Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 13

~'.' ."
., 37!~jC-r ~:Cl ,-­
i " ." l' U:'- ;'\.~ t;~',~ /~~, '
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant ~ l' .

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
OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT [lJ 'S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER

AGAINST DR. ROBERT G. LUCKING PARTICIPATING IN THIS MATTER

[Pursuant to FRCP Rule 65]

COMES NOW on this 28 th day of June 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting

as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the

Plaintiff and specifically in relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation

within this matter, due to unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC

of Arizona case number CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09 by the

Honorable Judge Mary H. Murguia specifically related to testimony by Dr. Robert G.

Lucking, and also U.S Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir,. Case no: 08-3700 Us. v. Hessam

Ghane, Decision by MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges Filed: January 29, 2010, to

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 1

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 13

refrain from a pattern of practice to administer this type of medication, evaluation, testimony

based on guess work, as well as, his appearance of prior perjury before a court of law. The

Injunction and Restraining Order is as follows:

1). The U.S. Attorney had written in her Motion filed Under Seal on 06/23/2010 that there

was ill-gotten privileged communications (both telephone and written) intercepted and included

in a competency evaluation report by Dr. Robert G. Lucking on Carrie and Guy Neighbors, in

which was violations of ethics, violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged

communications, violations of confidential information.

2). The Defendant [I] was evaluated in a report filed with this court by Dr. Robert G.

Lucking, as well as, the interrogation of Defendant [2] about his wife's case was beyond the

jurisdiction of a Doctor for the competency evaluation. It also violates The World Medical

Association, and APA rules stating that a ''physician shall not use nor allow to be used, as 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, ofthose 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. Whereby Dr. Lucking's report violates Defendant [1]'s Constitutional

right to be evaluated for this court by a qualified physician bound by the rules of ethics,

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

qualified doctor- patient relationship prior to the competency evaluation and submission of

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]. Since the government has opened this

"Pandora's box", the Defendant [1] now has the right to challenge Doctor Lucking's credibility.

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 2

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 13

3). Now the Defendant [1] through research has found out a pattern of practice of Dr.

Robert G. Lucking to mislead and/or contradict as to perjure himself, as well as, inappropriately

secure a Sell Order, without the Harper Hearing, before initiating a Sell Litigation, in which Dr.

Robert G. Lucking has now violated C.F.R. § 549.43, as law mandates.

4). Dr. Robert G. Lucking has failed to prove that Defendant [2] is dangerous to himself or

others, nor has he proven that he is gravely disabled, nor offered less intrusive alternatives as law

mandates, whereby Dr. Robert G. Lucking has failed to meet the elements as mandated by the

Supreme court for this type of court ordered action or medication.

5). The Defendant [1] request that the USDC order an immediate removal of Dr. Robert G.

Lucking from this cause of action, due to his failure to comply with proper procedures, as well

as, the prior practice to mislead or perjure and or contradict himself, violations of ethics,

violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged communications, violations of

confidential information, conflict of interest, and an established pattern of practice by Dr. Robert

G. Lucking, Staff Psychiatrist, Federal Medical Center, Butner NC" violating fundamental due

process rights to a fair trial, to inappropriately secure a Sell Order, without an Harper Hearing,

before initiating a Sell Litigation. [See refUSDC ofArizona case no: CR-05-0099-02-PHX­

MHM order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Mary H Murguia]

6). Whereby the Defendant [11 has no other choice but to file an Injunction and

Restraining Order against Dr. Robert G. Lucking to cease and desist any further participation

within this matter before this court, as well as, due to the new information, in which has come to

light, in which will show a pattern of practice, the Defendant [I] can only request that the court

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 3

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 13

strike any and all reports Dr. Robert G. Lucking had submitted on both of the Defendants, in this

action, due to unreliable testimony, as well as, evaluations of Dr. Robert G. Lucking.

7). The Defendant [1] would like the court to also request that the Plaintiff seal, destroy

and disregard any reports, in which they may have in their possession from Dr. Robert G.

Lucking, due to the new evidence, in which has come to light.

8). The Defendant [1] would like the court to also request an independent evaluation for

Defendant [2] from another Doctor, with a standard of ethics as to not prej udice Defendant [1]' s

previously completed competency reports by two qualified physicians, due to the new evidence,

in which has come to light.

A.) As in "This is also a pattern ofpractice of inconsistencies in Dr. Lucking's testimony

that remains unexplained. " As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09] by

the Honorable Judge Mary H. Murguia.

