fiLED

,~.~,;.:pl~rFncr r.,:'iJ~~l
,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cotmr OF KANSAS
prs:",,, PH !: 53
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS i·;;~<.J',

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. Plaintiff,
etl'-
Carrie M. NEIGHBORS Case No. 07-2o124-0l-02-K)>I'II/DJW

Defendant,

Notice of Motion to Dismiss on

Grounds 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 ofthis 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 100 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 2,d, 2005 The United States Postal Inspectors office, Agents from
the IRS, and Lawrence Kansas Police officers executed a Search Warrant on the
Yellow House Quality Appliances Incorporated, a business at 1904 Massachusetts.
Based on a complaint the businesses employees had bought or sold stolen
property. At 10:00 am, in connection to the investigation; State Police Officers
headed by Lawrence Kansas Police officer Micky Rantz, Jay Bialek, jay Rozell,
Lance Flacshbarth,B- Bonham, Steve Verbanic, 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, IRS agents Rob Jackson and also Juan Ngunyen executed
a warrantless search upon the residence of the defendants located at 1104
Andover. (The warrantless Illegal searcl1 allegation issecurely supported by dOQ.lmentatlon
which the defendants are preparedto provide through an evidentiary hearing)

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 Italian Berretta with an estimated value of $16,000.00. All guns were
unloaded and securely locked in a safe; the officers did not have a separate
warrant to seize the guns from this locked safe.

h
(One year later) 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 IRS Agent 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
9 22 (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 charges,( 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 Drug charges by
the Postal Inspectors David Nitz, Osbourn and the IRS Agent Robert
Jackson, Under Title 21, USC Sec. 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), Title 21 USC,
Sec. 846.

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

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, DEA. FBI or US Marshalls Service were not involved in tbe
investigation or arrests.

LEGAL STATEMENT
Guy and carrie Neighbors request the charges be dismissed with prejudice,
and that the arrest for the Gun 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 indIVIduals aplnst unreasonable seen:hes and seizures by
the sovernment. The scope of this protection extends to any ar81 In which an Indlvldual hils 8
reasonable expectation of privacy. Further. the Fourth Amendment provld8ll that aU _rrants
shall be based upon probllble cause and supported by oath or affirmation.

-----------------_._-------------_._---------
POWERS OF THE POSTAL INSPECTOR:

The USPIS and USPS-OlG derive their federal investigative authority from 18 U.S.C.,O
3061(2000) (granting investigative and other law enforcement powersto "Posta! Inspectors
and other agents of the United States Postal Service designated by the Board of Governors to
investigate criminal matters related to the Postal Serviceand the mail"). That grant of
authority is limited to "the enforcement oflaws regarding property in the custody of the
Postal Service. property of the Postal Service, the use of the mails, 81'I.d other postal offenses"
and the enfon::ement of certain other federal laws determined to "have 8 detrimental effect
upon the operations of the Postal Service." Id.6 3061(b)(1)-(2).
Title 39, section 233.1 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, entitled "Arrest and investigative
Powers ofPostal Inspectors," sets forth certain authority of inspectors of the USPIS and
inspectors ofthe USPS-oIG, referringto both as "Postal Inspectors," Id. 5233.1(8). While
recognizing their common authority to enforcelaws related to the mails,the section
circumscribes the primary responsibility ofthe USPS-oIG and the USPIS:

(b) Limitations. The powers granted by paragraph

(a) Of this section shall be exercised onIy-
(1) III the eDforeemeat of laws r~rding property i. the custody of
the POItal Service, property of the Postal Service, tbe use of the mlliJl,
IDd other poetal olfeoses. With the exception of enfordng laws
related to die -u.:
(1) The Office ofInapector General wiU investigate all
allegations ofviolations of postal laws or misconduct by postal
 employees, including mail theft; and
(ii) The Inspection Service will investigate all allegations of
violations ofpostal laws or misconduct by all other persons.

------------~----------------------------.---------------------------------------------
POWERS OF THE IRS AGENT TO ARREST
9.1.2.4 (01-16-2008)
IRS Agent Authority eo Arrest

The authority of .pecial agents to make arrests is provided by 28 USC 17608.

This section provides, in part, that a special agent is authorized: to execute and serve
search warrants and arrestwarrants; to serve subpoenas and Bummonses issued under
authority of the United States; to make al'1'88ta with or without wamlnt fol.§DX
9fl'!D!! 'Hlnst tht Unlt8d State. reI.tina to 111, In_rnal Revenue laws that is
committed in hi8lher presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he/she
has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
committing any suchfelony

9.1.2.2 (01-18-2008)
General Authority eo Enforce ln18mal Revenue Lawa .nd Related Statut8s

1. TlUe 26 United Sta_ Code (USC) f7608(b) provides the Initial authority for
investigating crImes arising under the Internal Revenu. IaWlS.

----,--_.-., _-------,------_._-
-.
. CONCLUSION
The Neighbors contend officers acted in violation of state statutory law to
the Fourth Amendment, Ross v. Neff. 905 F.2d 1349 (loth 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." United States v, Wicks, 995 F.2d 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).

Constitudonal rights are not amenable to compromise,

Jurisdictions, authority and codes ofinvestigating agencies is set forth to

protect the civil rights of individuals. Official acts are either constitutional
or they are not. Within their Jurisdiction 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 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

petitioner Carrie M. Neighbors.

Signed CA C~L dated,_....:....:..---""''--''~ ........._

Whenever any person is roquired 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 following form" The person swearing, with his hand
uplifted, shall swear by the ever living GOD
 PROOF OF SERVICE FORM

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

Personal Deltverv:

~ j - 0'6 LA <:1< ck JUVi5 d'u1l0n

I declare that on I i
(Date) flO'
I personally delivered the attached
(Description of Document)
to:

(,_R/l,LoJ'
(Name of Recipient)
d-AP <GulA/
sW - $W-1-€- AV-f
(Location) ~

l(~NStl S 010, ](S

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

ExecutedonJl3 O~at~h c:rf .JvShc..t../DtsmC± o-f .Kansas,

(Date) (City)

e V){--
(Signat~O