You are on page 1of 5

Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 169 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 5

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


07-20t24-CM
08-20t05-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDNAT ill'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT ill'S

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNSELS PROFFER ON 08/25/09

COMES NOW on this 0~day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se

litigant, is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion to Dismiss

Counsels Proffer on 08/25/09. The Reply is as follows:

1). The Defendant [1] will request that the court take judicial notice that none of the

Defendant [1]' s issues were even argued by the Plaintiff, whereby the Defendant [I]

automatically wins by default of the Plaintiffs failure to specifically address or defend the issues

in the Motion to Dismiss Counsels Proffer.

Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to Dismiss Counsels Proffer Page 1


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 169 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 5

2). The Defendant [1] can only assume the counsel's proffer was a direct violation, as in

the Kansas Supreme Court Rules Discipline of Attorneys, as the Defendant [1] had stated in

[Doc 225 , p.2, ~ 2, (§ a through d)], whereby it is an agreed stipulated fact that the counsels

proffer did prejudice this court, even the judge had left the bench, due to the events in which

had transpired in the court on 08/25/09, in which required the Defendant [1] to spend time and

money to be evaluated a second time, in FMC Prison in Carswell, Texas, in which the Defendant

[1] personally and voluntarily drove both ways and had self surrendered, and then the Defendant

[1] was found competent to stand trial for the second time, in which the attorney of record did

not object or raise any defenses, in which clearly shows the outcome would have been different.

[See ref Taylor v. State, 882 NE. 2d 777 (Ind App.)(2008) it states, "Post-convictions counsel

presented no evidence or argument other than providing a copy of the co-defendants direct

appeal decision and asserting that it was binding on the trial court. Under the State Law, this

was deficient, such that a defendant "was deprived of a procedurally fair hearing."]

2). loth Circuit has ruled that 1). A petitioner must demonstrate that his / her attorney was

deficient, in which the Petitioner has incorporated in ~ 1, of this Reply, as well as, incorporated

into this document [Doc 225, p.2, ~ 2, (§ a through d)]. 2). And the Deficient performance

prejudice his / her defense, in which the Defendant [1] can clearly show, due to time wasted in

which was approximately (104) days, (not inclusive 460 days in the prior cases) when there were

only 4 working days left on the speedy trial clock, in which now this time should count in favor

of Defendant [1] for speedy trial clock, due to the unnecessary delay, which did not meet the

ends of Justice, in which clearly has prejudiced this cause of action, due to the more time

between the original charge and trial, the less the witnesses are to remember correctly the

actuality of the events, as in the memory of man or woman. Whereby the Defendant has proven

Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to Dismiss Counsels Proffer Page 2


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 169 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 5

all of elements required to dismiss the counsel's proffer. The standards is clearly defined in

Strickland v. Washington, 446 Us. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 801. Ed 2d 674 (1984), in which

the court of Appeals ultimately reversed, stating that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal

defendants a right (Page 446 U.S. 669) to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance

given the totality of the circumstances, as in this cause of action, in which the Defendant [1]' s

counsel did not, as well as, Smith v. Robbins, 528 Us. 259, 285-86, 120 S. Ct. 746, 1451. Ed 2d

756 (2000), Us. v. Dawson, 857 F 2d923(3rd Cir.)(1988),US. v. McCoy, 410F 3d 124 (3rd

Cir.)(2005), US. v. Booth, 432 F 3d 542 (3rd Cir.)(2004).

3). First, once again the Plaintiff is intentionally misleading the court, the Defendant [l]

counsel was not raising the issue of competency, it was the Plaintiff, in which the Defendant

[1]'s counsel should have either objected, or defended, in which he did neither. Second, the

Defendant agreed to cooperate until the Plaintiff breached the agreement, and had arrested the

Defendant [1], whereby the Proffer is null and void, due to the Plaintiffs breach.

4). Then the Defendant [l],s counsel John Duma further violated attorney client privilege,

made himself a witness, and gave testimony to this court in reference to attorney-client

communications about an altered video, in which he proffered this court, in reference to the

assertion by the Defendant [1] (his client) that the Governments video "has been

altered ,yet still shows the most incriminating part" in which he showed another incident of

ineffectiveness, due to his failure to represent his client with zeal, and file any Motions to

Suppress the video, by his own testimony, in which only now proves the Defendant [I]' s claim

in its entirety. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in

the outcome. " [Miller v. State, 285 Ga. 285 (2009).] " ...prejudice is presumed when there has

been an actual or constructive denial of assistance of counsel altogether." [Edwards v. Lewis,

Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to Dismiss Counsels Proffer Page 3


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 169 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 5

283 Ga. 345 (2008)]. Constructive denial of assistance of counsel occurs when "counsel entirely

fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing. "[ Turpin v. Curtis, 278

Ga. 698 (2004); State v. Heath, 277 Ga. 337 (2003)]. "A defendant is entitled to have counsel

who acts as an advocate. " [United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500 (lOth Cir. 1995)].

THEREFORE the Defendant [1] has met her burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,

and is filing a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [l],s Motion to Dismiss

Counsels Proffer on 08/25/09, and PRA YS the court grant the Defendant [1]'s Motion for the

above aforementioned reasons, as case law doctrine mandates.

ReClfullY submitted,

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

Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to Dismiss Counsels Proffer Page 4


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 169 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 5

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 this ~ day of July 2010.

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

Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to Dismiss Counsels Proffer Page 5

You might also like