Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 171 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 4

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

07-20l24-CM
08-20l05-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT UPS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE

DEFENDANT ill'S MOTION TO QUASH OR STRIKE DEFENDANT UPS PROFFER

u...
COMES NOW on this (p'/- 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 Quash or

Strike Defendant [1]'s Proffer. The Reply is as follows:

1). The Defendant [1] can clearly show before the court, that the proffer was altered, or

changed. Whereby, the Defendant re-iterates and incorporates the contents of [Doc 130] into this

Reply.

2). Because the Proffer was not attended by the U.S. Attorney or properly recorded

impartially for the courts review, the Proffer itself is nothing more than non-credible hearsay

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Quash or Strike Defendants [1] Proffer Page 1

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 171 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 4

written by officers with an agenda to convict. See ref Doc. 259 2. ~ 3, " ... the substance of her

statements was recorded in the written reports by the agents who participated in the proffer

interviews .. ". These same agents have already demonstrated to this court an absolute lack of

credibility. The Defendant [l] can also clearly show that the Plaintiff (government) had

originally breached the proffer contract, whereby the contract is null and void. When the (2)

Lawrence Kansas Police officers (who were involved in the proffer) came into the Defendant's

business, Yellow House Quality Appliance's Inc. (after the stipulation was made) and attempted

to question her in reference to some witnesses relevant to the proffer, outside the presence of the

Defendant's counsel, in which violated the stipulated agreement with the proffer that the

Defendant [1] could not discuss any information in reference to the proffer without the presence

of her counsel, Whereby, this breached the agreement. [see ref [Doc 133] in which Defendant [1]

now requests to; re-iterates and incorporates the contents of [Doc 133] into this Reply. Due to the

testimony of the Officers in [Doc 133]. Reaffirmed by this recent Supreme Court decision by

Justice Breyer "[Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. us, Supreme Court, On

writ of certiorari, (99-244) 177 F.3d 1331, (June 26, 2000)]. The companies claim that the

Government repudiated the contracts when it denied them certain elements of the permission-

seeking opportunities that the contracts had promised We agree that the Government broke its

promise ... (citation omitted) "

3). Once again the Plaintiff is intentionally misleading the court in ~ 2 of [Doc 259], when

in actuality the Defendant had cited case law in [Doc 130].

4). Also note for the record that the gatekeeper had a fiduciary duty to make sure that the

proffered expert evidence rested on a credible reliable foundation and was relevant, in which is

not so, in which the Defendant [1] can clearly show in this cause of action, whereby due to the

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Quash or Strike Defendants [1] Proffer Page 2

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 171 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 4
•

tainted and mishandled evidence, failure to follow proper procedure, and chain of custody,

testified by two Lawrence police officers, (as in [Doc 133]) "before admitting expert testimony,

the district court is required to make specific, on-the-record findings that the testimony is

reliable under Daubert. "[ Goebel, 215 F 3d at 1088; see also United States v. Cui Qin Zhang,

458 F3d 1126,1129 (lOth Cir.2006)].makes any proffer by the Defendant [1] null and void.

[See ref U.S. v. Roach, 582 F3d 1192 (ldh Cir.)(09/21/09)(No. 08-3029)] " ., a district court,

when faced with a party's objection, must adequately demonstrate by specific findings on the

record that it has performed its duty as gatekeeper. " Goebel, 215 F 3d at 1088 (citation

omitted).

THEREFORE the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the

Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [I]'s Motion to Quash or Strike Defendant [I]'s Proffer in

its entirety from this cause of action, due to the Officers testimony in [Doc 133], and PRAYS

the court Quash or Strike the Proffer, for the Plaintiffs breach of contract, as testified by the

officers in reference to the breach, and clearly altered statements of Defendant [1] as in [Doc

133], whereby the Defendant [1] has clearly shown and met her 51 % burden of proof that the

Altered testimony, failure to document the proffer properly, and breach of contract by the

Plaintiff, should result heavy in favor of the Defendant [1].

Carrie Neighbo s
Defendant {1] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Quash or Strike Defendants [1] Proffer Page 3

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 171 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 4
..

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 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 V~day of July 2010.

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Quash or Strike Defendants [1] Proffer Page 4