do
the dirty work on her behalf, outside of their agencies jurisdictions
with her full knowledge and approval. In conspiracy to cover-up,
conceal, obstruct justice, and limit liability in order to avoid
accountability for the Governments unjust actions against the
defendants.
Conspiracy to violate civil rights

In order for this court to establish a cause of action to change of

venue or dismissal for conspiracy, there must be sufficient facts
to support the following elements:

1) two or more persons;

2) an object to be accomplished;

3) a meeting of minds on the object or course of action;

4) one or more unlawful acts; and,

5) “damages” directly linked to the violation of the defendants

rights..

1. Obviously there are two or more persons involved.

2. The object to be accomplished is to obstruct justice, cover up
for color of law violations and prosecutorial misconduct, obtain
a conviction through fraud, to cover up criminal conduct against
citizens by officials, and to avoid liability.
3. The Government clearly had a unity of purpose or a common
design and understanding in their joint efforts to avoid liability
and conceal Constitutional rights violations. The Prosecutors
Terra Morehead and Marietta Parkers actions were clearly
improper and directly connected to the conduct of the acting
Government officials under her command. There is no other
explanation as to why these Prosecutors would break the rules
to cover up reports of criminal activity by Law enforcement
against a wrongly accused citizen other than that they had
joined into a common purpose with the team.
 4. The unlawful acts against the defendants have greatly
prejudiced the defense and have been documented through
photographs, video’s and voice recordings, court documents,
affidavits, and testimony under oath during various hearings
before Federal Judges overseeing this case.

These are very serious allegations and this court has a

duty to the Constitution to protect the integrity of the
courts. Therefore, this District of Kansas court, which
has a prima facia conflict of interest, has a duty to
construe this pro- se motion very liberally and grant the
defendants request for change of venue or dismissal of
charges, in order to protect the public perception of the
integrity of this court.

A FAIR TRIAL FOR THE DEFENDANTS IS NOT

POSSIBLE IN THE STATE OF KANSAS or MISOURI
AUSA prosecutor Terra Morehead has interfered with the
Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors fair chance to defend
themselves.

Terra Morehead originally charged the defendants with being

unlawful users with firearms. A statute that the case did not qualify
under. Because the defendants had no criminal history, there was
no evidence of habitual drug use, and the firearms were expensive
 collector “non-qualifying” firearms unloaded and unlawfully seized
without a warrant by law enforcement from a locked safe.

During several hearings before Federal Judges, law

enforcement officers have read fabricated stories by
witnesses and lied under oath, to the court .

The prosecutor has taken things out of the defendants discovery.

Certain things that were seen in the discovery while in the possession
of past attorneys Bruce Kipps, Philip Gibson, Alex McCauley and
James George have been changed or switched out. ie. Police
evidence reports, statements, search warrants, receipt for same list.

The Courts have been made aware of the fact that the false
testimony by convicted felon Patrick Nieder was presented before
the Grand Jury in exchange for an 8 year reduction of his prison
sentence.

On July 1, 1998, a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit, U.S.

Court of Appeals delivered a decision, in the case U.S. v.
Singleton, The 10th Circuit ruled that bartered-for, testimony
in federal criminal court is not only illegal and inadmissible,
but technically punishable by a substantial fine, and/or up to
2 years in prison.

Prosecutors have offered both cash payment and leniency to

some witnesses, and offered plea deals to Louis Parsons and
James P. Ludwig in exchange for anticipated false testimony
at trial claiming that the Defendant Carrie Neighbors
conspired with them to conceal the conspiracy, absent of
any existing evidence to substantiate these claims. It is the
responsibility and duty of the prosecutor to always try to
substantiate (what) any witness for the government is going
to be saying.
In a separate case in a 31-page ruling U.S. District Judge
William J. Zloch threw out the testimony of three accused
drug defendants on grounds that it was solicited with a
prosecutor's promise of a reduced sentence a violation of
federal bribery laws, he ruled. In this case.

"U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 201©(2) (the

'bribery statute' could not be more clear. It says:
Whoever . . . directly or indirectly, gives, offers or promises
anything of value to any person, for or because of the
testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by
such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding, before any court . . . authorized by the laws of
the United States to hear evidence or take testimony . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than
two years, or both."

A sting video was altered, and there is documented missing

evidence, from the police evidence locker, but the Federal
Prosecutors have continued the prosecution of this case anyway.

The Prosecutors have used their influence and power of

authority to control the Federal Agencies, witnesses and
Defense attorneys involved with this case.