B.) The apparent lack of rationale by Dr. Lucking's testimony see: See Ghane II, 490 F.3d

at 1040. "Nonetheless, in crediting an expert's opinion, it is not the opinion itselfthat is

important, but the rationale underlying it". Circuit Judge Hanson asserts that Dr. Lucking's

Rationale of "incompetence" in his report that simply "because Ghane continued to distrust his

attorneys and was therefore unable to assist in his defense. " differed from the Supreme Court

definition which states "The Supreme Court has defined a defendant's ability to assist properly in

his defense as possessing a... "'sufjicient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a

reasonable degree ofrational understanding.'" Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 Us. 348,354 (1996)

(quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 Us. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiaml)." "Disagreement with

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 4

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 5 of 13

one's attorney does not make one mentally unable to consult with him". Cf United States v.

Minnis, 489 F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir. 2007)

9). Since the Defendant [1] can show recent case law doctrine or case law precedence, the

burden now shifts to the government to disprove.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

1). The U.S. Attorney had filed her Motion filed Under Seal on 06/23/2010 to by court

order have Defendant [1] 's phone conversations and letters due to Dr. Robert G. Lucking's

Report in a "statement of facts", in which stated Defendant [1] has paranoid delusional belief, in

which Dr. Robert G. Lucking has now violated confidentiality laws, ethic laws, as well as, USPS

mail which was already sealed.

2). Dr. Robert G. Lucking was evaluating the Defendant [1] based upon uncertain facts, as

well as, without her consent, by bits and pieces of private communications.

3). Now the Defendant [1] has recently discovered that (quote) "this is not the first time

that a court within the District ofArizona has been addressed by the Federal Medical Center's

attempts to inappropriately secure a Sell Order. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 446 F

Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2006)." As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09]

by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and also [U.S Court ofAppeals for the 8th Cir.. Case no: 08­

3700 U'S. v. Hessam Ghane], in which would show a pattern of practice of both extrinsic and

constructive fraud before the court. "This is also a pattern ofpractice ofinconsistencies in Dr.

Lucking's testimony that remains unexplained" As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order

dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia. See also: "Dr. Lucking, who had not seen

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 5

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 6 of 13

Dr. Ghane since March 2006 when he hadfound Dr.Ghane competent, when he testified at the

August 2006 competency hearing" as stated in [ US Court ofAppeals for the sth Cir,. Case no:
08-3700 Us. v. Hessam GhanJ Decision by MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges

Filed: January 29, 2010,

4). The Defendant had discovered other related facts in which will be addressed in her

Affidavit in Support of the Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and

specifically in relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this

matter.

THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in

relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to

unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number

[CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09128109J by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and

also [US Court ofAppeals for the 8th Cir,. Case no: 08-3700 Us. v. Hessam Ghane],

specifically related to Dr. Robert G. Lucking, as to refrain from a pattern of practice to

administer this type of medication, as well as, his appearance of prior perjury and or lack of

credibility before a court of law.

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 6

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 7 of 13

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 ofrecord
142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061

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

On this zs" day of June 2010.

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 7

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 8 of 13

Carrie Neighbors
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

07-20124-CM
OS-20l0S-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

STATE OF KANSAS )
) SS
COUNTY OF DOUGLAS )

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ill'S MOTION FOR

AN INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST

DR. ROBERT G. LUCKING PARTICIPATING IN THIS MATTER

[Pursuant to FRCP Rule 65]

COMES NOW on this 28th day of June 2010, I, Carrie Neighbors, (Defendant 1) being of

lawful age and sound mind, swear on oath, and hereby give an Affidavit in Support of Motion

for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in relation to

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 8

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 9 of 13

Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to unreliable

testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number [CR-05­

0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and also

[US Court ofAppealsfor the 8th Cir.. Case no: 08-3700 u.s. v. Hessam Ghane], specifically

related to Dr. Robert G. Lucking, as to refrain from a pattern of practice to administer this type

of medication evaluation, as well as, his prior appearance of perjury before a court of law. That

the following is true and accurate:

1). The U.S. Attorney had written in her Motion filed Under Seal on 06/23/2010, that there

was ill-gotten privileged communications (both telephone and written) intercepted, in which was

violations of ethics, violations of illegally tampered mail, violations of privileged

communications, violations of confidential information.

2). Dr. Robert G. Lucking was evaluating the Defendant [1] based upon uncertain facts, as

well as, without her consent, by bits and pieces of her private communications, involving

unknown facts.

3). Now the Defendant [1] has recently discovered that "this is not the first time that a

court within the District ofArizona has been addressed by the Federal Medical Center's

attempts to inappropriately secure a Sell Order. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 446 F.

Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2006)." As stated in [CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09]

by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia, and also [US Court ofAppealsfor the 8th Cir.. Case no:

08-3700 Us. v. Hessam Ghane, (Jan.29,201 0)) in which would give the appearance of a pattern

of practice of both extrinsic and constructive fraud before the court. "This is also a pattern of

practice ofinconsistencies in Dr. Lucking's testimony that remains unexplained. " As stated in

[CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia.

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 9

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 10 of 13

4). In [United States v. Hessam Ghane Case no: 08-3700 (8th Cir. 20l0)J

The Appellate court found, Dr. Lucking gives conflicting indecisive testimony "Dr. Lucking

believed that Ghane has never been competent to stand trial, contrary to his own earlier

evaluations ofGhane"

5.) According to Dr. Lucking's theory of competency, a defendants desire to be found

competent is a factor to find him incompetent to stand trial. [US Court ofAppeals for the 8th

Cir.. Case no: 08-3700 Us. v. Hessam Ghane,(Jan.29,20l0)J "We are also concerned about the

magistrate judge's reliance on Dr. Ghane's goal ofbeing found competent, afactor also

identified by Dr. Lucking, as evidence that he was in fact incompetent to stand trial. "

6.) Dr. Lucking's testimony has issues with credibility. See ref: [US V. Fabela, USDC of

Arizona case number CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] "Defendant takes issue

with Dr. Lucking's claim that extrapyramidal symptoms occur in less than approximately 30% of

patients, and that Dr. Lucking had not seen an acute dystonic reaction in a number ofyears.

Defendant notes that within five days ofstarting Defendant on Haldol, Dr. Lucking prescribed

Defendant Cogentin, which is a known treatment for dystonic reactions to Haldol. "

7.) This FMC under the direction of Dr. Robert G. Lucking has made it a practice to fail to

attempt to exhaust all other practical voluntary treatment options, including the fact that during 5

months of evaluations under Dr. Lucking in FMC Butner, Defendant [2] was never referred to a

competency class. See also: See ref: [US V. Fabela, USDC ofArizona case number CR-05-0099­

02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] "Generally, before seeking an Order from this Court

under Sell, the government shouldfirst attempt to exhaust all other practical voluntary treatment

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 10

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 11 of 13

options. The Court is not convinced that such an exhaustive attempt has been made by the FMC

in this case ".

8). Whereby, it is more likely or practical that with the supporting documents in this case,

with the other case law Defendant [1] has incorporated in this document, that the 51 % burden of

proof is in favor ofthe Defendant [1], in which likely probability that Dr. Robert G. Lucking

report is bias, prejudicial, and tainted, or even directed by a third party, and continues, since

Defendant [2]'s phone privileges at CCA were ordered blocked by a third party, as well as,

interfered with.

WHEREBY, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining order against both the Plaintiff and specifically in

relation to Dr. Robert G. Lucking from any further participation within this matter, due to

unreliable testimony, as new information has come to light from USDC of Arizona case number

[CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM, order dated 09/28/09] by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia

specifically related to Dr. Robert G. Lucking, and also [U.S Court ofAppealsfor the 8th Cir,.

Case no: 08-3700 UiS. v. Hessam Ghane, also known as Sam Ghane Decision by MURPHY,

HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges Filed: January 29,2010,] to refrain from a pattern of

practice to administer this type of medication evaluation, testimony based on guess work, as well

as, his prior appearance of perjury and inconsistency before a court of law, and PRA YS this

USDC Court GRANT in favor of the Defendant [l]'s Injunction and Restraining Order and

submit an Order to Remove Dr. Robert G. Lucking from this cause of action, as well as, any and

all documentation he or his facility had submitted, due to what appears to be a pattern of

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 11

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 12 of 13

practice to mislead, perjure, violate ethics, and violate the proper procedures, as defined in

C.F.R. § 549.43.

Respectfully submitted,

Ca rre Neighbors
Defendant [1J / Pro e Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this Z<bth day of June 2010.

My commission Expires on: 5)31/1 . . 1

SEAL:
+.()~8(/(' WILL McCULLOUGH

11111 UrI\IIN~A~ MyAPPt.EXp.3!'5'j' ....,

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 12

 Case 2:08-cr-20105-CM-JPO Document 116 Filed 06/29/10 Page 13 of 13

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 [2J counsel ofrecord
142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061

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

On this 28th day of June 2010.

Ca . ei bors
Defendant [1J/ Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Motion for an Injunction and Restraining Order Page 13