ru.

eo
,~.~':;J}f~rRrCTr.C\lJ;~1
" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLl'R't OF KANSAS
trs '-:'",_ PM ,: 53
FOR TH E DISTRICT OF KANSAS 1';;<

BY
A

UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA

V. Plaintiff,
{;IV'-
Carrie M. NEIGHBORS Case No. 07-20124-01-02-K.J;KI/DJW

Defendant,

Notice of Motion to Dismiss on

Grou nds of Lack of Agency

Jurisdiction, Fourth Amendment

Civil Right Violation or Alternatively

For Discovery and/or Evidentiary

Hearing.

Comes now Carrie M. Neighbors defendant through Pro-Se action, will hereby

does move to dismiss the present indictment on the grounds of Lack of agency

jurisdiction, fourth amendment civil rights violation or alternatively for discovery

.,
and or a evidentiary hearing in support of this claim. Wherefore the defendant

prays that the court will consider this motion in the interest of justice and

consider the special circumstances surrounding this case in that the prosecutor is

now the acting District Attorney fpr the District of Kansas and has control over

more 109 attorneys in all three of the Justice Depts. The defendant prays the

court accept this motion as to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest on

the part of the government that would prejudice the defendant in this 4-year long

case.

/
 BACKGROUND:

On December r'. Z005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from
the IRS,and lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the
Yellow House Quality AppUances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts.
Based on a cornplaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen
property. At 10;00 arn, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers
headed by lawrence Kansas Porice officer Micky Rantz, Jay Bialek, jay Rozell,
lance Flacshbarth,B- Bonham, Steve Verbank, Adam Hefley, Dave Axman, M.
McNamee, Rich Britain, T. Squire, J. Stiponavich, A. Wilson, A. Mcgowen, D. Drug
taskforce detectives Terik Khatib and Sean Brown assisted by the United States
Postal agents David Nitz, IRSagents Rob Jackson and also Juan Ngunyen executed
a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104
Andover. (The warrantless lIIegar searcb aUegatlonis securelysupported by documentation
whichthe defendants are prepared to providethrough an evidentiaryheari,..)

Upon discovery at the residence of several small plants in a back room of the
residence, in order to cover-up for the illegal search, officers went and got a so
called "piggy back" warrant signed by Judge Stephen Six, at 1:30 pm that
afternoon. Legally A "Piggy back" warrant would not have been necessary since
the room was located within the house, had the officers already had a legal
warrant to search the residence. No arrests were made at the time of the
searches.

Also seized from the residence and poorly documented were the defendants legal

valuable gun collection, which included a rare never fired 30 year old over and
under ttallan Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. AUguns were
unloaded and securely Jocked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate
warrant to seize the guns from this tacked safe.

(One year 'ater) On December i\ 2006 Guy and Carrie Neighbors were arrested
by the Postal Inspector David Nitz, and other Inspectors from the Postal Service,
and the IRS,headed by IRSAgent Robert Jackson, along with his assistants from
the IRS,for being "unlawful users in possession of firearms" United States v.
Neighbors, Case No. 06-20171-CM, in violation of Title 18, USC sections
922(g)(2) .

The Government dismissed the Indictment in that case on May 4, 2007. 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 chargesf based on the original search and
absent of any additional activity in the case), of conspiring to·manufacture
marijuana and two counts of knowingly and intentionally manufacturing
..
marijuana.

On June 25th, 2007, The Neighbors were again arrested in their residence at
1104 Andover, and every room of the entire residence including the
basement was again illegally searched by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and
attending Lawrence police officers Sarna and Barkley absent of any search
warrant. The Neighbors were arrested for Federal Gun and Dmg charges by
the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert
Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a){l) and (b)(l)(D), Title 21 USC,

Sec. 846.

On the aist day of December, 2007, The Honorable Judge Lungstrum

dismissed count 2 of the Indictment with prejudice. Rendering the

3
remainder of the marijuana charges a State level misdemeanor, derived by
a State Police investigation absent of a legal search warrant; outside of the
Jurisdiction by the arresting agencies, executed under non-qualifying
Statutes by the Federal Government for Prosecution.

Because the Federal Gun and Drug charges against the Neighbors did not
fall under the States minimum legal requirements of the Federal Statutes
for prosecution, the Federal agencies with Jurisdiction over such charges to
wit; KBI, DBA, FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in the
investigation or arrests.

LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and Carrie Neighbors request the charges be dismissed with prejudice,
and that the arrest for the Oun and Drug charges by the Postal Inspector
and IRS Agent was a violation of the Neighbors constitutional rights
because the arresting agents were acting outside of their legal authorized
Agencies Jurisdiction in violation of Kansas law. In other cases involving
the application of Kansas Statute, it was held that assistance by authorities
possessing jurisdiction can serve to validate a search, even if the officers
acting outside their jurisdiction also participate. See See United States v.
Price, 7S F.3d 1440, 1443 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Occhipinti, 998 F.2d
791, 798-99 (10th Cir. 1993). However that was not the case in Neighbors V. USA
because no officer or agent with jurisdiction over the statutes was present during

the search or arrest.

The Fourth Amendment protects indlViduills ilplnst unreasonable
searches and seizures by
the aovernment. ext_cts to any area In which Bn IndlvtduBI hils •
The scope of this protection
reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the Fourth Amendment provId. that aUWIItrants
shall be based upon probable cause and supported by oath or afftrmatlon.

