Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 173 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 6

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-20t05-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDNAT [IrS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO

THE DEFENDANT [IJ'S MOTION TO DISMISS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE

COMES NOW on this 6th 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 [I]'s Motion to Dismiss any and all

Evidence. The Reply is as follows:

1). The Defendant [1] requests that the court take judicial notice that the Plaintiff had

failed to specifically raise any objections in reference to the allegations by Defendant [1] as to

police mishandling of evidence, destruction of evidence, failure to follow police procedures as to

record a true and accurate document ofthe events during the investigation, or perjury, the

affidavits were too vague for a warrant to be issued, as shown in the Defendant [1]'s Motion to

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 1
 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 173 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 6

dismiss evidence, whereby the Defendant [1] has proven by the undisputed facts that any and all

evidence should be dismissed by order of this court.

2). In [Doc 257, , 3] the Plaintiff admits that the Plaintiff does not have a chain of custody,

and did not have enough evidence to pursue an affidavit for a warrant, but will show at trial

enough proof.

First this presents a post facto (after the fact) situation, and second it violates the

constitution and due process rights of the accused prior to the warrant being served.

a.) The Affidavit for the warrant was improper, it failed to show any direct connection of

criminal activity to the defendant [1] or her property, or others who were allegedly

committing crimes outside of the defendant's knowledge or control.

b.) The affidavit provides voluminous details of the alleged criminal activities of other

individuals but fails to show why the criminal activity of others would justify a warrant

to be served upon Defendant [1], and some of the incidents cited by affiant in the

affidavit were in actuality exculpatory in nature.

c.) Whereby it was insufficient grounds to apply for a proper search warrant. Therefore the

Affidavit fails to meet the criteria or elements needed to secure a proper search warrant.

3.) "The Government submits that at the time of the trial it will establish, through officers

who executed the search warrants and inventoried the items, the foundation for the admissibility

of each exhibit, including chain of custody for each .... " As prior testimony by the Officers has

already established, the evidence seized from the defendant [were] mishandled, not properly

documented or logged into evidence, or destroyed by the same officers the Government makes

reference to. The evidence logs have been altered with handwritten notes and additions, the

Federal evidence the Government wants to present in this case before this court was not properly

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 2
 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 173 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 6

documented with serial numbers or identification through the Bates system, items appearing in

photo affidavits as [stolen] property returned to [rightful owner] cannot be found in evidence

logs or photos. The Plaintiff states: ''Although the defendant seems to assert that in order to

properly establish the chain of custody the items should be Bates stamped, she fails to cite to and

the government cannot locate any legal authority for that claim. " In contrast to the Governments

claim see referenced case in which the Judge required the Bates-numerical system be used. [US.

v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)J "A piece of paper or electronically stored

information, without any indication of its creator, source, or custodian may not be authenticated

under Federal Rule of Evidence. "

Federal evidence being held pending a Federal investigation by the Lawrence Police Dept.,

has been randomly given away to "alleged" victims, by the LKPD police officers who originally

seized the items, (not Federal agents as mandated by law) absent any kind of hearing before a

judge to establish rightful ownership, absent prior theft reports, without verification the item did

indeed belong to the alleged victim, missing the mandatory photo affidavits or Identification

documentation of the alleged victims, as required by LKPD policy and procedures for return of

evidence. Whereby there is no way to verify the items seized from the business or home, are the

same items referenced to in the evidence logs, are the same items in the evidence locker today,

would be the same items brought before this court as evidence. The Plaintiff states, that although

there is no proper chain of custody to protect the integrity of the evidence or this case, [Doc 257

~ 3] "Through the testimony of the seizing officers, the government will establish the foundation

necessary for the admission of these non-fungible exhibits. "

4). The requirement of authentication or identification is a condition precedent to

admissibility. "If proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 3
 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 173 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 6

change, the foundation need only consist of testimony confirming its relevance. It is when the

evidence is susceptible to alteration that the trial court requires a more stringent foundation,

entailing a chain of custody of the item and sufficient completeness to render it improbable that

the original item has either been exchanged with another or has been subjected to tampering or

contamination"] US v. Cardenas 864 F.2d 1528, 1531 (ldh Cir. 1989)]

5). Due to the (2) officers testimony the evidence was susceptible to alteration, in which

the trial court requires a more stringent foundation, entailing a chain of custody, in which also

during the Federal Case, in which law requires any and all evidence be documented by the bates

system, in which was not done in this cause of action, " ... the burden is on the prosecution to

demonstrate to the court that it is reasonably probably or reasonably certain that no tampering,

alteration, or substitution has occurred "[See ref us v. Ortiz, 966 F 2d 707(rt Cir. 1992)].

Since the evidence was not properly documented, evidence logs have been altered, serial

numbers were not documented and or changed, procedures were not followed, the Government

will not be able to meet the burden of proof in this case before this court. Whereby the chain of

custody has been broken, may not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence, which

requires the Defendant [1] now must pray the court order dismissal of any and all evidence for

the above referenced reasons.

[US. v. Michael John O'Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (2008)] JOHN M FACCIOLA, United States
Magistrate Judge:

"In criminal cases, there is unfortunately no rule to which the courts can look for guidance in
determining whether the production of documents by the government has been in aform or
format that is appropriate. This may be because the "big paper" case is the exception rather
than the rule in criminal cases. Be that as it may, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure speakspecijica/ly to theform of production. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in
their present form are the product of nearly 70 years of use and have been consistently amended
by advisory committees consisting of judges, practitioners, and distinguished academics to meet

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 4
 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 173 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 6

perceived deficiencies. It isfoolish to disregard them merely because this is a criminal case,
particularly where, as is the case here, it isfar better to use these rules than to reinvent
the wheel when the production of documents in criminal and civil cases raises the same
problems."

THEREFORE 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 any and all Evidence, due to the

vague affidavits, as well as, failure to comply with the unalterable Bates-numbering System and

PRA YS the court Dismiss any and all evidence for the chain of custody being broken, and failing

to document the evidence properly, as Federal Law Mandates.

Respectfully submitted,

LL~
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [I] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 5
 Case 2:01-cr-200/3-CIVI Document 173 Filed 07/06/10 Page 6 of 6

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 this6th day of July 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

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

Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss any and all Evidence Page 6