And have exercised in a similar pattern of abuse of power in

other cases as well.

(See exhibit #5 pages 1-5, JOHNNIE WILLIAMS III, case 06-

20047-01-cm. letter to Chief Judge Lungstrum alleging
misconduct by Prosecutor Terra Morehead )

(Exhibit #6 pages 1-5, JASON McKINNEY dated June 30,2008

complaint sent to The Office of Disciplinary Administrator,
alleging malicious prosecution by AUSA Terra Morehead.)
 (Exhibit #7 pages 1-4, James McKeighan letter to The
Honorable Judge Lungstrum dated Jan. 22, 2007, alleging
Prosecutorial Misconduct against Terra D Morehead)

The Prosecutors have interfered with the defense attorneys

filing motions on behalf of their clients.

1. IE. The Neighbors requested that Attorney Phil Gibson file a motion to
release an illegal lis pendens placed against their property by the
Prosecutor. The motion was filed and Judge Murguia scheduled a
hearing the following week. Mr. Gibson then canceled the court date.
After 3 week delay, the motion was refilled and four days later the
Prosecutor filed a Superseding indictment to moot the motion. With
the sale of the house still in limbo and the buyers getting anxious the
defendants asked Mr. Gibson to refile the motion, he agreed to refile
that weekend but then, even after repeated requests from the
defendants never did refile the motion. After several more weeks the
sale of the house had to be terminated.
2. The Prosecutors in this case have violated the Neighbors Bill of
RIGHTS!
3. Amendment V.- Deprived the Neighbors of life, liberty, and property.

A.- Life- The Prosecutor has had the Neighbors arrested by agents
operating outside their Jurisdictions several times, searched, and
held in custody, using statutes and laws that do not apply. Ruined
their business, reputations within the community, the false allegations
have cost the Neighbors their Foster care license and their affiliation
 with the Big Brothers program, In 2005,Prior to any charges being
filed the Government contacted ebay and made false unsubstantiated
allegations resulting in the immediate suspension of the defendants
seller account and also resulted in the defendants money in the
Paypal account being frozen., greatly affecting the defendants
livelihood and ability to run their business and pay bills.

Public False allegations released to the press include stolen

property fencing, money laundering and drug trafficking . And on the
DOJ press release web site falsely claimed the Yellow House crimes
had been investigated by the FBI.

B-Property- The Government has been holding Property since

December 2005, property unlawfully seized during the execution of a
violated search warrant, and gained through an illegal warrantless
search , denying the defendants constitutional right to due process of
law.

4. Amendment VI. Right to Speedy Trial and effective council.

5. A- violation of right to speedy trial. The original charges of being an
unlawful user with firearms was originally dropped with just 7 days left
before the time limit of a speedy trial ran out. The same charges were
re-filed as a brand new case, and the prosecutor had the Neighbors
strong armed arrested from their home and illegally searched.

B- The original search and seizure was executed in December of

2005. This is now November of 2008.The Neighbors have been
denied the due process of Law, have not been allowed to view the
discovery or see the evidence being held against them. Because of
the Prosecutors threats against the defense attorneys, during the
three years the case has been in the courts, the defendants have not
had any motions filed by the defense attorneys directly related to
defending the case ie. standard Motion Requests for evidentiary
hearing, request to see the evidence, request for dismissal, request
for suppression of evidence. The Neighbors have not been afforded
an investigator to conduct interviews of witnesses nor has the
prosecution allowed the defendants to see the list of witnesses
scheduled to testify at trial on behalf of the prosecution.

C- The Prosecutor has forced the Neighbors to loose paid attorneys,

and then forced them to use court appointed attorneys that are willing
to sign her contract and allow her to maintain a strong influence over
the handling of the defense.

CONCLUSION;

This court has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are

conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of self-
interests. Every lawyer and prosecutor is responsible for observance
of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Neglect of these
responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and
the public interest which it serves.

The United States is a government of the people, by the people, and

for the people. The judicial system’s function is to serve the public by
providing a means to serve justice and to resolve disputes. This can
only be done in an environment where honesty, integrity, and high
moral standards are strictly enforced.

There is an obvious mix of Conflict of Interest and Special

Circumstances in this case that together will prevent the Neighbors
from entertaining their Constitutional right to a fair and impartial
prosecutor. Since the judicial system is self-governing and is
therefore responsible for policing itself, it has become obvious that
the Neighbors cannot possibly expect a fair trial under these
circumstances. Therefore the Neighbors respectfully ask the courts to
grant this Pro-se Motion to Change of Venue or Dismiss all charges.