___ ,__ ••••••• __ •• _IIItIoP • __ ••••••••••• ••• _ _ ._----..._

POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:

The USPIS and USPS-OIG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C.,D
3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powers to "Postal Inspectors
and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Govemors to
investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Service and the mail"), That grant of
authority is limited to "the enforcement of laws regarding property in the custody of the
Postal Service, property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, and otherpostal offenses"
and the enfon::ement of certain other federal laws determined to "have a detrimental effect
upon the operations of the Postal Service," Id.6 3061(bXl)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
Powers of Postal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and
inspectors oftbe USPS-oIG, refening to both as I1POstaJ Inspectors.· ld i
5 233.1 (a). Whlle

recognizing their common authority to enforce laws related to the mails, the section
circumscnbes the primary responsibility of the USPS-OIG and the USPIS:

(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph

(a) Of this section shall be exercised onIy-
(1) ID the I.forcemeat of laws r~rding property i.the custody 01
the Postal Service, property of the POstal Service, the use of the maUl,

ad other postal offenses. With the eseepti.oD of enfordag laws

related to die ---:

(i) The Office ofInapector General will investigate all
allegations ofviolatiows of postal laws or misconduct by postal
 employees, including mail theft; and

(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of

violations of postal taws or misconduct by all other persons.

POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST

9.1.2.4 (01.16..2008)
IRS Agent Auttlority to Arrest

The authority of special agents to make arrests is provided by 28 USC 17108.

This section provides, in part. that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve
search warrants and anest warrants; to serve subpoenas and summonses issued under
authority of the United States; to make arntsta with or without walT8nt fol.ADl
9Ife1lft .glntt the UnitedState, reI,ting to the Inmfnal Bey-DU' laws that is
committed in hisJher presence, or for any felony cognizable under SUCh iaws if he/she
has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
committing any such fe~ony

9..1.2.2 (01-18-2008)
Gener81 Authority to Enforce Internal Revenue lawIS and Related Statu18s

1. Title 28 United States Code (USC) §7608(b) provld_ the tnltial authority for

__
investigating crimea arising under the Internal Revenue IaWli.

-_. -,-- .....•....•••...•_-_.-,_.._----, ---. --_•.....-_... . ....•

, CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to
the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349 (roth Cir. 1990). In
that case, it was held that "an arrest made outside of the arresting officer's
jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment .... " rd. at 1353'"54

The federal constitutional standards for evaluating the validity of search

warrants are wen established. The Fourth Amendment requires that the
 warrant contain "probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation and a
particular description of the place, persons and things to be searched and
seized. fI United States v, Wicks, 995 F.zd 964) 972 (roth Cir. 1993). The
repeated searches of the Neighbors home by IRS Agent Robert Jackson and
State Police officers, lacked any probable cause, had no affirmation of oath,
was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Kansas State law and
outside of their Jurisdiction for law enforcement. Therefore fruits from any
searches should be suppressed see United States v. Pennington, 635 F.2d 1387"
1389-91 (10th Cir. 1980).

Constitodonal rights are not amenable to compromise.

Jurisdictions, authority and codes of investigating agencies is set forth to

protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional
or they are not. Within their Jurisdietion or they are not. There are no
degrees of constitutionality. No shades of grey. No matters of opinion.

Since the Neighbors have had their constitutional rights violated, while the
State officers and Federal Agents were acting under the color of the law
outside of their legal Jurisdictions, during the course of this investigation,
any attempt to continue the prosecution of this case is an attempt to
enforce an unconstitutional act and would be in violation of the Neighbors
civil rights. This in itself would be a violation of criminal law, specifically 18
USC 242 and perhaps
t 18 USC 241.

Enforcement of unconstitutional acts is a crime, regardless of who the

perpetrator is, and anyone who would enforce such a crime is not operating
within the color of the law. Failure to act upon the knowledge or

------ 1
presentation of proof of such crimes is a violation of one's oath of office to
the Constitution, and grounds for removal from office. Therefore Guy
Neighbors respectfully requests the termination of the cases, the
suppression of all evidence, and the dismissal of all charges with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted as truth under oath to the courts for

considerations by Pro-se Defendant

Of--
petitioner Carrie M. Neighbors.

Signed C" dated

Whenever any person is required to take an oath before

he enters upon the discharge of any office, position, or
business or on any other lawful occasion, it is lawful for
any person employed to administer the oath to administer
it in the foIfowing fOlTT1: The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever Jiving GOD
 PROOF OF SERVICE FORM

A copy of this form shall be appropriately filled out and attached when Proof of Service or statement of delivery or
mailing is required.

Personal Delivery:

I i ~5" oS LA ('1< ck JUif~5d'~uh1wl_ to:

I declare that on
(Date) QQ'
I personally delivered the attached
(Description OfDDCum,",)

; 2/LLt)J;'
(Name of Recipient)
dA-'2 ~Cmvrt
s7JJ •••$~-+-L A V-(
(Location)

l'(.~Nst\ 5 010. }(S

Part 3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was

.tvs -Ol) atiliiJ-, 0+ \)LJSht.,L/ '\)t'smC± O-t

e //),{--
Executed on .Kansas.
(Date) (City)

Qjl.iU (e
(Type or Print Na
)/Cf:;} to (,'S (Signat~O